Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest person A

Aurangzeb

Recommended Posts

Guest Reply

@amardeep exactly there were a number of reasons why the gurus were killed - so it's not as simple as to say "oh the Mughals tried to kill the gurus becuase they were afraid of them" that was my point. that's a subjective hypothesis from a number of possible objective hypothesis that can be determined 

I'm glad someone mentioned this "miracle" of the 5 volunteers coming back to life - the "miracle" is was only witnessed by a Muslim spy and no one else saw - rather convienient - this miracle only seems to be iterated by western Sikhs because the killing of 5 people is ethical problamatic - when I was studying Sikhism at school we were told the guru slaughtered 5 sheep from behind a tent - but other Sikhs said no the Khalsa can only be formed from human sacrifice- and now conviently they came back to life so everyone I should happy - where exactly is this miracle recorded ? And why isn't it  transmitted by all major Sikh sources - as I assume there would have been quite a few people present at the event 

I just find it hard to believe that guru Nanak would have formed the Khalsa in such a way or killed the masnads in such a way. 

As for the " assination attempt " again it's just speculation -he could have done to humiliate the emperor like some Iraqi guy tried to do to president George W Bush by throwing his shoe at him - who knows - and that's if that happened - the incident isn't mass recorded and by non of the Sikhs - more likely it didn't even happen - 

@" the musnads were Tyrants and deserved to be tourtured "

That's exactly it - who deserves to be killed and toritured is subjective - one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist - you can say they derarved to be killed I can say the were killed as they were a political threat and made an exame of - same as what Aurengzeb did... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sikh sources mostly connect the shaheedi of Guru Arjan to Chandu. As a conspiracy due to his anger at the Guru having refused a marriage proposal. Chandu then influences the authorities at Lahore who arrests the Guru. Later on, Singh Sabha scholars in the 1900s came across Jahangeers memoirs wherein he mentions his own hatred to Guru Arjan having wanted to stop him for a long time due to many hindus and muslims becoming Sikh. He then uses a political pretext as an excuse to arrest and martyr the Guru. It's only from this find, that the Sikh writings make a direct connection between the Mughals and the Guru,

The early sources that mention the incident with the tent and calling for heads all mention 5 goats being slaugthered. Im not sure if the Muslim spy account is genuine.

I'm not sure there is any historical truth to the Masands being boiled alive. In the Guru's hukamnamas after 1699 He still instructs the Sikhs not to associate with the Masands, as does mid 18th century rahitnamas, which mean they were still alive. If the Guru had killed them, obviosly there would be no reason to warn against them,

Edited by amardeep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

@amardeep thanks for the clarification about the sheep, that's what I had been taught when I was young - not sure where this miracle story has poped up from. is there a narrative of the guru actually killing the 5 ? I'm sure I've had conversations with some Sikhs that believe that- may be from particular sects?

I still don't buy this Mughals were scared of conversation to Sikhi narrative as there weren't any mass conversations at that time and sikhi was so small relative to the size and population of India - but let's say for argument sake Jahangir did have a sort of hatred for the guru - that would have been the result of the information passed to him by rival Sikh sects - it's not like that had mass media back then that could have an interview with people - besides some gurus ( although not mainstream by today's standards) were protected by the Mughals, if they were afraid of conversation they wouldn't have protected any of them - it doesn't make sense - I think the "Mughal hated and were scared of sikhism spreading "narrative is take to save the embarrassment of infighting - easier to blame someone external 

i can't recall the exact text about the masanads being tourtured but the defiantly is a record of them being burnt, boiled and buried alive ... mainly for disrespecting the Granth. 

Scary though - I wonder that would happen if Sikhs did one day have a Khalistan - how would they treat Sikhs who disagreed with aspect of the Granth or the dassam Granth - (since it's given similar status as the former now) capital offence ? Anyway getting side tracked

I get what your saying about the various sources - it would make sense if Sikh speakers when taking about historical events gave a varied account but they don't - they pic very selected narratives that bring about a feeling of hatred for Muslims - 

i read somewhere during the late 17 and early 18th century there more than 100 sects of Sikhism - each having its own particular belief and version of history. It's only recent that the tat Khalsa has taken back the 5 temple and made it own belief and history a standard of authadoxy ... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

As for the " assination attempt " again it's just speculation -he could have done to humiliate the emperor like some Iraqi guy tried to do to president George W Bush by throwing his shoe at him - who knows - and that's if that happened - the incident isn't mass recorded and by non of the Sikhs - more likely it didn't even happen 

Attempt to humiliate is speculating too. As said earlier, it all depended on the intention of the Sikh. 

