Jump to content

Guru Nanak Dev Ji In Rome And Slavery


Recommended Posts

The monument was discovered in Cairo, not a place where the soldiers had
to serve. Secondly the British didn't discover it but the soldiers
themselves did as mentioned in Naveen Panth Parkash. The Sikhs were passing
there and discovered the monument - no British conspiracy angle as the
Sikhs didn't know about the monument BEFORE they were sent to Sudan.

The researcher has pics of the monument

The researcher has put up scans from Kavi Santokh Singhs book saying Guru Ji went rome. Lal Singh Sangrur confirmed this again last century. The itinerary the researcher has put up may not be true and just a figment of his imagination, but you can't deny that he does have evidence for Guru Nanaks visit to Rome.

There are several sources plus a monument in Africa supporting Guru Nanaks visit there (Naveen and Prachin Panth Parkash).

Edited by SikhKhoj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The monument was discovered in Cairo, not a place where the soldiers had

to serve. Secondly the British didn't discover it but the soldiers

themselves did as mentioned in Naveen Panth Parkash. The Sikhs were passing

there and discovered the monument - no British conspiracy angle as the

Sikhs didn't know about the monument BEFORE they were sent to Sudan.

The earliest reference to this from academics says the Cairo monument was found by Sikhs during the Second World War during the struggle in North Africa. If you have pictures, post them.

The researcher has pics of the monument

He has pictures of a monument in Turkey. If you have the link, please share, I cant find it.

The researcher has put up scans from Kavi Santokh Singhs book saying Guru Ji went rome.

So is this in Suraj Prakash?

Lal Singh Sangrur confirmed this again last century.

But where did he get his information from?

The itinerary the researcher has put up may not be true and just a

figment of his imagination, but you can't deny that he does have

evidence for Guru Nanaks visit to Rome.

I can and I will.

There are several sources plus a monument in Africa supporting Guru Nanaks visit there (Naveen and Prachin Panth Parkash).

At least quote me a page number, I'm not going to reread them, you're really not helping here. No pictures of this monument either isnt helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says it was found during Second World War?

Gyan Singhs Panth Parkash clearly mentions the Cairo monument and its written in the end of the 19th century.

That Turkey monument is bogus, researcher is wrong here. Research shows the monument says Khanikh not Nanak. But he has Egypt monument pics too in the Egypt section I think.

Its in Nanak Parkash 1823.

I can do a wild guess and say Lal Singh Sangrur got it from Santokh Singh because thats perhaps the only Puratan Granth we know of that mentions Rome being visited by the Guru.

check this link, and before you comment do not think that I accept everything that the author suggests, but look at the scan, his references and photos.

http://satguru.weebly.com/satguru-nanak-sahib-in-egypt.html

Edited by SikhKhoj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book by Kohli contradicts itself. It cant make up whether Sikhs knew about the shrine during the Great War or the war in the Sudan. Why no pictures? If some smart people from a research team can make a mistake in Istanbul, whats to say that whoever went to Cairo didnt make similar mistakes? At least the Canadian research team were big enough to admit it. Still no smoking gun. Mentioning Sufis doesnt help either, their main centre was in Baghdad, not Cairo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book by Kohli isn't the main proof, thats secondary. Main proof is Panth Parkash clearly confirming sikh soldiers discovering it.
There are old pictures of it and it stated Wali Hind.

Cairo one was confirmed by Sikh historians of that time, Istanbul one never was.

Sufi link wasn't really a proof.

What about Nanak Parkash mentioning Rome? Panth Parkash mentioning Central Africa? Prof Gurmukh singh mentioning central africa too?

Edited by SikhKhoj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting the debate aside, as a brother, I want to tell you one thing. Many countries mentioned in the Janamsakhis are difficult to locate now and we probably never will know where they are, so there must have been some countries the Gurus visited which are not in our knowledge as of now.

I mean Janamsakhis used words such as Asa Desh, Dhanasri Desh Habsh Desh etc.

