Jump to content

Guru Nanak Dev Ji In Rome And Slavery


Recommended Posts

http://satguru.weebly.com/satguru-nanak-sahib-went-to-greece-rome-etc-according-to-forcible-entries-of-roman-empire1609.html

http://satguru.weebly.com/

The above links are supposedly from a Sikh researcher who has found evidence that Guru Nanaj Dev Ji went to rome in the early 16th century and helped to abolish slavery. Most of the sources are sketchy or skewed and I want to know if anyone else has heard of this? Is there more concrete proof?

Surely if this was true it would be common knowledge wouldnt it? Everyone knows about what happened when Guru Nanak Dev Ji went to Mecca, so why no sources on Rome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://satguru.weebly.com/satguru-nanak-sahib-went-to-greece-rome-etc-according-to-forcible-entries-of-roman-empire1609.html

http://satguru.weebly.com/

The above links are supposedly from a Sikh researcher who has found evidence that Guru Nanaj Dev Ji went to rome in the early 16th century and helped to abolish slavery. Most of the sources are sketchy or skewed and I want to know if anyone else has heard of this? Is there more concrete proof?

Surely if this was true it would be common knowledge wouldnt it? Everyone knows about what happened when Guru Nanak Dev Ji went to Mecca, so why no sources on Rome?

To me what we are possibly witnessing is very interesting in terms of the mind frame of the 'researcher' because it gives me an insight into the processes behind hagiography.

I don't doubt the authors faith, and even desire for good intentions towards the faith. But, the old school, noncritical or poorly critical method of historical research, where so much internal desire and belief gets 'projected' onto the research is a dangerous game in my opinion because if fables or poorly researched, erroneous notions get widely accepted at one point, and at some later stage (say a few generations later) are proven to be dubious, it generally leads to loss of faith. This is because people start to question the truth of the rest of the faith when falseness or mistakes that have come to be associated with it, get exposed.

There needs to be a balance in Sikh historiography and not this weak projection of ideas onto research, which skews it. Desi people are the worse at this. But that being said, even modern, capable historians like J S Grewal can't help project his own hogi, jat bullshit all over his Sikh historical research when he should know better. All of this stuff has the habit of leading to poorly constructed theories on one hand and the outright sweeping of inconvenient material in historical works under the mat, on the other. Add to this the embedding of agendas, (especially the caste one right now which tries to over play peasant contributions and underplay anyone elses) and we can easily arrive at a pile of bullshit calling itself 'Sikh history'.

No disrespect to the researcher above but he'd have a hard time being taken seriously by anyone with any degree of standards in terms of historical methodology. That being said, there will be plenty of people who will clutch their handbags to their chest aghast at the suggestion of the above persons research being unacceptable.

What we can see however, is how a pious mind's imagination can run riot, when not grounded - in my opinion.

Give me real, don't give me fake. And give me something solid not flimsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you came out with that. I didnt want to be accused of racism or projecting my own views on historical research. But this mix of NATO/Age of Aquarius type rubbish which Sikhs in the diaspora use to garner attention and perceived acceptance in the West is just like a kid playing with fireworks. It looks fun but ends badly. Twisting Sarbat da Bhalla to suit the globalized world we live in comes across as superfluous and paving over the cracks of things that normal people see day to day.

Just to add to what I posted on SS, as well as mistranslations of Latin, the researcher has fluffed his dates massively. If Guru Nanak Dev Ji went to Europe in the year mentioned, he would have arrived just as the slave trade was starting. Over the next century the amount of slaves traded would massively increase to over 80% of the global slave trade. The Catholic church turned a blind eye, and any Sikh influence (if it even existed) was negligible. In 1518 the Spanish and Portuguese were the most powerful states in Europe. They were in the process of exterminating local populations in the Caribbean and overrunning the Aztec empire. Slaves werent needed. The researcher also talks about slavery in Jamestown and New England. Unfortunately for him, none of those places existed as England was a bit of a medieval backwater then. It would be another 80 or so years before they would be found and the importation of slaves reached the levels that we are historically familiar with.

