Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I understand that "Khalistani" have significant doctrinal differences from "traditional Sikhs", it seems like claim the Khalistani are not Sikhs is like claiming that Mormons aren't Christians. It is a prejudice based exclusion of a group in contradiction of the groups own identity. I think explaining the differences between groups is totally worth wile, but denying the label seem like prejudice to me. I rather…
> like claiming that Mormons aren't Christians Do you agree the fundamental difference with Abrahamic religions is their choice of holy books and introduction of a holy prophet? The Jews have the Torah. The Christians had Jesus and appended the New Testament to the Torah, hence new religion, Christianity. The Muslims had Muhammad and appended the Quran to the Torah, hence new religion, Islam. The Mormons had Joseph S…
Islam views both Old and New Testament as the word of god, but the Quran is not viewed as an appendment to them but rather as a replacement.
> I struggle to see how that doesn't make them a different religion just like the rest, worthy of a different name.
Other religions add new holy books and new holy people without transforming. The Sikhs had 10 gurus over the course of more than 200 years.
Fundamentally, it is a question of cultural identity. Here, the key point is that the Mormons claim a Christian identity. What non-prejudiced purpose does it serve to deny them that identity?