You should stop taking everything as an argument, sometimes I just forward an hypothesis like above. And on the link I clearly said I do not support all because you would jump on it and start attacking the weaker points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not arguing, it's a discussion. You say we cant tell where these countries are but that old sources provide place names. I cant remember the Older Panth Prakash mentioning Rome. As for Cairo, it should be investigated further. But be sceptical of urdu reading soldiers being able to translate old arabic. Or the historical perspectives that we may not be able to see too clearly today either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am just saying that on one side we all know the famous visits such as Baghdad, Mecca, Hardwar but then there are many sakhis (not all are made up) which we don't even know where they took place, and sometimes if the place is mentioned we do not know where to place it. Like there is mention of a Dhanasri Desh, any idea what it could be? Kasoor thinks its Sumatra.

1. Not Panth Parkash but Nanak Parkash mentioned Rome and Kasoor has scans of it on his site.
2. Kasoor visited Cairo but for some unknown reason he put no pictures of the Monument even though he was able to get acces to it with the help of some police officer.

3. I personally know an old Sikh uncle who was born in what is today known as Pak, and he could read Arabic without understanding it. But then the second question arises, what is difficult to understand in "Al Wali Nanak Mukaam"?
4. Panth Parkash of Gyan Singh confirms that soldiers did find the monument and distributed Karah Parshad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book by Kohli contradicts itself.

How so?

"It has been learnt that a platform of Nanak Wali still exists

in honour of the visit of the Guru in the Suburban area of Cairo. This information

has been gathered from persons serving the British army during the I GreatWar. In

Sikh chronicles, the city visited by Guru Nanak is mentioned as Kai-kai which is

said to be modern Cairo. But Giani Gian Singh has written that the Sikh soldiers

who took part in Soudan expedition against Mehdi in 1886, actually saw platform,

towards the south of the town of Kaikai, which was stated to be the place where

the Master had met the Sultan and that the Sikh soldiers held congregation and sacrament

there."

Exact passage from his book. He says that soldiers servin during the 1st War have seen it, then he says Sikh chronicles agree to Guru Jis visit to Kaikai (modern Cairo) and then he says that another author wrote that the Sikhs discovered it in 1886.

What contradiction is there if Sikhs discovered in 1886 and Sikhs re-confirming during first war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am just saying that on one side we all know the famous visits such as Baghdad, Mecca, Hardwar but then there are many sakhis (not all are made up) which we don't even know where they took place, and sometimes if the place is mentioned we do not know where to place it. Like there is mention of a Dhanasri Desh, any idea what it could be? Kasoor thinks its Sumatra.

1. Not Panth Parkash but Nanak Parkash mentioned Rome and Kasoor has scans of it on his site.

2. Kasoor visited Cairo but for some unknown reason he put no pictures of the Monument even though he was able to get acces to it with the help of some police officer.

3. I personally know an old Sikh uncle who was born in what is today known as Pak, and he could read Arabic without understanding it. But then the second question arises, what is difficult to understand in "Al Wali Nanak Mukaam"?

4. Panth Parkash of Gyan Singh confirms that soldiers did find the monument and distributed Karah Parshad.

The problem with figuring out these countries is that we have to get into the mindset of Indians and see why they would use certain words to describe places. There must be other texts written at the same time that have similar words to describe these places. If not, other things like events in the Sakhis or similarities with other descriptions from travellers from non-Indian backgrounds could be used to cross check. It will be a mammoth task, far more than for any one individual. Mr Kasoor should have got a team together before hand to do this 'backroom' type information crunching before he set out. He also needs a better camera or photographer, some of his pictures are very difficult to make out. I'm not slagging him off, his adventurous streak puts everyone younger than him to shame, but he could have had a smoking gun right there and then.

1. But if it was written in the 1880s then where did the information come from? If from oral Nihang stroy telling, could we find more information that may not have been transcribed?

2. His pictures show a fortress type place, possibly on high ground, akin to where Sikh soldiers may have been staying during the various wars during the time. But this probably wasnt the only place the British garrisoned troops. With the name of the Punjabi regiment, using British military records we could figure out where they were billeted and what routes they would have taken from disembarking off ships to the fort/barracks. With that information on a map if would be easy for Kasoor or anyone else to verify whether it is the same one that our lot found back then.