The researcher also says that Guru Nanak Dev Ji travelled extensively in Western Europe. The idea is laughable. In the 1510/20s the nations of Europe were gripped with fear at the Turkish defeat of the Eastern Roman Empire and the threat to the Christian heartlands of Europe. It was such a big issue that the usually warmongering nations of Europe put down their arms and signed the Treaty of London which forbade Christian countries from attacking one another and prepared them to begin to stop growing Ottoman influence. The thought of a bunch of Asian guys just wondering around Europe is mad. Europe back then was a lot like the Muslim world is now. I wouldnt go on a trek through Pakistan - Afghanistan - Iran - Iraq - Syria - Palestine - Saudi Arabia and back again. Back then it was different. Times change.

He also quotes a speech by Henry VIII as being related to New Spain/New England. Whilst the researcher thinks this means the colonies, it actually refers to the change in influence and power of both countries.

The researcher's tour guide supposedly said that Guru Nanak Dev ji stayed in a 'Pagan Cemetry'. This is the old roman graveyard that the Christian Romans built over. I doubt our Guru would have slept in a graveyard.

Also 'Nanacus' is a word used to describe a bearded man in the middle east. It also is a version of the name we would know as 'Noah'. Nanacus was a central european/asia minor word to describe various people who led their lot to safety like Noah. Not exactly a smoking gun.

Then there are the Italians. Why are they supposedly leading him on like this? Have they reallly admitted Guru Nanak Dev Ji visited or are they leading him on? Is it all in his head? We know how the Muslims have twisted our Guru's visit to Mecca as an acceptance of Islam. It took our 'scholars' and 'thinkers' numerous attempts to explain the truth, even though some still like to get lead around the muji merrygoround of half truths and twisted ideas, making the rest of us look stupid for not being able to explain to the sulleh how stupid they are. The xtians are far more organised and clever than a bunch of musi hairy fairies. The last thing we need is for them to claim Sikhi is an offshoot of Christism or that one of our Guru's was a Prester John type. God I hope this isnt the start of some big problem thanks to our own desperation to stay relevant or get accepted in the West.

I'm not going to bother going on, the rest of the research and leaps in logic are giving me a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I found surprising was Giani Thakur SIngh referring to the above researcher in one of his kathas in England as if his research was solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has some valid points and did dig out interesting information, but some of his 'findings' are imaginary and far fetched.

He did some good research on Guru Nanaks central Africa visit (which is a big possibilty since the Guru did visit as far as Egypt) and some other points. Also Puratan Granths do confirm the Gurus visits to Habh Desh (central Africa).

Now if we see that the Guru was in Baghdad around 1511 and came back to Punjab around 1521 we wonder what the Guru did so many years in those Arab countries? It is sad, that with an exception of a few incidents, not much is known about the Gurus visits to the east (or even other parts of the world).

We have a handful of Sakhis about the middle east while the Guru is reported to have stayed there for a few years.

(The memorial in Turkey has been proven to not have mentioned Nanak but Khanakh.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikhs were in contact with Baghdad by the time of Guru Hargobind, though it was likely earlier. Sikhs had also reached Burma by the time of the third Guru. The Sikhs are first recorded in North America by 1780. Records before the 1700s are super difficult to find and disseminate In the early 1800s Sikhs were located around the Caspian sea as well. For Guru Nanak to have reached Italy is not a far fetch at all considering the amount of transportation infrastructure across the Middle East and by sea. The Guru did not necessarily need to walk across the Middle East, he could have taken transportation which was in ample supply. These are recorded by sources external to Sikhi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These European connections are pure conjecture, based on the most tenuous of links from what I can see.

