Jump to content

Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2
4 hours ago, Balkaar said:

Very true, Sikhs need to read their actual history rather than imbibing Indian Government propaganda which endlessly regurgitates the trope that Sikhs are the predestined enemies of Musalman.  

Puraatan Sikhs and Maharaj themselves did not keep grudges forever and ever. Jahangir was ultimately responsible for the execution of Guru Arjan Dev, and yet he and Guru Hargobind Sahib eventually became friends.  Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb, Guru Gobind Singh Ji could've embarked upon some blood feud against all Musalman and the entire Mughal dynasty after this but he actually supported Bahadur Shah's bid to become emperor. The Sikh Misls also formed periodic alliances with the Afghans, who had earlier wronged them on so many occasions. 

You are right, Sikhs are not and must never become the enemies of Hindus or the enemies of Muslims, this is a perversion of Dashmesh Pitaa's vision for us. We are supposed to be the enemies of the oppressors, that is all. 

Bahadur Shah is proof that these enemies should never be trusted, Guru Sahib decided to help him because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future. Remember what they did when Banda Singh Bahadur was fighting for the rights of an independent Punjab. When Put Buddhu Shah would help Guru Sahib, Autangzeb would make them into Shaheeds calling him false Muslim. Also even if hypothetical the message was forgiveness, there is no one like Guru Sahib, no Mahapurukh, saints, royalty, nobles, or anyone else can even equal Guru Sahib's shoes.

4 hours ago, Balkaar said:

I agree. But when has any group of our meager size ever risen to prominence without allies? Sikh Raj didn't just fall out of the Sikhs' rear ends, it's emergence was enabled by the constant shifting of alliances which Johnny has alluded to - sometimes with Marathas, sometimes with Kashmiris, sometimes with Rohillas and sometimes with Afghans. There aren't enough of us for us to go it alone, not yet anyway I hope. 

The kingdom of Ranjit Singh fell because of the Dogras, and other Non-Sikhs. Multiculturalism is not the answer to our problems, a Sikh nation must serve Sikh interests support worldwide, not just Punjabi-interests: the Vatican is a tiny country; however, nobody would dare touch it, because they understand in the Vatican, that Multi-faith is not the answer, (will except the current Pope, but he must really hate the established Church).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Bahadur Shah is proof that these enemies should never be trusted, Guru Sahib decided to help him because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future.

Remember what they did when Banda Singh Bahadur was fighting for the rights of an independent Punjab. When Put Buddhu Shah would help Guru Sahib, Autangzeb would make them into Shaheeds calling him false Muslim. Also even if hypothetical the message was forgiveness, there is no one like Guru Sahib, no Mahapurukh, saints, royalty, nobles, or anyone else can even equal Guru Sahib's shoes.

Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
4 hours ago, Balkaar said:

The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs. 

I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery. 

Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous.  Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro.  

An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only). 

Simply wearing a turban doesn't make you Sikh, anyone who was against the Sikh Raj as a Sikh were either disappointed that the empire wasn't a theocracy, or they were Hindus masquerading as Sikhs. The Dogras are an example of this, they even lied and said they took Amrit. Banda Singh Bahadur at least cared enough to help people find the truth, under him Sikhi grew. We failed because of the liberalism, not because we were overly devout.

4 hours ago, Balkaar said:

Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah? 

Everything Guru Sahib does has a purpose, read just a bit of what he said about Muhammad, and you'll know Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji truly believed that the message of Gurbani was always the highest. Not a single line in Dasam Granth says even once that Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is equal to Muhammad. He believed in this fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Everything Guru Sahib does has a purpose, read just a bit of what he said about Muhammad, and you'll know Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji truly believed that the message of Gurbani was always the highest. Not a single line in Dasam Granth says even once that Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is equal to Muhammad. He believed in this fully.

Total non-sequitur, I never suggested that Guru Granth Sahib and Muhammad exist on equal terms. Don't try and dodge the question by turning it around on me and putting words in my mouth.  

You said "Guru Sahib decided to help him [Bahadur Shah] because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future."