It is recorded by a non-Sikh source. So chances are high that it did happen.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

@" the musnads were Tyrants and deserved to be tourtured "

That's exactly it - who deserves to be killed and toritured is subjective - one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist - you can say they derarved to be killed I can say the were killed as they were a political threat and made an exame of - same as what Aurengzeb did... 

Are you even aware of the activities of the Masands?

  • Assaulting innocent people
  • Threatening innocent people
  • Extortion from innocent people
  • Theft
  • Abuse of authority

A tyrant deserves to be punished whether someone calls him a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Labels will not change the facts when a person is committing crimes against humanity.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

I just find it hard to believe that guru Nanak would have formed the Khalsa in such a way or killed the masnads in such a way. 

This is called the "Saint-Warrior" aspect of Sikhism. 

Almighty God is both, the greatest saint (can forgive massive sins) and the greatest warrior (can mercilessly punish the tyrants).

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Are you even aware of the activities of the Masands?

  • Assaulting innocent people
  • Threatening innocent people
  • Extortion from innocent people
  • Theft
  • Abuse of authority

A tyrant deserves to be punished whether someone calls him a freedom fighter or a terrorist. Labels will not change the facts when a person is committing crimes against humanity.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Add murder to the list above as the masands of Baba Ram Rai (son of Seventh Master) burn't him alive, to take over his seat.

Later, Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master) punished the masands (by killing them), who were responsible for this sinful act.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, amardeep said:

I'm not sure there is any historical truth to the Masands being boiled alive. In the Guru's hukamnamas after 1699 He still instructs the Sikhs not to associate with the Masands, as does mid 18th century rahitnamas, which mean they were still alive. If the Guru had killed them, obviosly there would be no reason to warn against them,

There is no doubt that the Masands were punished for their sinful deeds. Not all were boiled alive or killed. Appropriate punishments were given by Sri Satguru jee. For example, one Masand was hung upside down from a tree (as a punishment for theft), not killed. So the Hukamnamas/Rehatnamas would apply to the leftover Masands, who did not receive death sentences by Maharaaj.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paapiman said:

For example, one Masand was hung upside down from a tree (as a punishment for theft), not killed. 

@amardeep

Also, Dulcha Masand, who stole bangles (sent by a devotee), was also forgiven by Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

@paapiman attempt to humiliate is speculation also " yes that's my point ! You can make any point depending on your perspective- doesn't mean it's true - just a theory - a far fetched on at that - if there was an assignation attempt a) there would be multiple records ofnit and b) the Mughals would have retaliated in a big way - neither happened 

As for the activities of the masanads - the only reason mentioned the main sorcer ( which I can't recall now but shall dig up later) only mentions them burning or distorying parts of the Granth they disagreed with  - the alligations of theft, rape, murder came later on - conviently 

even if they did for arugemt sake - wouldn't a capitol sentence ( beheading) be enough - why boil Alive, or burn ?? 

" a tyrant deserves to be punished no matter what he is called " I think you need to read my point again - u kind of missed it 

Warrrior saint ?? Loool! 

So when aurengzeb has someone killed his a tyrant but when a guru does it he's a " warrior saint " not bias about that - common man

by making that point you have justified toruture and brutal killing if the crime deserves it - csnt really blame the Mughals then. 

And the fact the masnads killed a gurus son brutally burning him alive further proves these were internal issues - shows why no sikh source Blame the Mughals -

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the early Sikh sources do describe it as an internal issue then taken to a higher political context when chandu involves the Lahore Mughals.  

It is a Historical fact verifies by both Sikh and Muslim sources that guru ram Das and guru Arjan were heavily successful at converting people to sikhi. This brought about rapid changes in the punjab country side where many Sikhs started appearing. The Mughals would have been alerted by this as the gurus message was not entirely a spiritual one.  But also had political implications. At that time the Sufi Naqshbandi and Sikhs were competing to win the hearts and minds of the locals and the Sikhs did great in this regard. For that reason the Sufi leaders were happy that guru Arjan had been martyred as they also mention in their own writings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

So when aurengzeb has someone killed his a tyrant but when a guru does it he's a " warrior saint " not bias about that - common man

Do you know how Aurengzeb mercilessly killed his own father and brothers for power? Even an ordinary person (non-Sikh) cannot compare such a monster to Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

@paapiman attempt to humiliate is speculation also " yes that's my point ! You can make any point depending on your perspective- doesn't mean it's true - just a theory - a far fetched on at that - if there was an assignation attempt a) there would be multiple records ofnit and b) the Mughals would have retaliated in a big way - neither happened 

a. A big event does not necessarily need to have multiple records. Remember we are talking about the 17th century, not 21st.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

even if they did for arugemt sake - wouldn't a capitol sentence ( beheading) be enough - why boil Alive, or burn ?? 

