Jump to content

The Black Prince - New Film Based On Sikh Maharajah Duleep Singh


genie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2
7 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

ingenious = clever or indigenous= of the land, native ....

RC conversions were done at the point of a sword after massacres upon massacres and enslavement...at the time RC church was after the gold so didn't care  it's all very well sitting on top of a pile of booty to say sookhi sorry

They were forced by circumstance of possible onwards march towards Rome to defend else they were quite happy to ignore the local problem.

 

+1 for offering spell check. So you think it was ok that they converted? Here's the thing, they've been so brainwashed by Catholicism that to this day in post-independent South America, Central America, and Mexico, they still practice the religion that killed their ancestors: (in fact they are even more devout than the ones who spread Christianity to them in the first place). And Catholicism is paying a huge price for their crimes that most of their population has become irreligious and Christian-In-Name-Only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

+1 for offering spell check. So you think it was ok that they converted? Here's the thing, they've been so brainwashed by Catholicism that to this day in post-independent South America, Central America, and Mexico, they still practice the religion that killed their ancestors: (in fact they are even more devout than the ones who spread Christianity to them in the first place). And Catholicism is paying a huge price for their crimes that most of their population has become irreligious and Christian-In-Name-Only.

think about just how they were treated, they died in their thousands and those who were the priests/ medicine men/ shamans  who could give them knowledge of the faith and culture were killed  thus no guidance ...it's easier to overwhelm the people then . That's why it is important to have each and everyone gianis of our granths and shastar masters so the knowledge is spread throughout the network (like the neural network of the brain ) so if some are lost others can still cover  the gaps .

 

RC is not christianity it is the disguised Roman empire ... using the christian doctrine's appeal to land and wealth grab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
40 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

RC is not christianity it is the disguised Roman empire ... using the christian doctrine's appeal to land and wealth grab.

Making technicalities doesn't make me sympathize Christians any more. The 3 groups of Orthodox, Catholicism, and Protestantism each had their goals to mass convert the population. What made the Anglos different wasn't their strand of Christianity they were preaching, but the style they were preaching; they were less direct and wanted to fight the Panth indirectly. The Hispanic tribal population were still Ghadhars since unlike us who practice our Sikhi and not becoming Christian fanboys/girls, they gave-up their original religions. The Pagan Europeans also gave-up their own religion, and they didn't give it up because of their love for Jesus Christ and something about him being the messiah to save them, but they converted because of their own weakness; (which is why Sikhi will always have a head-up, because the ones who converted to Sikhi have always been by choice rather than force, even when the Sikhs ruled Punjab; the population was still allowed to practice their religion, and every single Sikh convert converted for love of Guru Sahib, Christians can not make the same statement without lying!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion You won't be able to see Sikhi in any list of force conversions, no matter how hard you tried, the 3 Abrahamic religions will be first to show-up in force conversion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Making technicalities doesn't make me sympathize Christians any more. The 3 groups of Orthodox, Catholicism, and Protestantism each had their goals to mass convert the population. What made the Anglos different wasn't their strand of Christianity they were preaching, but the style they were preaching; they were less direct and wanted to fight the Panth indirectly. The Hispanic tribal population were still Ghadhars since unlike us who practice our Sikhi and not becoming Christian fanboys/girls, they gave-up their original religions. The Pagan Europeans also gave-up their own religion, and they didn't give it up because of their love for Jesus Christ and something about him being the messiah to save them, but they converted because of their own weakness; (which is why Sikhi will always have a head-up, because the ones who converted to Sikhi have always been by choice rather than force, even when the Sikhs ruled Punjab; the population was still allowed to practice their religion, and every single Sikh convert converted for love of Guru Sahib, Christians can not make the same statement without lying!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion You won't be able to see Sikhi in any list of force conversions, no matter how hard you tried, the 3 Abrahamic religions will be first to show-up in force conversion.

 

orthodox are more like jews in that they don't do the missionary thing , jesuits/RC are the most aggressive after the baptist/evangelists again the protestants are trying to gain 'souls' empire building like the islamists .... totally mental Waheguru doesn't hand out brownie points for forced conversion or even freewill conversion ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 and every single Sikh convert converted for love of Guru Sahib, 

You come out with this  but have you done any serious historical research into it?

