Jump to content

Referendum 2020


Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2
2 hours ago, genie said:

 

Yes he did, he forced the muslim mughul inhabited and dominated towns to either convert to Sikhi or flee or be destroyed....because of the crimes they had committed against Hindus and Sikhs also many of those muslims had converted under duress from the mughul invaders so some were glad to revert back to their previous faiths.

I used to also think Sikhs didn't go around forcing people to convert. But from the sources I've read over the years and from his own words he is alleged to have said on the lines of him committing excesses against his enemies and so whatever the mughul executioners did to him and his child he accepted it as it was like karma and waheguru's way of punishing him for that.

 

If this is true, why was Punjab majority Muslim and not Sikh, afterwards of the end of his kingdom? Even during the Misl period and Sikh empire period it was Islam that was the majority religion in the empire. Also didn't he get badla from the great being of the light of guru sahib, when he brought Hind Di Chadar's: (Savior of Hind, won't go debating the meaning of Hind), so why would he be having the time to go around saving people's souls, (he despite being a king was living in jungles)? Is there any legit source of this from Sikh sources or even Punjabi CONTEMPORARY sources? (Also if you claim Bulleh Shah, he never said anything bad about the Sikh empire, or Guru Sahib, so he doesn't count, the only one's who claim it was him was radical islamic fundementalists. When we all know he wasn't one of those.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, genie said:

 

Yes he did, he forced the muslim mughul inhabited and dominated towns to either convert to Sikhi or flee or be destroyed....because of the crimes they had committed against Hindus and Sikhs also many of those muslims had converted under duress from the mughul invaders so some were glad to revert back to their previous faiths.

I used to also think Sikhs didn't go around forcing people to convert. But from the sources I've read over the years and from his own words he is alleged to have said on the lines of him committing excesses against his enemies and so whatever the mughul executioners did to him and his child he accepted it as it was like karma and waheguru's way of punishing him for that.

 

I wouldn't put too much faith in "history" derived from accounts by enraged Muslims. They were enraged not that Sikhs forcibly converted Muslims, but that forcibly converted Muslims could go back to some other faith (including Sikhism, Hinduism, etc.) without the Islamic death penalty for apostasy being enforced by the power of the State.

Secondly, the sack of Sirhind was conducted by followers-on who attached themselves to the invading army for the purpose of looting the city or for revenge. This happens (or used to happen) in most every war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

If this is true, why was Punjab majority Muslim and not Sikh, afterwards of the end of his kingdom? Even during the Misl period and Sikh empire period it was Islam that was the majority religion in the empire. Also didn't he get badla from the great being of the light of guru sahib, when he brought Hind Di Chadar's: (Savior of Hind, won't go debating the meaning of Hind), so why would he be having the time to go around saving people's souls, (he despite being a king was living in jungles)? Is there any legit source of this from Sikh sources or even Punjabi CONTEMPORARY sources? (Also if you claim Bulleh Shah, he never said anything bad about the Sikh empire, or Guru Sahib, so he doesn't count, the only one's who claim it was him was radical islamic fundementalists. When we all know he wasn't one of those.)

 

1 hour ago, BhForce said:

I wouldn't put too much faith in "history" derived from accounts by enraged Muslims. They were enraged not that Sikhs forcibly converted Muslims, but that forcibly converted Muslims could go back to some other faith (including Sikhism, Hinduism, etc.) without the Islamic death penalty for apostasy being enforced by the power of the State.

Secondly, the sack of Sirhind was conducted by followers-on who attached themselves to the invading army for the purpose of looting the city or for revenge. This happens (or used to happen) in most every war.

I don't refer to islamic history or their sources when saying Baanda Singh bahadhur and his warriors forced muslims of mughuls towns to convert, flee or get destroyed.

But it also makes logical sense that in order to establish an area of self rule you would first destroy your enemies population and their institutions of authority. Banda singh bahadur wasn't a Guru he wasn't a overly religious pious man he was a warrior of hindu rajput stock, a warrior instructed to bring retribution to sirhind and mughul authorities for the cruel martyrdom of chotay sahibzaday. His mission wasnt one of compassion and niceties against murderous people..... his mission was one of bring a whirlwind of destruction of enemies of Sikhs and oppressed hindu's. And personally I am pretty comfortable with our hero's forcing muslims to chose between saving themselves and their towns by converting to Sikhi or be put to death through the warfare that would inevitable happen..... I see nothing wrong with those were were once forced to convert to Islam reverting back to a dharmic faith.

"When the Sikhs left Ambeyta and advanced further, a large number of Gujjar from Rampur turned up to join the Sikhs. They declared that they were the followers of Guru Nanak and that they came there to take part in the Sikh religious war. By this strategem they were able to secure the advantage of making their own town and its surrounding area safe from pillage. Moreover, they also became partners in the plunder of Nanauta. The Gujjars had some old accounts to settle with the Sayyads. The Sikhs entered Nanauta on July 11, 1710, A.D. The Shaikhzadas of the town were brave fighters and expert archars. They contested every inch the Sikh onslaught in their part of the town. Three hundred Shaikhzadas lost their lives on that day during the courageous fighting in the courtyard of Sheikh-Mohammad Afzal's house alone. This sharp, bloody contest led to an utter destruction of the town. The royal mansions of the Sheikhs and of the Sayyads were destroyed. The whole town was left in ruins. It has been called Phuta Shahr or the town in ruins, since that day. " (BANDA SINGH BAHADUR and Sikh Sovereignty by HARBANS KAUR SAGOO)

Gujjars were muslims whose hindu ancestors forced to convert to Islam decades and centuries earlier.

