shastarSingh

Proof of Sikhs eating Meat in 17th Century!

58 posts in this topic

The DabestÄn-e MazÄheb, also transliterated as DabistÄn-i MazÄhib (Persian: Ø¯Ø¨Ø³ØªØ§Ù ÙذاÙب‎‎) "School of Religions", is an examination and comparison of South Asian religions and sects of the mid-17th century. The work is written in Persian, probably having been composed in about 1655 CE.

‘The Guru believes in one God. His followers put not their faith in idol-worship. They never pray or practice austerities like the Hindus. They believe not in their incarnations, or places of pilgrimage nor the Sanskrit language which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak. The Sikhs are not restricted in the matter of eating or drinking. When Partap Mall Giani saw a Hindu boy who had a mind to embrace Islam, he said, 'Why do you become a Muhammadan? If you have an inclination to eat everything, you may become a Sikh of the Guru and eat whatever you like.’

 
-Mohsin Fani, 'Dabistan-e-Mazahib.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sikhs.org/meat_gs.htm

 

Guru Hargobind Eating Meat

Mohsin Fani, Dabistan-e-Mazahib
Mohsin Fani was a historian, traveller and mystic who was born around 1615 in Persia. During the lifetime of Guru Hargobind he migrated to India and studied the religions of India. He became very good friends with Guru Hargobind and spent a great deal of time with the Guru upto the Gurus death in 1644. In between 1645 and 1654 he produced his great work 'Dabistan-e-Mazahib' meaning 'the schools of thought of various religions'. This book provides the most accurate account of the life of Guru Hargobind and the Sikhs at that time. Mohsin Fani writes:

"The Guru believes in one God. His followers put not their faith in idol-worship. They never pray or practice austerities like the Hindus. They believe not in their incarnations, or places of pilgrimage nor the Sanskrit language which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak. The Sikhs are not restricted in the matter of eating or drinking. When Partap Mall Giani saw a Hindu boy who had a mind to embrace Islam, he said, 'Why do you become a Muhammadan? If you have an inclination to eat everything, you may become a Sikh of the Guru and eat whatever you like."

Some use a quote from Mohsin Fani to prove that Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan did not allow Sikhs to eat meat. Since he only emigrated to India during the lifetime of Guru Hargobind, his information about Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan cannot be considered an eyewitness account of his. Also vegetarian proponents usually only give a partial quote, the full quote of his is:

"Nanak himself abstained from animal food and the prudent Arjan endevoured to add to his saintly merit and influence by a similar moderation; but the adventurous Hargobind became a hunter and an eater of flesh, and his disciples imitated him in these robust practices."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only some of you put as much effort into other aspects of Sikhi as you do into finding justifications for eating meat (or not).

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people really arguing that Vaheguru  on Earth ate meat? This is basically a complete decline in our thinking, at O.P. what's the difference between Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? Is there any in your eyes?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Are people really arguing that Vaheguru  on Earth ate meat? This is basically a complete decline in our thinking, at O.P. what's the difference between Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji? Is there any in your eyes?

These days sikhs have become vaishnav BAMMANS. Its all good to be a vegetarian but we shud not hate meat or meat eating sikhs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

These days sikhs have become vaishnav BAMMANS. Its all good to be a vegetarian but we shud not hate meat or meat eating sikhs.

Daas doesn't even hate meat, but the question was why are you posting an article from someone who believes that the Guru changes the laws which he himself established. The only thing Daas hates is that these people are claiming Guru Sahib ate meat, which just wasn't true at all! Also you completely ignored Daas's question.

Edited by Jacfsing2
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live by Sri Sri Gurbani Sahib ji, not islamic historians.