Stuff, a Mcleod type will come along later to use as evidence of Sikh gullibility and over active imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if we see that the Guru was in Baghdad around 1511 and came back to Punjab around 1521 we wonder what the Guru did so many years in those Arab countries? It is sad, that with an exception of a few incidents, not much is known about the Gurus visits to the east

Walked very slowly? Chances are he went to visit the old South Asian cultural centres of Central Asia, we arent from his time so it's hard to know what the world view was like at the time. As for going to Africa, it may have been possible. Some African states in that time period were undergoing their own Renaissance so were open to travellers. On the other hand the Turks were fighting a lot of wars in East and North Africa at the time so that's something we have to consider as well. Back then the Mughal Empire, Afghanistan, Persia and the Ottoman Empire were relatively safe places to travel.

Sikhs were in contact with Baghdad by the time of Guru Hargobind, though it was likely earlier. Sikhs had also reached Burma by the time of the third Guru. The Sikhs are first recorded in North America by 1780. Records before the 1700s are super difficult to find and disseminate In the early 1800s Sikhs were located around the Caspian sea as well. For Guru Nanak to have reached Italy is not a far fetch at all considering the amount of transportation infrastructure across the Middle East and by sea. The Guru did not necessarily need to walk across the Middle East, he could have taken transportation which was in ample supply. These are recorded by sources external to Sikhi.

'Hindoos' were present in North America by 1780. But that's still 260 years after Guru Nanak Dev Ji was meant to have visitted these places. Why the desperation to link him to certain parts of the world? I thought the Christians were bad with all their talk of Jesus going around Europe and maybe America on the flimsiest of evidence, but we've decided to do the same. Imagine what Guru Nanak Dev Ji would have to say about that! He'd probably find a good way of showing us how stupid we are.

Chances are that he walked most of the way. That's what most people did back then.

Also to add to the counter argument, I have to ask why would Guru Nanak have gone to Rome? The Pope was more of a dictator back then and he was at war with other parts of Europe. The Catholic Church in the 1510s signed off on the Christian version of the Dawa. This allowed Christians to kill/rape/loot from any non-Christian if they refused to accept Christ as their Lord. What would Guru Nanak Dev Ji have made of that? Europeans back then loved taking foreigners hostage and demanding ransoms. Europe then isnt like Europe now, and no amount of twisting will make it that way.

I'm sorry, but just because some people wish it to be true or because it suits their world view doesnt make it true.

Edited by HSD1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am going to state below is not what happened per sé nor am I saying that the Guru DID visit the following places.

But given that the Guru visited all important religious places in India and even outside of Asia, wouldn't Rome be a possibilty? Like the Christians were already in India since apostle Thomas if I'm not mistaken which is about 13 centuries before Guru Nanak. So the Guru must have known of Christianity, so why not visit Rome? This is just an hypothesis, a question, not saying the Guru DID go there as there is not sufficient proof as of yet.

note: The Guru visited places related to Hinduism (Hardwar, Benaras, Ayodhya, ...), Islam (Mecca, Medina, ...), Buddhism (Bodh Gaya, ...) and even went on to meet the prominent religious figures of that era such as Chaitanya etc).

Others then that, Guru Sahibs visit to Egypt and Central Africa is not disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was joking about the walking slowly bit lol. But there would have been plenty to see in the Middle East for walking travellers, Persia littered their roads with monuments and temples.

But why would he visit Rome? How do we know he knew of Christianity or that he was interested in anything it had to say? There were a few Christians in India during his time, nothing like it is now or was in apostle thomas's time. If he did come to Europe he would have known of the New World so why didnt he go and visit Tenochtitlan, a city far larger than any in Europe?

Anyway, you do know that the Vatican City didnt exist back then, dont you? The Pope had his own country (the Papal States) and spent plenty of time waging war with other European countries and fighting their Churches for overall control of Christianity in Europe. Paris had become an important centre of Christianity in Europe due to them pulling away from Rome at that time. Should we assume that Guru Nanak Dev Ji went there too?

I think it would be wrong to assume or conject he went to places we cant prove. The onus is on researchers to provide a smoking gun. There is nothing so far.