3. The researchers had a similar problem in Turkey where they didnt account for damage or regional differences in the use of words. Kasoor talks about a 'Nanacus' that he has found in Rome, but Nanacus is a word to describe a bearded man in parts of Europe or a play on the word 'Noah' in others. The same may be true of the Cairo shrine.

4. But was this the same one that Kasoor or the Sikhs from WW1/WW2 found?

How so?

"It has been learnt that a platform of Nanak Wali still exists

in honour of the visit of the Guru in the Suburban area of Cairo. This information

has been gathered from persons serving the British army during the I GreatWar. In

Sikh chronicles, the city visited by Guru Nanak is mentioned as Kai-kai which is

said to be modern Cairo. But Giani Gian Singh has written that the Sikh soldiers

who took part in Soudan expedition against Mehdi in 1886, actually saw platform,

towards the south of the town of Kaikai, which was stated to be the place where

the Master had met the Sultan and that the Sikh soldiers held congregation and sacrament

there."

Exact passage from his book. He says that soldiers servin during the 1st War have seen it, then he says Sikh chronicles agree to Guru Jis visit to Kaikai (modern Cairo) and then he says that another author wrote that the Sikhs discovered it in 1886.

What contradiction is there if Sikhs discovered in 1886 and Sikhs re-confirming during first war?

But how do we know that they are the same? I couldnt find my grandparents ancestral village in West Punjab, even though its only been 60 years. The book was written about 60 years after it was first found and roughly 30 years after it was refound in WW1. How can we say, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are the same? Also which Sultan did Guru Nanak Dev Ji meet? If it was a Mamluk Sultan, they didnt last long so who put up the monument? We're getting more questions than answers now.

Can you help me find which Janamsakhi describe Guru Nanaks 'torture' in Ehtiopia/Abyssinia/Habsh Desh? Have read in several books about it.

I have only heard of Guru Nanak being imprisoned by Babur, who else tortured him? Was it ethiopian christians or portuguese pirates? Both were known to be trouble makers in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It's exactly this personal feeling stuff that gets us in trouble. In this day and age, with close scrutiny, and a demand of evidence, people can't afford for such such things to be accepted en masse. It just get proven as the ramblings of a 'pious mind' and used as further evidence that Sikhs have a weak historiography.

asoor 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.

Like I'm trying to get at. Any weak stuff gets used against us in the end. I don't doubt the brother's good intentions but his stuff is weak as even you admit. We need to be able to stand up to our critics - not hand them a another coup to highlight the 'simplemindedness' of apnay, which is exactly what they do in their academic papers on our heritage.

Ignoring this reality is tantamount to burying your head in the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with figuring out these countries is that we have to get

into the mindset of Indians and see why they would use certain words to

describe places. There must be other texts written at the same time that

have similar words to describe these places. If not, other things like

events in the Sakhis or similarities with other descriptions from

travellers from non-Indian backgrounds could be used to cross check. It

will be a mammoth task, far more than for any one individual. Mr Kasoor

should have got a team together before hand to do this 'backroom' type

information crunching before he set out. He also needs a better camera

or photographer, some of his pictures are very difficult to make out.

I'm not slagging him off, his adventurous streak puts everyone younger

than him to shame, but he could have had a smoking gun right there and

then.

Agreed HSD, and that is what he did for Dhanasri desh kind off (think with their mentality and vocabulary)

1. But if it was written in the 1880s then where did the information

come from? If from oral Nihang stroy telling, could we find more

information that may not have been transcribed?

2. His pictures show a fortress type place, possibly on high ground,

akin to where Sikh soldiers may have been staying during the various

wars during the time. But this probably wasnt the only place the British

garrisoned troops. With the name of the Punjabi regiment, using British

military records we could figure out where they were billeted and what

routes they would have taken from disembarking off ships to the

fort/barracks. With that information on a map if would be easy for

Kasoor or anyone else to verify whether it is the same one that our lot

found back then.

