OK, I'm with you there, as that's also what I stated.
This is where I get off. I am intensely uncomfortable with forced conversions. If that's our policy, what's the difference between us and the Muslims? What's the point of Sikhism anyway, then?
Also, there is quite a difference between saying X happened vs. saying that X is official Sikh policy.
A lot of people come on to this site to learn about Sikhism, including young cultural Sikhs. If they read that we support doing the exact same thing as Muslims, I think they will definitely think, "Why should I become a strong Sikh?"
So that's the reason I'm portraying the sack of Sirhind as having been done by the followers-on, not as a official Sikh policy.
I dont know about that but why some people on here found it hard to comprehend about what I stated about muslims were forced to convert to Sikhi is true according to what I have read and understood of the times and circumstances people lived in back in the 17th century. Forced conversions was what islamic rulers were doing to non-muslim populations in order to spread islam and take over faster and banda's men were merely returning the favor by forcing them to revert....it was karma.
There is no doubt in my mind many cowardly muslims would rather have converted to Sikhi to save their lives than be massacred along with everyone else by banda's men and the other irregulars who had swelled his ranks looking for revenge and war booty. In those war like conditions and situations back then conversions weren't spiritual or by choice they are often forced to save ones own life.
Right, this just confirms what I stated: that there were loads of people who attached themselves to the invading army for the purpose of loot or revenge.
BTW, even if you were quoting/reading Sikh historians, there are plenty of Islamophilic Sikh academicians whose histories are based (in the end) on Muslim sources, which would naturally play up the level of mayhem, bloodshed, and pillage, and also place the blame solely and squarely on the Sikh faith. Case in point: Dr. Fauja Singh, relying on Muslim sources, actually portrayed the execution of Guru Teg Bhadur Ji as just because the Guru was a brigand! Sirdar Kapur Singh, using authentic sources including Bachittar Natak, forced him to recant.
1) I didn't say he was hindu all his life. I said he was from rajput hindu stock as he was born a hindu the operative word is "was" he converted to Sikhi while in the company of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
I didnt make this claim of soul saving your making this claim. I said muslims converted to Sikhi to save their lives from banda's brutal warriors and some muslims converted out of opportunism in plunder of war booty of rival mughul towns and some converted to sikhi because they were forced to convert to islam by the mughuls. The conversions of muslims to Sikhi wasn't to save their souls in theological spiritual terms it was a practical political demographics war tactic to ensure Sikh numbers grew and enemy muslim numbers decreased.
Banda Singh Bahadur wasn't Hindu, (unless you believe Sikhs are Hindus like the Indian constitution claims). There were more Ksychatrias and Brahmin Sikhs percentage-wise then there is now, because of Banda Singh Bahadur taking the time to free those inside Punjab from their faiths. Also if he was so interested in saving people's souls like you claim, why did Sri Mata Sundri Ji not support him? Or Baba Deep Singh Ji for that matter? After all that, the Bandai Khalsas were formed and revered Banda Singh Bahadur, with Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji not given enough importance. If people did convert to Sikhi it wasn't because some king living in the jungles of Punjab, (because that's exactly where he lived, not out in the open), it would be because the Sikhs especially within Punjab did heavy Prachar. As great as his kingdom was, it was mostly skirmishes with the Mughals with only one real battle, (Sirhind/Fatehgarh Sahib).