Well said, but this goes to a much deeper generalization which people {censored} foot around. You are absolutely correct that decency in response is necessary, but a few points, and not intended to chase anyone away:
1) We talk so eloquently and abstractly about religion and philosophy. It is apples and oranges. Why even mix Sikhism and Islam. The creation of Sikhism, in its post Guru Gobind Singh form, was in essence as a militant reaction against Mughal and Islamic power in northern India. The reasons for those were obvious. They were not about taxes, or democracy, or economics but about whether your head would be cut off if you were a Sikh. Thus, the whole tenor of the "discussion", if it is does not acknowledge this, is in lah lah land.
2) There is something inherently funny about arguing about hurt 'feelings' when it comes to Muslims posting on a Sikh website. Of course they are free to do so and express their opinion. Unlike their faith, ours does allow open discourse of any aspect of religion and faith. However, is it not interesting how we stand up for the Muslims, even when most of the people on this forum cannot have an open gurudwara service in Saudi Arabia?
As for "hate" and "holding on the past" and "we are all equal in the eyes of god", well all that stuff is good, but is it not interesting that these sentiments also again ignore the past and present? Which communities in the world today espouse "specialness" and "separatism"? Which philosophies and cultures did not and do still do not condone acceptance of other religions as equally legitimate? While intellectuals of other faiths are welcome to post on this website, they are being intellectually dishonest if they think that centuries of persecution and murder and pillage are washed away under the blanket of wishful thinking and revisionism or hey, let us just ignore what happened. It is also funny to say, well, "the religion does not condone that". Yeah, but what is done in the name of religion might as well be owed up to by that religion. Kind of like all that gold in the vatican and spanish churches, paid for by the blood of untold denizens of the native americas, killed off by Cortez and his like for the glory of the church and spain!! (But the religion did not condone it!!)
Lastly, again I ask who is responsible for making religion and culture divisive and not inclusive? As I recall, it was Jinnah whose ego and sensibilities and religious affiliation required the creation of pakistan, all while he was enjoying his whiskey. The trouble with India and Indians (read hindus or hindustanis) is they have always been too accepting of others, their ways, their habits and their culture. Even since Asoka, this has been our downfall.
While my post is rambling and perhaps not going to win any prizes in an essay contest, I am merely pointing out that while we as Sikhs strive to be more accepting than the next man, more sympathetic, more understanding and philosophically and religiously more open minded than most people we will encounter, it is at a cost. We are a group of 25 million Sikhs, partially wavering, partially passionate, and partially ignorant and unconcerned adherents to our religion cannot hope to survive or outlast philosophies and faiths which demonize us, ridicule us, and sometimes benevolently and sometimes maliciously ignore or condemn us and our aspirations.
In all honesty, please everyone post and respect each other. But sometimes the weight of history and bias and facts can prevent "smooth" exchanges.
Enough of this, I am tired of my own bull.
I would like to request everybody that please reply to dear Nadeems queries in a civilized manner rather than cornering him with your barrage of undue comments. I wonder why do you people feel so insecure over the comments made by a person who is apprently here at SPN to learn. 