ਕਬੀਰ ਭਾਂਗ ਮਾਛੁਲੀ ਸੁਰਾ ਪਾਨਿ ਜੋ ਜੋ ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ ਖਾਂਹਿ ॥
Kabīr bẖāʼng mācẖẖulī surā pān jo jo parānī kẖāʼnhi.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine -

ਤੀਰਥ ਬਰਤ ਨੇਮ ਕੀਏ ਤੇ ਸਭੈ ਰਸਾਤਲਿ ਜਾਂਹਿ ॥੨੩੩॥
Ŧirath baraṯ nem kī▫e ṯe sabẖai rasāṯal jāʼnhi. ||233||
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ||233||

Edited by Preeet
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Will you do away with your fake modesty for God's sakes? One minute you address yourself as a 'daas' as though humility has become you and vice versa, like conjoined twins!  The next you crucify saints and saviours of other dharams!  Effing, schizo!! You are definitely not my effing daas!  Bloody hypocrite!

 Oh, look the anparrs have finally discovered an  authoritative account on our Guru Sahiban's life!  You really think a musalman is going to write anything true about Sikhism or the sikh Gurus?  Total BUL....

Read actual Gurbani, what was said hypocritically? (Don't know what Daas has done to offend you?)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, muscleman said:

Don't apply such noble terms to yourself. Leave them for genuine Gurmukhs, so that downtrodden people like me and the rest of this human race have someone to look up to as genuine role models.  Surely, you wouldn't want to deceive them into following pakhandis like you, would you?

Daas is an Amritdhari, so clearly there has been a connection with giving the head to the Guru. Do you know what a Pakhandi is or all you can do is be an internet warrior? Get your role model from Gurbani and understand actual Guru's teachings, rather than argue on a forum.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, look the anparrs have finally discovered an  authoritative account on our Guru Sahiban's life!  You really think a musalman is going to write anything true about Sikhism or the sikh Gurus?  Total BUL.

Thats racist!

Why cannot a muslim write something good about Sikhism?

There has always been musalmaans who admired Guru Sahibaan. Such musalmaans even exist today.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, muscleman said:

Are you suggesting for one minute that just because you are a amritdhari that you have become a Mahapurakh? Are you now cut above the rest? 

You gave your head to the Guru? Don't make me laugh! Your EGO is has no bounds! Yes, I know pakhandis is, each time I read your posts! The definition of a pakhandis becomes clearer and clearer when I read your pakhdands here! Stop your pakhandis and stop referring to yourself as if you are really a 'daas!'  You are not anyone's daas but an egoistical pakhandi.

Do you even know any of the people on this forum? Where was it stated that just because someone was Amritdhari they were a Mahapurukh? Daas means servant, not Mahapurukh. And yes when someone takes Amrit they give their head to the Guru, a concept still alive today in Gursikhs. How is Daas a Pakhandi? You actually have to prove something rather than just spout out like some random person.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, muscleman said:

You gave your head but took your EGO home with you and as though this wasn't enough, you brought it on this forum masked under the name of 'daas.'

The username of this account is, "Jacfsing2", not "Daas", that's a different user all together. Daas means SERVANT, (what's hard for you to understand about it, it's not an egotistical word, but rather one that cuts Haumai). If you don't like the teaching someone gives, just move on and not make a big deal of their grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Do you even  know the definition of a racist?  Muslims were converting Hindus/ Sikhs to Islam, how can they be trusted with writing anything favorable about the Sikhs, Sikhism or the Sikh gurus?  Have you tried authenticating this document against more viable piece of evidence?

i also admire prophets of other dharams doesn't mean I am going to write beautiful poetic verses or prose about them. I will write these only to show my dharam in a favorable way. We are all conditioned by our environment and this conditioning is not easy to eradicate.

Sufism was not very close to Islam, if that's what you were expecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Do you even  know the definition of a racist?  Muslims were converting Hindus/ Sikhs to Islam, how can they be trusted with writing anything favorable about the Sikhs, Sikhism or the Sikh gurus?  Have you tried authenticating this document against more viable piece of evidence?

i also admire prophets of other dharams doesn't mean I am going to write beautiful poetic verses or prose about them. I will write these only to show my dharam in a favorable way. We are all conditioned by our environment and this conditioning is not easy to eradicate.