Edited by HSD1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking Sikh not 'Hindoo' or Assyrian. Sikhs also had a gurdwara in Iran by the mid-1800s. There is no need to link anything with any region, Sikhs were there, plain and simple. Sikhs were prolific travellers, Guru Nanak set the standard for this. Despite what current histiography may tell you the Sikhs were moving across the world long before the British took control of Punjab. It needs to be understood Sikh communities were under the control of the British Empire by the 1750s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking Sikh not 'Hindoo' or Assyrian. Sikhs also had a gurdwara in Iran by the mid-1800s. There is no need to link anything with any region, Sikhs were there, plain and simple. Sikhs were prolific travellers, Guru Nanak set the standard for this. Despite what current histiography may tell you the Sikhs were moving across the world long before the British took control of Punjab. It needs to be understood Sikh communities were under the control of the British Empire by the 1750s.

Right ok, that is interesting. Who were the Sikhs in America by 1780 during the American War of Independence? Or were they Canadians/Mexicans?

I'm not sure what a Gurudwara in Iran has to do with Guru Nanak Dev ji's travels three centuries before. Chances are they were in Iran having fled the Punjab due it's troubles with political infighting and occupation by the British in the decade before.

Every race can be considered prolific travellers. Why you need to mention it, I dont know. I'm sure Punjabis travelled the world before him.

No one is saying that Sikhs left the Punjab for the first time after the British took over either. But understanding that times change and travel varies in different periods cant just be ignored. Nor can we just make up history because it feels 'right'.

Sikh communities were under the control of the Brits by the 1850s, surely?

Edited by HSD1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking Sikh not 'Hindoo' or Assyrian. Sikhs also had a gurdwara in Iran by the mid-1800s. There is no need to link anything with any region, Sikhs were there, plain and simple. Sikhs were prolific travellers, Guru Nanak set the standard for this. Despite what current histiography may tell you the Sikhs were moving across the world long before the British took control of Punjab. It needs to be understood Sikh communities were under the control of the British Empire by the 1750s.

I don't dispute the fact that there well may have been the odd Sikh merchant that got out further than we can imagine today due to their business or that the odd soldier of fortune ending up as a mercenary in some far flung location.

But what has been highlighted in the OP is pretty credulous to me. It's almost as if the author wants to project Sikhi as some stimulating factor for European liberality?

I'd like evidence of a Gurdwara in Iran at the period mentioned above just out of interest. I know that this isn't impossible given the power of Sikhs in those times and when you say Gurdwara, it was probably more like a private residence of a Sikh or Sikh sympathiser which was a stopping/resting point for Sikh travelers.

So what Sikh communities were under the control of the British by the 1750s then? I know Hazoori Sikhs were probably the first to be under the direct political influence of Europeans. Plus we know that people like Omnichand were around, but you seem to be suggesting something more significant than this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all! Ive returned from my trip from the borders of yam-lok. I know you all missed me.

But seeing this, the way it was portrayed, made it seem absolutely true, but on visiting the website connected with it, i was very disappointed. the whole episode with most of the others is based on semi-plausible visits. Guru Ji went that way, but he MAY have visited such and such a town or village nearby...

IN the absence of any hard evidence, it will come down to this. There are traditions that say Guru Sahib visited such and such a place. No evidence exists, so it rests in the mind of the individual, on how to take it. Of course it would be brilliant, if we could definitely say, Guru Ji visited Europe, Africa etc.

Places where records of visits are not documented,no literature or monuments exist, are always going to be difficult to explain/prove. So where to go from here?

Im going to study that website a little more, but honestly, my initial joy has been dampened somewhat.

Edited by chatanga1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost as if the author wants to project Sikhi as some stimulating factor for European liberality?

Well it's in the interests of the diaspora to think and project things like this so it shouldnt come as a surprise.

Hello all! Ive returned from my trip from the borders of yam-lok. I know you all missed me.

But seeing this, the way it was portrayed, made it seem absolutely true, but on visiting the website connected with it, i was very disappointed. the whole episode with most of the others is based on semi-plausible visits. Guru Ji went that way, but he MAY have visited such and such a town or village nearby...