3. The researchers had a similar problem in Turkey where they didnt

account for damage or regional differences in the use of words. Kasoor

talks about a 'Nanacus' that he has found in Rome, but Nanacus is a word

to describe a bearded man in parts of Europe or a play on the word

'Noah' in others. The same may be true of the Cairo shrine.

4. But was this the same one that Kasoor or the Sikhs from WW1/WW2 found?

1. The

monument was discovered in 1886 by soldier in Egypt, right? And Panth Parkash

of Gian Singh does contain this information. The thing is that Panth Parkash

was written first in 1880, so that edition does not contain the reference BUT

the edition of either 1889 or 1898 does, meaning that it was contemponary

information.

2.

Here you

are agreeing (in theory) that there was a monument in Egpypt in Guru Jis memory

in 1886, but it is not the same as the one pointed out by Kasoor. Right?

The mention of the Punjab regiment was not to prove any route, but to show that

Gyani Gian Singh was right in claiming that Sikh regiment in 1886 found

monument as there WAS indeed a regiment of Sikhs around that time in the given

place, so Gian Singh didn’t write imaginary tales.

3. I disagree. If you know about Guru Nanaks travels, you know that e was known by different names in different places, such as Tibet, China, etc.

In Arab countries he was known under the name of Wali Hind, Nanak Wali etc (this can be confirmed from mosques which did exist with the name Wali e Hind etc as a memorial of Guru jis visit there).

4. I can't say surely, but I am sure that the soldiers of WWI did know about 1886 monument through oral traditions esp if they serving in same place, so don't think they can be mistaken on hat, besides it was a known fact back then, Guru Nanaks visit has been confirmed by Gian Singh, and even other famous scholars around that time such as Prof Gurmukh Singh and Karam Singh Historian etc.

And Dalsingh, I firmly believe the Guru did convert people all over, there are so many proofs how can you just ignore? A Colonel once passed in tibet in 60s and Tibetis were celebrating Guru Nanak Gurpurb. Syed Prithpal Singh confirms the existence of indigenous habitants of Arab practising Sikhi. I have heard about the Sobtis in Iraq who used to be Sikhs until 1960s (mentioned in a few books). The ex mp and minority commision chairman Trilochan Singh once spoke of an island near Europe which had preserved Gurbani and people over time had reverted back, need to find exact details about it but he had met those people personally etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Ok , so it was discovered by accident but was it incorporated as evidence or was it extrapolated out to spin a story?

2. I dont know. Kasoor say there is a monument but he didnt take pictures of any inscriptions. So it's a bit like Schrodinger's cat, we dont know either way. But we also have to make sure beyond doubt that it is one and the same as was discovered before. Cairo is a big place and Kasoor has made mistakes in Rome that dont exactly fill me with confidence about this one.

My point about the Punjab regiment is that with tangible evidence of where they were in Cairo we could pinpoint where they found it.

3. True, but a lot of people have similar names that can be misinterpreted. Khanak/Nanacus arent Guru Nanak.

4. It's a shame they didnt leave definitive co-ordinates for it. Chances are it is the one that Kasoor found, but we have to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems better, you are not outright ruling out Guru Nanaks possibilty of having visited Africa/Rome.

1. It was discovered during the authors lifetime, so he confirmed it and explained in his book how the monument was discovered. He probably did as a proof to say that Guru went further than the Arabian peninsula.

2. True that, I was wondering the same. I had read the exact description long ago but I am not finding it again but perhaps Kasoor is right, just need to confirm it. Also need to find which Janamsakhis mention Gurus visits to Kaikai ('Cairo').

Yes that is right.

3. Wali Hind or Nanak Wali can not have been someone else in my humble opinion, given that many mosques and memorials exist preserving Guru Sahibs visit and they often have Wali Hind or Nanak Wali names, as said in many books.