There are other books and articles that I have read over the years that have made me come to that conclusion that a policy of forced conversions of muslims to Sikhi was enforced so that the inhabitants would escape mass slaughter at the hands of banda singh bahadurs men whereas their first course of action would have been to slaughter everyone and no mercy shown of converting to escape death.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
36 minutes ago, genie said:

he was a warrior of hindu rajput stock

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jacfsing2 said:

Banda Singh Bahadur wasn't Hindu, (unless you believe Sikhs are Hindus like the Indian constitution claims).

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.

3 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

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?

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, genie said:

"When the Sikhs left Ambeyta and advanced further, a large number of Gujjar from Rampur turned up to join the Sikhs. They declared that they were the followers of Guru Nanak and that they came there to take part in the Sikh religious war.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BhForce said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, genie said:

I see nothing wrong with those were were once forced to convert to Islam reverting back to a dharmic faith.

OK, I'm with you there, as that's also what I stated.

1 hour ago, genie said:

And personally I am pretty comfortable with our hero's forcing muslims to chose between saving themselves and their towns by converting to Sikhi or be put to death through the warfare that would inevitable happen.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BhForce said:

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 here where you coming from but in the real world sometimes people aren't so nice, aren't so religiously concerned when their families members have been massacred and emotions take over during times of strife. The real world doesn't work on niceties or liberal political correct ideals when war breaks out as much as we would like it too.

Had Sikhs not formed deadly jatha's and got revenge on muslim mobs in 1947 and killed muslim populations there would have been no viable punjab or area left for Sikhs to reside in east punjab after muslims started to massacre Sikhs and hindus in west punjab, the east punjab muslims weren't gonna go voluntarily to newly formed pakistan. In Sikhi you cant justify these acts of unwarranted violence especially against innocent civilians but in terms of Sikh political aims and in terms of real world and day to day politics these things unfortunately happen when people get engrossed in worldly life and neglecting their spiritual life and duty .....its a fine balancing act for a Sikh to stick to the goodness of his religious teachings firmly even under extreme duress while not accepting injustice and oppression as has been commanded.

Sometimes on online platforms you have some muslim extremists gloating how they raped and massacred weak hindus and Sikhs trying to undermine our people, our pride, our strength and to ultimately belittle us. Well in history our people weren't so forgiving and weak nor mr nice guy either we had our fair share of killer extremists to give like for like attacks and give the aggressors a taste of their own bitter medicine.

Forced conversions weren't official Sikh political policy nor were they part of Sikh spiritual ideology they were just one off events where Sikhs had shown their military might and dominance over muslim's who then in turn flocked to Sikhi to save themselves and thus boosting our demographics and set the foundations for glorious era of sikh sovereignty to come. We shouldn't be shy about these events we should celebrate that our people had such balls and strength to turn the tables on the oppressors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
9 hours ago, genie said:

I here where you coming from but in the real world sometimes people aren't so nice, aren't so religiously concerned when their families members have been massacred and emotions take over during times of strife. The real world doesn't work on niceties or liberal political correct ideals when war breaks out as much as we would like it too.

Had Sikhs not formed deadly jatha's and got revenge on muslim mobs in 1947 and killed muslim populations there would have been no viable punjab or area left for Sikhs to reside in east punjab after muslims started to massacre Sikhs and hindus in west punjab, the east punjab muslims weren't gonna go voluntarily to newly formed pakistan. In Sikhi you cant justify these acts of unwarranted violence especially against innocent civilians but in terms of Sikh political aims and in terms of real world and day to day politics these things unfortunately happen when people get engrossed in worldly life and neglecting their spiritual life and duty .....its a fine balancing act for a Sikh to stick to the goodness of his religious teachings firmly even under extreme duress while not accepting injustice and oppression as has been commanded.

Sometimes on online platforms you have some muslim extremists gloating how they raped and massacred weak hindus and Sikhs trying to undermine our people, our pride, our strength and to ultimately belittle us. Well in history our people weren't so forgiving and weak nor mr nice guy either we had our fair share of killer extremists to give like for like attacks and give the aggressors a taste of their own bitter medicine.

Forced conversions weren't official Sikh political policy nor were they part of Sikh spiritual ideology they were just one off events where Sikhs had shown their military might and dominance over muslim's who then in turn flocked to Sikhi to save themselves and thus boosting our demographics and set the foundations for glorious era of sikh sovereignty to come. We shouldn't be shy about these events we should celebrate that our people had such balls and strength to turn the tables on the oppressors.

 

If Sikhs are going to have a country in this day and age, they need more than just numbers, we need to think global. An example is Jews, they have a smaller population than us and own almost the entire West, (though they have some advantages that we don't have or could imagine of having in terms of brainwashing, I won't mention this brainwashing thing because we all know who he is and that he's a Pakhandi Baba, if I mention his name we get the "all religions are equal", group coming to defend him). Also these forced conversions, why would they be Shaheed for Sikhi if they didn't really believe it? 

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