IN the absence of any hard evidence, it will come down to this. There are traditions that say Guru Sahib visited such and such a place. No evidence exists, so it rests in the mind of the individual, on how to take it. Of course it would be brilliant, if we could definitely say, Guru Ji visited Europe, Africa etc.

Places where records of visits are not documented,no literature or monuments exist, are always going to be difficult to explain/prove. So where to go from here?

Im going to study that website a little more, but honestly, my initial joy has been dampened somewhat.

We all thought you had been turned into Findus Pancakes :S

I think we need to assess the sources for a lot of this. It's becoming apparent that a lot of Sikh researchers missed stuff or just projected their own views, especially after the Anglo-Sikh wars. A more honest appraisal would give a solid foundation for further understanding, and prevent a political outlook being projected as it has been in the past.

Panth Parkash confirms Guru Nanaks visit to Central Africa. So does the memorial discovered in Egypt by British Indian Sikh soldiers on Sudan expedition in 1880s.

Africa is a big place. Rome isnt in Africa. Slavery in the 1500s targetted western Africa, not the centre or eastern part.

It wouldnt be too farfetched to imagine Guru Nanak Dev ji having some interest in the established trans-Saharan trade routes that existed back then.

Do you have pics of this monument in Sudan/Egypt? I hope it wasnt a ruse by the Brits to justify to the Sikhs their killing of Sudanese nationalists and freedom fighters.

Edited by HSD1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's in the interests of the diaspora to think and project things like this so it shouldnt come as a surprise.

We all thought you had been turned into Findus Pancakes :S

I think we need to assess the sources for a lot of this. It's becoming apparent that a lot of Sikh researchers missed stuff or just projected their own views, especially after the Anglo-Sikh wars. A more honest appraisal would give a solid foundation for further understanding, and prevent a political outlook being projected as it has been in the past.

Africa is a big place. Rome isnt in Africa. Slavery in the 1500s targetted western Africa, not the centre or eastern part.

It wouldnt be too farfetched to imagine Guru Nanak Dev ji having some interest in the established trans-Saharan trade routes that existed back then.

Do you have pics of this monument in Sudan/Egypt? I hope it wasnt a ruse by the Brits to justify to the Sikhs their killing of Sudanese nationalists and freedom fighters.

Who said Rome is in Africa? I was talking about the fact that Guru Nanaks visit to Africa is credibly sourced by the author in the link of the OP, while you and others are busy dismissing his whole site.

Did I say that the Guru visited central or east Africa to free slaves? I just said that the Guru did visit the places and Harpal Singh Kasoor did have a point but his facts were often far fetched.

The monument has been documented in history. And how would that monument justify the Sikhs of them killing Sudanese freedom fighters?

Edited by SikhKhoj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said Rome is in Africa? I was talking about the fact that Guru Nanaks visit to Africa is credibly sourced by the author in the link of the OP, while you and others are busy dismissing his whole site.

Did I say that the Guru visited central or east Africa to free slaves? I just said that the Guru did visit the places and Harpal Singh Kasoor did have a point but his facts were often far fetched.

The monument has been documented in history. And how would that monument justify the Sikhs of them killing Sudanese freedom fighters?

Woah woah, no need to be so touchy. My OP specifically asked about Rome and the 'ending' of slavery (when it hadnt even begun). Just because there might be evidence of trips to 'Africa' doesnt equal trips to Europe. The evidence in the link is patchy at best and not well documented. If you have the specifics, please post, we're interested in getting to the bottom of this. None of the points to counter the evidence have been refuted. His 'facts' arent farfetched either - they're just plain wrong. His dates are fluffed massively and his interpretation of translations and speeches is just odd.

The British stole a lot of Granths, twisted and made up prophecies and paid 'religous' people to make their rule over Sikhs easier. It wouldnt be too farfetched to use evidence of Sikhs being in Africa to justify the presence of Sikh troops there. A lot of Hindus in the British Indian Army refused to serve abroad and leave India for religous reasons. It took the British a while to overcome these attitudes in various ways.

I cant remember the part of Panth Prakash that lists the trip to Africa, could you please post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that the author does have some valid points regarding the Gurus visit to Africa, and that there is insufficient proof for Europe.