That is the wish of Almighty God (Sri Satguru jee). God decides what punishment is to be given, not humans.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Guest Reply said:

As for the activities of the masanads - the only reason mentioned the main sorcer ( which I can't recall now but shall dig up later) only mentions them burning or distorying parts of the Granth they disagreed with  

Thanks for mentioning that. Burning/Destroying parts of the holy book is a crime, which deserves death sentence, according to the laws of Sikhism.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 11:15 AM, Guest Reply said:

i can't recall the exact text about the masanads being tourtured but the defiantly is a record of them being burnt, boiled and buried alive ... mainly for disrespecting the Granth. 

Scary though - I wonder that would happen if Sikhs did one day have a Khalistan - how would they treat Sikhs who disagreed with aspect of the Granth or the dassam Granth - (since it's given similar status as the former now) capital offence ? Anyway getting side tracked

The Masands burn't a copy of the Holy book, which for a Sikh is equivalent (or even worse) that burning his parents alive. What punishment do you recommend for someone who burns alive your father or mother?

People have full right to hold their own opinions. Sikhism does not coerce anyone to follow its principles/morals/ethics, etc. But, if people start physically burning copies of holy books (even if they are non-Sikh scriptures), then for sure they will be in big trouble in a Sikh nation. One can disagree to certain aspects of Sikhism in a civilized and polite manner. That should not be a problem in a Sikh nation.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

@paapiman well no point discussing anything further with you as you have proven your bias - even if I tried to explain you wouldnt get it - thanks for your answer though

@amardeep so we agree it's was an internal issue although outside parties were used to meet certain ends - that was my initial assumption - I only wish all Sikhs had that unbiased new of a nuased view for history. 

What are the sources for mass sikh conversions ?

also since you cone across as more honest and objective person do you know of different historical sources from minority groups like the masnads, minas, nirmalas, dhalis, etc etc they must have left some sort of historical documentation ? Would be interesting to see their perspective on historical events 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 1:12 AM, Guest Reply said:

because the killing of 5 people is ethical problamatic - 

Why would killing of 5 people by Almighty God be ethically problematic? I hope you are aware that the Sikhs consider the Satgurus as incarnations of the Almighty God.

It might be problematic for cultists within Sikhism, but not for Sikhs, who follow Gurbani.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Queation

@paapiman   Which groups believe in gurus as God incarnate and which don't ? I was under the assumption all Sikhs believed in gurus as divinely inspired but not divine themselves ???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2017 at 11:15 AM, Guest Reply said:

I still don't buy this Mughals were scared of conversation to Sikhi narrative as there weren't any mass conversations at that time and sikhi was so small relative to the size and population of India - but let's say for argument sake Jahangir did have a sort of hatred for the guru - 

There were multiple reasons behind the Shaheedi of Sri Satguru jee. Hatred of Jahangir and Ahmad Sarhindi (Naqshbandi Sufi) were among them. There is no doubt about that.

Coming to your point (quoted above), just because Sikhs had low numbers, doesn't mean that the King would not be alarmed at their activities. Additionally, Sikh population was concentrated in a few areas.

Apostasy is considered as a sin in Islam. So, most likely, the Muslim preachers would be developing hatred towards Satgurus for converting Muslims into Sikhs, in a nation ruled by a Muslim King. Imagine a non-Muslim preacher goes to Saudi Arabia and starts converting Muslims into his faith. How would the Islamic clergy feel in Saudi?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Reply

@paapiman   Which groups believe in gurus as God incarnate and which don't ? I was under the assumption all Sikhs believed in gurus as divinely inspired but not divine themselves ???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no. The mughals executed guru Arjan due to the reson given in jahamgirs own writings. The issue with chandu lal was thej catalyser that brought abut the execution. But chandu was not the executioner nor did thej mughals execute maharaj due to a wedding conflict. So the mughals are at guilt here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum 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...
Sign in to follow this  

×