mrsingh

​There IS that kid who laid a beating on the gora who was making fun of him in the street... (there was a video posted of it awhile back) what I find funny are a lot of Sikhs condemned the fact that he laid such a beating on the guy.  He didn't actually hurt him, more like embarrassed the heck out of him, and that kid won't bother him anymore! 
​Umm that's not the only reason... Let's just say casteism (When Sikhi touts itself being against caste) is not the only issue that is turning people away. Like it or not, sexism (when Sikhi touts equal gender rights) is driving women away and that has much more to do with it than men not acting as brutes.   In fact it doesn't even have anything to do with the men, but instead of teaching girls to also defend themselves, and be courageous, a Kaur... they are taught to be submissive, subservient and reliant on men for protection.  I have seen both Sikh girls who could compete with the best guys at Gatka, and also girls taught to be submissive housewives too.  The ones taught to be submissive are the targets because they don't know how to stand up for themselves.  But lets not change the subject... 
My friend's dad just kind of pushed her into a marriage proposal because they are the same caste. She doesn't like the guy at all and may call it off unless she learns to like him before they marry.  But caste was the deciding factor... they are both Rhamgaria.  I hear stories like this and makes me sad.   

​You respect them by denying them their Sikh identity....
 
What a dick.

​Maharaja Ranjit singh was alchohol drinker , adulterous , meat eater . Yet sikhs all over world proudly claim his kingdom as sikh kingdom and him as great sikh king . People like you  put a petetion to all sikh scholars and sikh bodies  that maharaja Ranjit singh was not sikh and never ever there was sikh kingdom , don't teach any young sikh about Maharaja ranjit singh as he was not sikh.

​But it's not anymore... maybe we should start more parchar now!  But before that happens we need to decide on the actual rules because so many jathas with differing ideas doesn't help.  Some say equality of gender, others say males get more privilege, so is there gender equality or not?  Ragmala, Keski, Meat, sarbloh bibek, etc.  So many differing opinions based on different 'sants' etc.  I think what needs to be spread by parchar should be based entirely on SGGSJ and SGGSJ alone.  Or else it will be parchar of one Jathabadi over another etc. And I am not sure that can ever be resolved. (well it has been... by panthic decision but many turn their noses up at it and dont follow it).  So until there can be consesus (doubtful) parchar would do more harm than good if approached based on differing rehet maryadas by different groups. It will only confuse the public.  And without parchar it will remain a closed in religion that the general public is ignorant of.

Paapiman,

SGGSJ is clear that ALL life is really different aspect of the ONE. vegetation has life and rudimentary consciousness, and even minerals.  Guru Nanak tried to make us aware that ALL life is the same. In the below comparison, he isn't speaking merely of a sugar cane, but trying to instill in us that plants too have consciousness and are alive:
"Look, and see how the sugar-cane is cut down. After cutting away its branches, its feet are bound together into bundles, and then, it is placed between the wooden rollers and crushed. What punishment is inflicted upon it! Its juice is extracted and placed in the cauldron; as it is heated, it groans and cries out. And then, the crushed cane is collected and burnt in the fire below. Nanak: come, people, and see how the sweet sugar-cane is treated!"
Obviously animals have a higher developed consciousness and are more evolved spiritually than say a tree, but all life comes from the ONE and all life really IS of the ONE. It isn't about following blind rituals of eating or not eating meat.  If you do eat it, then realize it's a conscious animal and can feel pain, so it should not be killed in a way that it siffers.  If you feel compassion for animals, then don't eat meat. BUt there is actually no black and white rule. Myself I am vegetarian, but I do eat dairy and egg so I am not a "vegan".  And I have had some products that are leather like sandals etc.
"The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. 
What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin? 
It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 
Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. 
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. 
O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said."
I would also think that if you choose not to eat meat and staunchly oppose it, but wear or use leather products (this includes sandals, horse saddles etc.) it does make you a bit of a hypocrite! Because either way the animal dies.  At least if it is going to die, I'd rather see none of it go to waste. 
So anyway, being vegetarian is not 100% requirement in Sikhi. Many Sikhs are vegetarian out of choice of compassion for animals. But if they are not eating meat, then they should also not practice hyprocisy by using leathe rproducts etc. which animals are also killed for.  (I now have all synthetic sandals etc.) But I understand my choices are not a hard set requirement.
 
Anyway back to original topic... I think that tha MAIN reason Sikhi didn't spread like other major religions is simply because Sikhs don't seek to convert people!  At all!  There's no missionary work (parchar? Did I say that right?) But Basics Of Sikhi is actually trying to change that at least in UK. Simply by trying to just let people know what Sikhi is without suggesting or even using the word "conversaion" you will inivitibly get people who you spark an interest in it, will research more, and end up following Sikhi anyway!  I think this is the main and simple reason... Christianity and Islam for example spread like wildfire with the convert or die approach... and continued 'dawah' and 'missionary' work around the world.  We don't seem to do this... so on the outside it initially looks unintiving and many people know nothing about it, and think that it's entirely an ethnic religion that doesn't accept new people.
 
