Why Sikhi failed to spread

[Guest]

Well buddhism spread due to buddhism influence on various maharaja- kings of southeast asia. We were quite unfortunate, we were at forefront of mughal/anglo brute force wars so we had no time for that kind of strategizing

[amardeep]

This I find quite interesting - without an army or anything:
 

Christianity began to spread in Armenia soon after Jesus' death, due to the efforts of two of his apostles, St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholomew.^[21] In the early 4th century, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first state to adopt Christianity as a state religion.^[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians

 

 

[paapiman]

 

Ibrute: Islam is also quite a difficult religion to follow - many rules etc. Centralisation of a faith might be a good response, however Islam was never really centralised either - Islamic law worked on local levels with each madhab having their own rules independent on  the state governement (though some Muslim empires had the clergy closer to ruling elites).

 

 

​Bro, Islam is comparatively easier to follow than Sikhism.

- They have 5 prayers (correct me if I am wrong) - takes less time than Nitnaym.

- Their Zakat is less than our daswandh

- They can eat meat   

- Sex allowed for pleasure with spouse

- Multiple marriages

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

Five prayers a day is surely not easy as the prayer has to be done at specific times which often conflict with work, school etc. A majority of Muslims dont have multiple wives plus it sure is difficult and expensive to maintain several households (as well as having several mother-in-laws haha).

Islam is a difficult religion. There are rules for everthing so many have to keep wondering if they eat with the right hand, chew the right number of times etc.

 

[Guest]

​Bro, Islam is comparatively easier to follow than Sikhism

- They can eat meat   

- Sex allowed for pleasure with spouse

- Multiple marriages

Bhul chuk maaf

​Sex was never a problem if you look at our puratan literature like prem sumarag granth on sex with spouse its does not doom its followers with eternal hell fire or damnation that was changed off course when singh sabha start bringing its juedo christian interpertation of sikhi , eating meat was never a issue either in nihang circle but rest of community had vaishanas influence and regarding mutliple marriage probably not allowed in sikhi however anceint puratan punjabi males had multiple wives if their spouse turn out to be barren.

[paapiman]

​Sex was never a problem if you look at our puratan literature like prem sumarag granth on sex with spouse its does not doom its followers with eternal hell fire or damnation that was changed off course when singh sabha start bringing its juedo christian interpertation of sikhi , eating meat was never a issue either in nihang circle but rest of community had vaishanas influence and regarding mutliple marriage probably not allowed in sikhi however anceint puratan punjabi males had multiple wives if their spouse turn out to be barren.

​Sex for pleasure is a sin in Sikhism.  Having said that, it is a very small sin (if done with wife). There is no eternal fire or damnation for it.

Meat was used as a survival tactic by Nihangs.

Punjabiyat and Gurmat are different. 

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 6, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

Read this interesting article on this subject http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/16470-sex-and-sikhism-article-by-sirdar-kapur-singh/  and please post your views there..lets stick to the topic.

[paapiman]

Five prayers a day is surely not easy as the prayer has to be done at specific times which often conflict with work, school etc. A majority of Muslims dont have multiple wives plus it sure is difficult and expensive to maintain several households (as well as having several mother-in-laws haha).

Islam is a difficult religion. There are rules for everthing so many have to keep wondering if they eat with the right hand, chew the right number of times etc.

 

Bro, getting up at amritvela, taking a shower and doing Nitnaym is also not that easy. For muslims, they don't have to bathe daily. They can do vazu and do their prayer. 

Sex and eating meat are among the most pleasurable things for a human. Islam offers greater access to them than Sikhism.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

[Guest]

This I find quite interesting - without an army or anything:
 

Christianity began to spread in Armenia soon after Jesus' death, due to the efforts of two of his apostles, St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholomew.^[21] In the early 4th century, the Kingdom of Armenia became the first state to adopt Christianity as a state religion.^[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians

 

 

Correct me if i am wrong - Dalit leader tried to bring thousands of fellow dalits into sikhism to singh sabha they looked the other way. 

​

[paapiman]

 

Correct me if i am wrong - Dalit leader tried to bring thousands of fellow dalits into sikhism to singh sabha they looked the other way. 

​

​I guess you are talking about Dr.Ambedkar Saab.

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

Sikhkhoj: These different rajas you mention - i assume they were localized kings and possesors of small kingdoms right? Most likely vassals of the Mughals. Did they contribute anyhow to Sikhi during their lifetimes (like the later smaller Phulkian rajas contributed to Sikhi in terms of art, patronage, litterature, Gurdwara constructions etc.)

The later Maharaja Chandu Lal of the central Hyderabad state is said to have been a Nanakpanthi Sikh.

Edited July 6, 2015 by amardeep

[paapiman]

​Sex for pleasure is a sin in Sikhism.  Having said that, it is a very small sin (if done with wife). There is no eternal fire or damnation for it.

 

More details regarding sex for pleasure, in the link below.