4. True that.

5. The persecution of Guru ji in Abyssinia was apparently at the hands of the king who 'hated Hindus' and tortured them. I have read of the Guru beingthrown in water, fire etc and in the end the king became Guru jis disciple, you can see exaggeration as in most Sakhis but we can't rule out Guru jis visit simply because the story is presented in a unbelievable way, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

So I read and asked around and there is no mention of the Ethiopia incident. Either someone made it up or people are getting a bit carried away. Whilst researching, it turns out that Yogi Bhajan told his followers that Guru Nanak went to Sri Lanka on the back of a blue whale. It's such a shame that Sikhs cant see past all the bs and just focus on what Guru Nanak did rather than where he went or how he got there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. The persecution of Guru ji in Abyssinia was apparently at the hands of the king who 'hated Hindus' and tortured them. I have read of the Guru beingthrown in water, fire etc and in the end the king became Guru jis disciple, you can see exaggeration as in most Sakhis but we can't rule out Guru jis visit simply because the story is presented in a unbelievable way, no?

Where did you read about the visit to Abyssinia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

^^^

What you talking about. I've heard all manner of gibberish from Hindus about spaceships and whatnot in their texts. Why don't focus on your solving own communities problems instead of trying to resolve ours anyway?

Not all of us are idiots here. You're just spouting McLeodian bullshit at us.

If we are going to talk about the mythologisation of history and exaggeration; look closer to home for the biggest examples.

My point was about a critical, reserved appraisal of history, at least Sikhs can still try and achieve this (and many still do try!) on the other hand wider Indic history has become so enmeshed in mythology and exaggeration that it is impossible to do. Before you point fingers have a think about how much of your own stuff is teh product of rampant fantasies.

And why the eff have you come here to attack Sikhs?

If any Sikh went onto a Hindu forum to attack them I'd think they were twats. Get my point?

I fail to understand why there is so much desperation among (almost) all of the Sikh historians and scholars to concoct such fantasies.

You are talking out of your arse, we have PLENTY of serious, capable grounded historians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tat Khalsa had their strengths and limitations. The colonial period brought out the sycophant in most colonised people. The paradigms the invaders brought with them had some merit, even if the invaders were insidious, motivated, duplicitous jerks.

It did help strengthen trends at a more modern approach to historiography by Sikhs but at the same time we should acknowledge indigenous Sikh movement in this direction with the works of Sewa Das, Sainapati and the later Rattan Bhangu for example.

Sure, early forays by Singh Sabha weren't perfect, but whose approach was? Hindu Arya Samaj revisionism? Indo-Islamic revisionism?

I see them as pioneering works that initiated the attempt to explore history with a more critical perspective. They aren't the be all and end all but they are a part of my communities intellectual evolution even if this was stimulated by the dubious white mf's 'annexation'.

You consider yourself a Nanakpanthi - okay cool. But how the hell do you get off by implicitly dissing GGS by attacking the decisions he made - on a Sikh forum no less! Check yourself!

Anyway, to help you balance your skewed perspective. Have a read of this translation I did a while back. It's the writings of a prominent Sikh historian - someone we can call the father of modern Sikh history - and yes, he does come from the Singh Sabha tradition!

But see for yourself, how he has tried to be fair and honest. See for yourself how he acknowledges Hindu textual/literary achievements as well as Semitic ones. I'm no blind advocate of the Singh Sabha movement, but I do recognise some positives from them - mainly in written forays. Judge for yourself.

http://www.sikhawareness.com/index.php/topic/14794-the-making-of-sikh-history-literally-a-translation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well-written, hard-hitting analysis dalSingh. Even Guru Nanak devji's udasis to Mecca, Medina and Baghdad remain in a realm of doubt/skepticism. The only 'evidence' of these visits is an ineligible inscription found in bagdad in 1918. V.L. Menage a Reader in Turkish at the School of Oriental and Mrican studies and other scholars have already rejected that the Bagdad inscription has got anything to do with Baba Nanak. Acc to him, the inscription is from the early 19th century.

I fail to understand why there is so much desperation among (almost) all of the Sikh historians and scholars to concoct such fantasies.

All religions, nations, cultures or take any group rewrite history. Sikhs are no exceptions .truth is almost impossible to find .People just read and like what they like to hear

BTW are you Sher from TLH ? I guess you are , ab maza aayega there will lots of fireworks here :P

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...