 
 

This author agrees with most of the assertions in my very first post.

 

No. Hindu attacks on Sikhi started way before partition, remember Arya Samaj?
 

​What, any less than sexual pleasures? 
 
Man, I don't know why some of you lot engage on issues that have been discussed ad nauseam. All you're doing is giving pendus an opportunity to derail from serious topics onto ones our own bani tells us 'fools' argue about.....

Lets' be frank, the rot started post annexation.
 
I think Sikhi was spreading slowly, but the defeat at the Anglo-Sikh wars put on us a back foot from which we have yet to recover. 
 
 

We have not explored the reasons yet. What we've debated so far was the plurality of Sikhs in the past. All of these Sikhs scattered across different places in West and South Asia however, were ALWAYS in a minority, even in Punjab. What is the reason for this? Untill 1966, the Sikhs never made up a majority anywhere in the world....Why did'n more convert to Sikhi?

There was a Whole category of terms used for non-ethnically Punjabi converts. Multani Singhs (Multan was part of Sindh back then), Kabul Singhs for the Afghans, Sayeed Singhs for the Muslim descendants of the prophet, Sheikh Singhs for what I think were the Muslim scholars that converted, Mughali Singhs, Baluchi Singhs was also a category from what I remember.
 
Today we mostly use Deccani and Kabuli. Is there a Word for the Patna  Sikhs?

During the times of the Gurus and early period after (till about Baba Deep Singh) contacts were maintained with the Sangats established by Guru Nanak throughout the world. There were Gurdwaras in far away places like the Arab countries, Uzbekistan, Nepal and the east (Assam etc). The arabic bir supposedly prepared by Baba Deep Singh could not have been for Punjabi Sikhs living in Arab lands, that does not make sense. It was most perhaps for the Arab Sikhs living there. Sayed Prithipal Singh talks about an Arabic Japji he saw in Arabia. Our historical sources talk about Gurdwaras sponsored by local Muslim rulers in Arabia.
I think somewhere between the period of severe persecution (Ghallugharas) contacts were slowly lost, so till the 20th century only small communities of Arabic, Iraqi & other non Punjabi Sikhs survived, which by now might have completely vanished. Just because there were over a 100 Arabic Sikh families in 1930 does not mean that the numbers of Arabic Sikhs was always insignificant, Arabic sources discovered by Syed Prithipal talk about significant proportions of Arabs adopting Sikhi during and just after Guru Nanaks visits. If Qazi Rukn Deen could've been persecuted, just imagine what would've happened to other Arabic Sikhs? 

In the 19th Century, the term Musadee was used for Muslims in Pashtun and Baluchi lands who read the Japji Sahib as part of their spiritual practices. Im not sure how many they were though.

There is no source to back this up by Ahmadis claim Guru Nanak had 20 million followers all over when they left their body.

so in numbers let just say 100 million back then? or thats exaggerated number?

Neo, can you move the last few posts regarding Guru Tegh Bahadur & rebellion to another topic?
Dhanvaad.

Is it possible the Satnamis were part of the wider Udasi fold?
And interesting point regarding the Mughal accounts that describe the Guru as a rebel leader!!
 
There is a Marathi source from 1803 that mentions the meeting of Guru Hargobind Sahib and the spiritual leader of Shivaji wherein the whole aspect of soldiery is mentioned. A friend of mine said this sakhi is only found in later Sikh sources post 1803 which Means the Sikh scholars picked this sakhi up from the Marathis and included into their own writings later on. Im not sure how accurate this as I havent checked into the Bansavalinama and Mahima Prakash to see if the Sakhi is there. Balwant Singh Dhillon has also argued that the Dadupanthis did'n become militant until after their meeting with Guru Gobind Singh. He then attributes their short militancy period to Guru Gobind Singh's discussions with their leader while at Rajastan.

I'll make a post regarding this later, im out for a couple of hours. Maybe NeoSingh can split this up to a new topic.

Just like Shivajis teacher met Guru Hargobind, the leader of the Satnamis did meet Guru Tegh Bahadur. But whether the rebellion had any support from the Guru is not known till now. 

Regarding the Satnamis I have also read conflicting statements. But some years ago puratan birs of Guru Granth Sahib were found in some of their villages. So it is highly possible that they were Nanakpanthis and lost touch with Sikhi overtime. It is funny how we have lost so many Sikhs due to our sheer neglect.

Paapi, create another topic if you wish to discuss the current shortcomings in our Panth. This topic is on the historical aspect.

Meat has nothing to do with it. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans and Americans have converted to Budhism which likewise preaches vegetarianism.
The topic here is why have'nt Sikhi spread, its not why are'nt Sikhs practicing Sikhi. Please make a new topic if you wish to discuss why Sikhs are'nt practising their own faith.

But your posts in the other topic clearly show you are looking down on non amritdhari as inferior to amritdharis? Why change of tone now??

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.
 
 
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.

​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

Very important and interesting quote from 1969 by SS Kohli.