The evidence for Egypt in particular is not bad.

Yes, the British manipulated Granths like Sau Sakhi, paid people to change Sikhi, you can still see how Hajur and Patna are messed and coincidently they were in British hands first of all Sikh centers. Mahants of Patna were provided with opium by the British etc. But not part of our discussion here.

The monument was found by soldiers who were going to Sudan but found it in EGYPT, so how would a monument in Egypt justify Sudan war even if we agree to your 'British Imperialistic conspiracy theory' angle?


Prachin Panth Parkash & Prof Gurmukh Singh Lahore mention Guru Nanaks visit to central Africa.
Discovery of the monument in Egypt is mentioned in Naveen Panth Parkash.


Besides that historian Lal Singh Sangrur of the 20th century also mentions of Guru Nanaks visit to Rome (altough I personally believe that one source is not enough).

It is just sad that we have lost a chunk of our history in the wars against opressors and just our own short sightedness... I have a personal feeling that people in many countries adopted Sikhi but that we lost them overtime, the Tibetis, Uzbekis, Arabs etc and god know what else our hagiographicla Janamsakhis didn't record.

Kasoor has spent a huge part of his life travelling to different countries and trying to find facts related to Sikh ithaas, which we should respect, not keeping in mind whether he made extra-ordinary discoveries or not.

Edited by SikhKhoj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is funny that you do not even know what you are discussing about,

the monument was found by soldiers who were going to Sudan but found it

in EGYPT, so how would a monument in Egypt justify Sudan war even if we

agree to a 'British Imperialistic conspiracy theory' angle?

I think if anyone doesnt know what they are on about it's those who are desperate for evidence of a trip to Rome. Anyway, Sudan and Egypt have had a fluid history and at times were the same country, other times they were seperate.

At the time of British intervention, there was thought that Egyptian and Sudanese nationalists might unite to kick the Brits out to form an united country. If you cant provide a location for this place apart from somewhere in Africa then we dont know where this monument lies according to modern international boundaries. Using a supposed monument would have had a massive boost to the spirit of Sikh troops in Africa, the Brits arent above such tactics. The threat of muslims desecrating such a shrine would have made Sikhs fight with a lot more vigour.

I'm not saying they did, I would love nothing more than for this to be true, but we've had so much spin over the years that I'm going to be cautious and questionning this time. Does this researcher have pictures of the monument in question? Please share, it would be good to have some tangible evidence.

Yes, the British manipulated Granths like Sau Sakhi, paid people to

change Sikhi, you can still see how Hajur and Patna are messed and

coincidently they were in British hands first of all Sikh centers.

Mahants of Patna were provided with opium by the British etc. But not

part of our discussion here.

It is if people are continuing to twist things to suit their current social climate. A bit like prophecies that Maharaja Duleep Singh would kick the British out, that the British would leave the Punjab in Sikh hands if we helped them defeat the 'evil' Axis, the prophecies that Sikhs would get Khalistan, the prophecies that a Sikh would sit on the throne of Delhi and sit at the head of the Indian army and would lead the Khalsa to world domination (which was talked about a few years ago when Manmohan Singh was 'elected' and the head of the Indian Military was Sikh, until he got kicked out) or the modern prophecies about WW3 blah blah etc. We cant say it's not relevant if it is reflecting a manifestation of behaviour that is seeping into Sikh minds from external sources and is reinforced by our feelings towards them.

Prachin Panth Parkash & Prof Gurmukh Singh Lahore mention Guru Nanaks visit to central Africa.

Discovery of the monument in Egypt is mentioned in Naveen Panth Parkash.

Could you quote the part of Prachin Panth Prakash that has the quote or give me a page reference so I can go look myself?

Naveen Panth Prakash is not something I have a copy of. Could you post the text?

Besides that historian Lal Singh Sangrur of the 20th century also

mentions of Guru Nanaks visit to Rome (altough I personally believe that

one source is not enough).

But where did he get his evidence from?

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...