I pointed out to you that Guru Sahib makes no such claim in his own Bani, and that no itihaasic source makes such a claim either, rather they say that Guru Sahib helped Bahadur Shah in order to secure the religious rights of non-Muslims in his kingdom. So on what basis have you decided that this was Guru Sahib's motive for doing what he did? You have no right to say this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Simply wearing a turban doesn't make you Sikh, anyone who was against the Sikh Raj as a Sikh were either disappointed that the empire wasn't a theocracy, or they were Hindus masquerading as Sikhs. The Dogras are an example of this, they even lied and said they took Amrit. Banda Singh Bahadur at least cared enough to help people find the truth, under him Sikhi grew. We failed because of the liberalism, not because we were overly devout.

Extremely wishful thinking. Sahib Singh of Patiala, the other cis-Sutlej Sardars, Ajeet Singh Sandhawalia and his family, etc were definitely Sikhs and they had no aspirations in the direction of theocracy I assure you. Neither did anyone else at the court of Lahore. You need to hit the history books. 

Tons of the people that joined the Khalsa under Baba Ji did it in order to acquire power (as Sikhs were rulers), out of fear of being plundered (also, forced conversions to Sikhism were rare but not nonexistent)  or to join the army and participate in the sacking of Mughal Punjab. Bro you need to read actual Sikh itihaas instead of regurgitating the usual fluffy Sikhi camp myths. 

Many Puraatan Sikhs after Guru Gobind Singh Ji's departure were never the angels we have slowly turned them into by a process of historical whitewashing and rewriting - a byproduct of British tinkering with Sikh tradition which led us to impose Western notions of chivalry and heroism on our historical figures. Often they weren't very different from you and I. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
12 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

Total non-sequitur, I never suggested that Guru Granth Sahib and Muhammad exist on equal terms. Don't try and dodge the question by turning it around on me and putting words in my mouth.  

You said "Guru Sahib decided to help him [Bahadur Shah] because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future."

I pointed out to you that Guru Sahib makes no such claim in his own Bani, and that no itihaasic source makes such a claim either, rather they say that Guru Sahib helped Bahadur Shah in order to secure the religious rights of non-Muslims in his kingdom. So on what basis have you decided that this was Guru Sahib's motive for doing what he did? You have no right to say this.  

Read through history, Banda Singh Bahadur fought with Bahadur Shah. And you even haven't responded to my claim that he actually betrayed the Sikhs when he wanted to fight Banda Singh Bahadur.

9 minutes ago, Balkaar said:

Extremely wishful thinking. Sahib Singh of Patiala, Ajeet Singh Sandhawalia, Jindaan Kaur, Gurbaksh Singh etc were definitely Sikhs and they had no aspirations in the direction of theocracy I assure you. You need to hit the history books. 

Tons of the people that joined the Khalsa under Baba Ji did it in order to acquire power (as Sikhs were rulers), out of fear or to join the army and participate in the plunder of Mughal Punjab. Bro you need to read actual Sikh itihaas instead of regurgitating the usual fluffy Sikhi camp myths. 

Many Puraatan Sikhs after Guru Gobind Singh Ji's departure were never the angels we have slowly turned them into by a process of historical whitewashing and rewriting. Often they weren't very different from you and I. 

Simply wearing a turban and calling yourself a Sikh doesn't make one a Sikh. The black cats also dressed-up like Sikhs as well as RSS agents. Also Banda Singh Bahadur gave a rise to the Sikh population in Punjab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Read through history, Banda Singh Bahadur fought with Bahadur Shah. And you even haven't responded to my claim that he actually betrayed the Sikhs when he wanted to fight Banda Singh Bahadur.

I didn't respond because I didn't need to. You were right. And you never asked me to. 

Still haven't answered my question. Banda Singh Bahadur has nothing to do with this. Changing the subject again. 

For what seems like the umpteenth time to me, you said - "Bahadur Shah is proof that these enemies should never be trusted, Guru Sahib decided to help him because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future."

On what basis have you decided that Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah was to teach a lesson to future Sikhs not to trust these enemies (by which I presume you mean Muslims), given that there is no scriptural or itihaasic source corroborating you?

 

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