First of all, I want to say that it was not my intention to offend anyone or cause an uproar. But since I seem to have done both, I apologize. That said, I am disappointed at the suspicion held towards me for bringing up Islam. In my first thread, when I mentioned that I was also researching Islam, it was met with: "Can you do that? I can't. Also, holding off on talk of dharma. Don't have that much time to spend on it if we are running up against a da'wah. Hope not!" And in the last thread, I was accused of setting up for a da'wah, when the truth is I don't have enough knowledge on Islam to defend its position even if I wanted to. I was also accused of undermining the Sikh Gurus, when all my posts to date show that I hold them in the highest regard. I really do not see how asking a question about their teachings is the same as undermining them. "The thread is an open invitation to be treated to a da-wah, though it parades under a different mask." This makes it sound like I have an ulterior motive. "First Sikhs are put on the defensive, and then naively Sikhs rise to speak to the challenge, never realizing that the entire point of da-wah is to break the spirit through endless rhetoric. What ensues is a thread where no one learns anything new." This makes it sound like I am a Muslim. I don't have an ulterior motive, nor am I a Muslim. I am disappointed that instead of the link to the site being taken out and the title changed, it was closed and all I got was accusations. I realize that the above will probably get deleted as well, I just wanted to get it out there so the admin/mod team could read what I had to say. Nevertheless, the question: Is it true that with each successive Guru, Sikhism moved towards the adoption of an ever more narrow and rigid worldview that eventually dichotomised the world into the two bipolar communities of the Gurmukhs and the Manmukhs? The Sikh Encyclopedia website (link no longer works): "Guru Nanak applied the term manmukh to those persons who were egoridden materialistic, and hypocritical. They pose to be religious, but are in reality proud and evilminded [sic]. His successor Gurus, besides the above typology, applied the term to persons who calumniated the Guru, opposed his teachings and doctrines and kept away from the sangat (fellowship of the holy). Bhai Gurdas had the Gurus' calumniators in mind when he discoursed on manmukhs in his Vars. After the institution of the Khalsa, those kesadharis who did not receive pahul were, in a sense, considered to be manmukhs like those who took pahul but then did not abide by stipulated conduct. Apart from this latter day usage, the term in its original conceptual signification refers to one who believes in duality (dvaitbhava) and who led by his self will refuses the Guru`s guidance and wantonly indulges his impulses."