Are u saying the entire muslim community shud not be trusted ?

A true sikh fights against the tryannical kings and governments but never dislikes the entire civilian population belonging to a particular religion.

And yes, there is nuthing wrong if an amritdhari calls himself Daas. So stop troubling the young kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Are people really arguing that Vaheguru  on Earth ate meat? This is basically a complete decline in our thinking, at O.P.

Such statements never make sense.  Next a Sikh will come around and say, are people really arguing that Vaheguru on Earth went to the toilet?????  The op quoted some writing or suggesting the writing is from the Gurus period and an authentic source.  The source says Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji did not eat meat and kept a non meat diet.  If the op wants to accept this source, then he needs to be careful.  Now we have a clear distinguish of what is meat and what is not meat.  So this destroys the op argument to say everything is meat eat either.  The meat eaters always like to quote the Shabad of moorakhs argue over flesh and they love to say their is no distinguish factor between animals and plants. 

The difference in lifestyle after Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji changed.  Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji was martyred and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji took up arms.  Sikhs were being trained in warfare.  This became the focus.  The focus was Naam, but Naam took the form of bir raas.  Guru Sahib started training his Sikhs marital arts, so they can defend the weak and themselves from the dictators.  Many Sikhs don't want to trust this source because its a muslim or its an easy way for them to reject the source without really thinking about it.  However Sikhs can't deny the fact Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji tells us Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji hunted.  In hindsight some would say the op quoted source is given validity by Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, but it doesn't because it's like the argument what came first the chicken or the egg.  Also the source for the Punj Pyare heads being actually cut off was a Muslim spy in the Guru's darbar.  Yet many Sikhs accept this account without even thinking about it.

Place your mind in the time period of the Gurus.  The land layout of Punjab was very different from now.  Majority of Punjab was a forest.  No vehicles, no local markets on the way from town to town to get food.  Either carry it on your back or find it in the wild.  The Gurus established towns themselves in 1469 to 1708.  This alone should tell you how abandoned Punjab was.  The main aim for Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib to hunt may have been to teach Sikhs how to fight.  It's not like today, where there is shooting ranges, training simulations.  If we use the logic, Sri Hargobind Sahib ji only hunted because the local animals were attacking the villagers.  Then why is there no account of any Guru from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji hunting for the same reason or at all.  Did the first five Gurus have no sense of protecting the locals from the vicious animals attacking the locals?  If the vegetarian cults use the logic, Satguru (first five forms) with his Shakti stopped animals from attacking; Satguru brought daya into the vicious animal with his shakti.  Then the sakhi of Punj Sahib loses merit because many will question, why didn't Satguru use his Shakti to release the person's greed and anger for holding the water source hostage?  Instead the person throw the rock at Guru Sahib and Guru Sahib had to stop it with his hand. 

There is a middle ground here and Gurbani teaches the middle ground to this discussion.  The meat eaters will blindly keep eating meat.  They have no idea to fight, train, or lay their life on the line for Sikhi.  I know what the meat eater is thinking right now.  What about the vegetarians?  Well History tells us the first 5 Gurus didn't hunt or eat meat.  Those Sikhs who hunted and ate meat put their life on the line for Sikhi in battle.  They gave up a worldly life like changing clothes.  Are you ready to fight, all those chicken wings must have given you the strength to fight 4 men all at once.  You have the heart to fight, we vegetarians only chop up vegetables even then arm starts to hurt.  Cutting all those goats head off must have given you the strength to fight.  But I hear no gun going off, no sound of two swords striking, no grenades going off in direction of the dusht.  Face it, it's all talk, and silent farts hoping the girl sitting two seats over doesn't hear because you want to start a brother and sister relationship with her. 

 

Edited by Akalifauj
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Such statements never make sense.  Next a Sikh will come around and say, are people really arguing that Vaheguru on Earth went to the toilet?????  The op quoted some writing or suggesting the writing is from the Gurus period and an authentic source.  The source says Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji did not eat meat and kept a non meat diet.  If the op wants to accept this source, then he needs to be careful.  Now we have a clear distinguish of what is meat and what is not meat.  So this destroys the op argument to say everything is meat eat either.  The meat eaters always like to quote the Shabad of moorakhs argue over flesh and they love to say their is no distinguish factor between animals and plants. 