Read Bhangu's work, he mentions a few cases where certain originally antiSikh tribes were essentially slapped about into converting. In the past, as the Khalsa became more and more victorious a lot of originally antiSikh pendus adopted the 'if you can't beat them, join them' mentality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
16 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

You come out with this  but have you done any serious historical research into it?

Read Bhangu's work, he mentions a few cases where certain originally antiSikh tribes were essentially slapped about into converting. In the past, as the Khalsa became more and more victorious a lot of originally antiSikh pendus adopted the 'if you can't beat them, join them' mentality. 

So your sympathizing with Dogras who had actually taken Amrit? Punjab was mostly Muslim and the second religion was Hinduism, Sikhi was the 3rd place: if people were forced to convert into Sikhi, then how was Punjab itself a Muslim majority state in 1947, and why Hindus were the majority in 1947 Indian Punjab? Also until Punjabi Suba which was asking for a Punjabi-language majority state, (even though everyone knew it was split for religious reasons), the main language in Indian Punjab was Hindi, because most Indian Punjabis were Hindu especially when you count Haryana and Himachel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
11 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

By your own logic our forebears were also Ghadhars .. 

Converting to a religion without love for that religion is one lying, two Ghadhari. Duleep Singh wasn't a fan of Jesus, he has 2 billion so-called "fans"; how many are in their hearts true fans of Jesus Christ? In the same way Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji has around 30 million "Sikhs", who claim to love and follow his message, how many are true disciples of the true king that is a question you can answer yourself. Hinduism has 1 billion people, and from what Daas sees true Hinduism looks extinct, as almost none of them have Brahminwaad, but rather have brought their Brahminwaad to others in the Subcontinent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

So your sympathizing with Dogras who had actually taken Amrit? Punjab was mostly Muslim and the second religion was Hinduism, Sikhi was the 3rd place: if people were forced to convert into Sikhi, then how was Punjab itself a Muslim majority state in 1947, and why Hindus were the majority in 1947 Indian Punjab? Also until Punjabi Suba which was asking for a Punjabi-language majority state, (even though everyone knew it was split for religious reasons), the main language in Indian Punjab was Hindi, because most Indian Punjabis were Hindu especially when you count Haryana and Himachel. 

I'm not sympathising with anyone. I think that people who convert to a religion out of compulsion or some strategic, material aim are a bunch of w**kers myself. But that doesn't hide the truth that plenty of apnay in the past did this. Especially zamindaars who had a lot to gain from becoming Sikh and tearing down the pre-existing Moghul order.

No, not every Sikh converted out of some strong religious belief  - some of them were more mercenary and did it for gains. These types coming in on the back on the sacrifices of true Khalsas is what compromised us. But let us not be under any illusion that such types did not take Amrit in droves when it was advantageous to them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
10 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I'm not sympathising with anyone. I think that people who convert to a religion out of compulsion or some strategic, material aim are a bunch of w**kers myself. But that doesn't hide the truth that plenty of apnay in the past did this. Especially zamindaars who had a lot to gain from becoming Sikh and tearing down the pre-existing Moghul order.

No, not every Sikh converted out of some strong religious belief  - some of them were more mercenary and did it for gains. These types coming in on the back on the sacrifices of true Khalsas is what compromised us. But let us not be under any illusion that such types did not take Amrit in droves when it was advantageous to them.  

The Misls were too busy fighting among themselves, (they were not having theocratic wars, but rather of land and power), so how'd they have the time to personally give benefits to people, and Ranjit Singh's kingdom was some secular nonsense. If the British didn't come the Sikh Empire was still going to collapse soon after Ranjit Singh, especially among 2 groups within the kingdom. The first being the Orthodox Sikhs, which plans were already being made for this. The second being the Non-Sikhs living in the Sikh Empire, many of whom would want an even less religious state then what was before. The kingdom was so secular that their Dastars would probably be taken off in the easiest way possible, (Daas is saying this in the most respectful way to Keskis as possible). If you asked even modern strict Gursikhs; they'd probably not like Ranjit Singh's kingdom either for their ideal Raj.

The kingdom was going to collapse, either by the strict religious Sikhs, or the Non-Sikhs abusing their power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use