​http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/16475-sikh-gurus-and-their-marriage-relationship/?page=2#comment-144805

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

Well buddhism spread due to buddhism influence on various maharaja- kings of southeast asia. We were quite unfortunate, we were at forefront of mughal/anglo brute force wars so we had no time for that kind of strategizing

​This is a good point. Conversions in the past were most often "collective conversions" - whole tribes or kingdoms of people converting in one go. If you look at tribal structures in Middle East for instance you see how certain tribes are shia, others are sunni, while others are something third. Its not because some Sheikh had the luck to convince every single member of that tribe that their particular religion/sect was correct. In most cases if you could convince the leader of the tribe, the rest would follow suit.

Indonesia and Malaysia became Muslim countries without the need for any Muslim country to invade the lands. They simply converted the local Hindu kings whereafter the populations soon followed through. Apart from those mentioned by Sikhkhoj, there probably were'nt that many influental rulers who became Sikhs in history to an extent where their subjects followed through.

Edited July 6, 2015 by amardeep

[paapiman]

​I guess you are talking about Dr.Ambedkar Saab.

Bhul chuk maaf

​Can someone please provide details, with what actually happened with Dr.Ambedkar Sahib? Why did he change his mind, from converting to Sikhism? Has this already been discussed on this forum before?

Bhul chuk maaf

Edited July 6, 2015 by paapiman

[Guest]

Even now religions like buddhism and hinduism have great celebrities followers ..for example.- richard gere following buddhism and julia roberts following hinduism...these are great bonus for these religion political landscape as well, richard gere and dalai lama peaceful protest or fight for united tibet was probably the best thing happened to tibetan buddhism when it comes to political sovergeinty..we were able to have some influence in celiberity circle via 3ho but not a whole lot..i meant rusell brand just have a khanda tatto on it and chant kundalini-3ho-mixed sikh mantra and our people have their knickers in a twist already as we don't see the bigger picture..if not so be it but alteast our people should not to look like idiots/hot headed nut jobs infront of western media/western influences...if that can be acheived that would be big leap and then other would be some space for parchar to high profiles.

[SikhKhoj]

Thanks for the interesting responses.

Indeed during the Gurus times there were Sikhs in the different provinces of the Mugham Empire - but how much of a proportion did they make in those areas?  Lets not discuss individual examples of Sikhs here and t here, but rather talk demographics.

 

 

 

The Dabistan probably Refers to all the major cities of the Mughal Empire, but nonetheless an interesting observation from that period.

We have to talk about Sikhs here and there, the number of sangats per state because we simply do not have demographics.

Dabistan says this: "ln short during the time of each Mahal (Guru) the Sikh increased till in the reign of Guru Arjan Mal they became numerous and there were not many cities in the inhabited countries where some Sikh were not to be found."

It is an important statement. It does say 'some' Sikhs but also 'countries'. 

 

Sikh Khoj: Good to bring up the Nanakpanthis. Do we have any statistics on how many there were in Bihar and other Indian states? I read once that the first Indian president was a Nanakpanthi Bihari Sikh. How much of the population did they make up? 

​There were many, thats the only thing we can conclude safely from the many Sangats established all over India. The Sangats established by Guru Nanak and later the Manjis were quite widespread, information is available about many but many have since been converted into temples and other things. SS Kohli who visited nearly whole of India in the footsteps of Guru Nanaks udasis met lacs of Nanakpanthis all over India in the 1960s. I'll be posting a quote soon.

 

Regarding forced conversions which many have mentioned - It is true that this happened for both Christians and Muslims. However, these faiths still managed to grow significantly even in centuries where persecution did not take place. It is generally a myth that most followers converted due to force. Iran took 300 years for the majority populace to convert to Islam. If force was involved it would have been much less. Likewise Syria was'nt Muslim majority untill the 1100s - ie 500 years after the first Muslim ruler conquered the land. During the colonial period many muslim countries still had large Christian population making up 20-40 percent (egypt, lebanon, iraq etc). So forced conversions was not always the norm even though some rulers were brutal indeed.  Many converted due to other reasons. But why did'n they convert to Sikhi? 

Invalid point. Starting in the 8th century, Muslims invaded and raped the Indian subcontinent for centuries. Despite 800 years of brutalities only 30-35% of the Indian population is Muslim (if you count India, Pak and Bangladesh). So just because it took 3-5 centuries for Iran or Syria to convert, you can not conclude that it wasn't mostly force. 

[SikhKhoj]

Very important and interesting quote from 1969 by SS Kohli.

 

I fear that most at the places visited by Guru will find no
place in the pages of Sikh history in the coming years because
the memorials, if any, are passing into oblivion because of the
sense of possession on the part of the local priests. Much of the
work that has been done In raising the memorials by the Udasi
saints is being now undone by those who are in their possession.
The Udalis who are in charge of the two shrines in the name of

Guru Nanak at Jagannath Purl do not know anything .about
Sikhism nor have they any faith in the doctrines of Guru Nanak
but they continue to be the keepers of those places because the
Sikhs visit them and out of their devotion they pay some amount
to the priests. I also came to know that at some places, the
priests fearing the possession by the Sikhs do not keep the holy
Guru Granth Sahib in the precincts of the places concerned.
It is high time that the Shiromanl Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee
and the other Sikh Institutions should take necessary
steps in this direction.
Throughout the length and breadth of the country I have
come across person., who have faith in the religion of .Guru
Nanak. There are still Nanak Shahi Sangats in Bihar, Bengal
and Assam. About two lakh Tharus who live around Pilibhit in
U. P. have full faith in the doctrines of the Great Guru. There
are hundreds of, thousands of Wanjaras inhabiting the Central
and Southern India. who are the Sikh.of Guru Nanak. There are
Labanas and others in Gujarat and elsewhere having full faith
in the teachings of the Great Guru. They can all be called the
Nanak Panthis.

 

[kdsingh80]

Bro, getting up at amritvela, taking a shower and doing Nitnaym is also not that easy. For muslims, they don't have to bathe daily. They can do vazu and do their prayer. 

Sex and eating meat are among the most pleasurable things for a human. Islam offers greater access to them than Sikhism.

Bhul chuk maaf

 

​Eating meat is not pleasurable but a matter of survival in coastal area's deserts icy cold regions etc. The world has very few places like Punjab or northern india with fertile plains

Edited July 7, 2015 by kdsingh80

[SikhKhoj]

- Alwar used to have Brahmin Sikhs (native Rajasthanis) with Gurdwaras in their villages. Slowly they merged back into Hinduism and the Gurdwaras are collapsing.

- The current 15-25 million Vanjaras used to be Sikh at a point of time. (source: my personal talks with NGO dealing with these forgotten Sikh tribes). Unlike Sikligars they are cleanshaven but conduct marriages by singing 'Nanak Nanak' for example. We neglected them, Muslims and Christians saw opportunity and converted many of them. Waheguru willing more organisations like Akhar Soh, Nishkam Canada, British Sikh Society will rise and help millions of these lost Sikhs who are not counted in the census.

[chatanga1]

Amardeep have you read this ? :

[amardeep]

Chatanga - Skimmed through half the text- looks very interesting. Will read properly tonight, thanks for sharing.

 

See this graphic video of the spread of religion - very interesting!
 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/map-shows-how-religion-spread-around-the-world-2015-6

Edited July 7, 2015 by amardeep

[amardeep]

Sikhkhoj: Thanks for sharing that quote. Which book is it from? The Satnamis - were they Sikhs of the Guru or ? Some source say there were, - others say there werent.

Has there been any historical research into whether any of these Kings and Queens did any patronage of Sikh art, culture, Dharamsalas etc?

[amardeep]

We have to talk about Sikhs here and there, the number of sangats per state because we simply do not have demographics.

Dabistan says this: "ln short during the time of each Mahal (Guru) the Sikh increased till in the reign of Guru Arjan Mal they became numerous and there were not many cities in the inhabited countries where some Sikh were not to be found."

It is an important statement. It does say 'some' Sikhs but also 'countries'.

Would be interesting to have the original farsi Word. The Word desh for instance does'nt have to mean an independant country - it can also mean territory of a province (Madra Desh, Malwa Desh, Kashmir Desh etc). I think in 17th Century English the Word country did'n have the same meaning as of today either. I'll have a farsi knowing Singh look up the original Word used. I think it Refers to lands of the Mughal empire and not other countries of Asia etc.

 

Invalid point. Starting in the 8th century, Muslims invaded and raped the Indian subcontinent for centuries. Despite 800 years of brutalities only 30-35% of the Indian population is Muslim (if you count India, Pak and Bangladesh). So just because it took 3-5 centuries for Iran or Syria to convert, you can not conclude that it wasn't mostly force.

 

Not invalid. Yes forced converstions did happen from time to time but 800+ years of Islamic rule over India was not one long process of forced conversions. Some rulers did indeed, but not all - actually only a very few, amongst these Aurangzeb being the most notorious. There were other incentives for Indian conversions (social, theological, political and economical). If you want to forcibly convert a whole country it does'nt take centuries - otherwise its very weak force.

 

Personally im not too big a fan of that "we did'n force anyone, thats why we are so few". I hear it at the local Gurdwara also. It feels like elitist talk "We were better than everyone else, thats why we are so few". It is a way of removing any responsobility for our lack of parchaar in the past... "if we forced people like them, we would have been numerous. But we are superior, thats why we are few"..  It feels like beating around the bushes.

[paapiman]

​Eating meat is not pleasurable but a matter of survival in coastal area's deserts icy cold regions etc. 

​It is survival in certain places, but you cannot deny that eating meat is very pleasurable. One cannot compare daal/chawal to tandoori murga/eggs/kabaabs , etc.

It there is a survey, asking non-vegetarians to choose between vegetarian and non-vegetarian food (which is more tasty), they will most likely choose non-veg.  

Bhul chuk maaf

[Guest]

It is survival in certain places, but you cannot deny that eating meat is very pleasurable.

As pleasurable as eating tofu, paneer, samosa.