The difference in lifestyle after Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji changed.  Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji was martyred and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji took up arms.  Sikhs were being trained in warfare.  This became the focus.  The focus was Naam, but Naam took the form of bir raas.  Guru Sahib started training his Sikhs marital arts, so they can defend the weak and themselves from the dictators.  Many Sikhs don't want to trust this source because its a muslim or its an easy way for them to reject the source without really thinking about it.  However Sikhs can't deny the fact Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji tells us Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji hunted.  In hindsight some would say the op quoted source is given validity by Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, but it doesn't because it's like the argument what came first the chicken or the egg.  Also the source for the Punj Pyare heads being actually cut off was a Muslim spy in the Guru's darbar.  Yet many Sikhs accept this account without even thinking about it.

Place your mind in the time period of the Gurus.  The land layout of Punjab was very different from now.  Majority of Punjab was a forest.  No vehicles, no local markets on the way from town to town to get food.  Either carry it on your back or find it in the wild.  The Gurus established towns themselves in 1469 to 1708.  This alone should tell you how abandoned Punjab was.  The main aim for Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib to hunt may have been to teach Sikhs how to fight.  It's not like today, where there is shooting ranges, training simulations.  If we use the logic, Sri Hargobind Sahib ji only hunted because the local animals were attacking the villagers.  Then why is there no account of any Guru from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji hunting for the same reason or at all.  Did the first five Gurus have no sense of protecting the locals from the vicious animals attacking the locals?  If the vegetarian cults use the logic, Satguru (first five forms) with his Shakti stopped animals from attacking; Satguru brought daya into the vicious animal with his shakti.  Then the sakhi of Punj Sahib loses merit because many will question, why didn't Satguru use his Shakti to release the person's greed and anger for holding the water source hostage? 

There is a middle ground here and Gurbani teaches the middle ground to this discussion.  The meat eaters will blindly keep eating meat.  They have no idea to fight, train, or lay their life on the line for Sikhi.  I know what the meat eater is thinking right now.  What about the vegetarians?  Well History tells us the first 5 Gurus didn't hunt or eat meat.  Those Sikhs who hunted and ate meat put their life on the line for Sikhi in battle.  They gave up a worldly life like changing clothes.  Are you ready to fight, all those chicken wings must have given you the strength to fight 4 men all at once.  You have the heart to fight, we vegetarians only chop up vegetables even then arm starts to hurt.  Cutting all those goats head off must have given you the strength to fight.  But I hear no gun going off, no sound of two swords striking, no grenades going off in direction of the dusht.  Face it, it's all talk, and silent farts hoping the girl sitting two seats over doesn't hear because you want to start a brother and sister relationship with her. 

Did Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale eat meat? He was the tough fighter for Gurmat of the last century, if a Mahapurukh like him doesn't need meat to fight, then why should we expect any less from our Guru?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Then be a humble 'daas!' Stop your holier than though mentality. It does not seem to have cut your humai?

We could argue forever, but you still don't seem to understand what Daas means, you assume it means "Mahapurukh", when it means "Servant", how long will you argue on this one point?

4 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Name a true Sikh?  Please, don't mention the 'daas' upstairs.

There's many true Sikhs, but the odds that you'd meet them easily is as rare as the odds of you actually stop arguing on Amritdharis calling themselves Daas, have you even taken Amrit, or are you here just to argue with the Sangat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jacfsing2 said:

Did Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale eat meat? He was the tough fighter for Gurmat of the last century, if a Mahapurukh like him doesn't need meat to fight, then why should we expect any less from our Guru?

Read the post again some other time.  Clearly your anger is not allowing you to read my post as it was written.  Put the carrot down or better yet, use it as a pointer and read my post again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites