Why Sikhi failed to spread

[das]

Yes, Gurus did not ran after their children to bring them back, but at the same time They also did not look for active converts like the way we seek. In the end, everyone has the choice of freewill and one should not force their own will on anyone. As the law states: Do the hard-work but do NOT expect the good results.......our job is just to do the hard-work without actively looking for results.

That being said, I think we both have expressed ourselves (or may be someone else's thoughts) enough and it's best to leave this topic at current position; because eventually neither you nor me could do anything about it except for writing and arguing about this online.......

.....see we're (me included) acting like intellectuals who are just acting at the hands of Mind and thinking we're unique, knowledgeable, etc.etc.etc. ..............e.g I remember a story that I heard........it was a time when Jawaharlal Nehru was invited to inaugurate a Mental Asylum; on the day of inauguration Nehru was introduced to a Mentally unstable person who used to be top rated professor in some University and have also authored couple of books. Nehru spoke with that mental person asking his name etc. to which the person responded correctly but after couple of minutes the person started acting weirdly. At the end of conversation, the Mental person asked Nehru: you've asked me so many questions, but didn't tell me about yourself. To this Nehru stated: I'm The Prime Minister of India.......The mental person sympathetically told Nehru: Don't worry, you will be alright after sometime as every new person in Asylum calls himself Prime Minister........

[kdsingh80]

12 minutes ago, das said:

Yes, Gurus did not ran after their children to bring them back, but at the same time They also did not look for active converts like the way we seek. In the end, everyone has the choice of freewill and one should not force their own will on anyone. As the law states: Do the hard-work but do NOT expect the good results.......our job is just to do the hard-work without actively looking for results.

Majority of sikhs at that time came from converts, Guru amardas made masands who did active prachar of sikhi , read some katha's that Guru gobind singh asked some hill raja's to take amrit,Not saying Guru's ran after converts but they did active prachar and sikhs after Guru's and  upto Maharaja Ranjit singh also did that

[Guest guest]

from what i understand the massands were messengers (days before postal service) and not missionaries.

I never heard that Guru would ask hill rajas to take Amrit.  Where did you hear that?

 

[Guest]

On 02/02/2016 at 1:21 PM, amardeep said:

Not petty at all. There has always been missionary activities amongst the Sikhs, - however comparing them to other faiths that ran parallel to Sikhi you can see that Sikhi never managed to attract large numbers.

i don't think there has 'always been missionary activities amongst the sikhs'.  on what basis do you say that?

[Guest guest]

forget *converting* others, i think sikh community need to educate ourselves first of all

[Guest guest]

massands, as i understand, were messangers amongst Guru and devotees over large distances, not missionaries. 

I have never heard that Guru Gobind Singh ji asked Hill rajas to take Amrit.  where did you hear that?  infact as I recall he didn't *tell* anyone to take Amrit, he just called for whoever was willing to take it, to take it.

[Guest guest]

On 02/02/2016 at 1:21 PM, amardeep said:

. There has always been missionary activities amongst the Sikhs,

please explain further.  i don't see it

[Crystal]

On 02/02/2016 at 2:48 PM, kdsingh80 said:

Much of christianity islam did not spread by forced conversions , sufi's missionaries spread them , and please remember these days quantity has all the political power not quality.Quality has to depend on the mercy of majority  

What? Majority of the converts from thr arab world and africa has been under the sword of face death...

[kdsingh80]

5 hours ago, Guest guest said:

from what i understand the massands were messengers (days before postal service) and not missionaries.

I never heard that Guru would ask hill rajas to take Amrit.  Where did you hear that?

 

Not true

Quote

They preached, settled disputes and kept the Sikhs under a regular administrative system. The masands were not paid any salary. They retained a portion of the offerings received by them, with the approval of the Guru. All the offerings were presented every six months by the masands to the Guru on the festival days of Baisakhi and Diwali. Most of the masands were Jats, while a few were Brahmans and Khatris. At the time of departure the Guru bestowed upon masands turbans or robes of honour,"⁴ called saropasor a covering from head to foot.

Through masands number of Sikhs grew to such an extent that the senior ,nasandsappointed their own deputies in every place and quarter.⁵ The masand system worked well during the time of Guru Arjan and Guru Hargobind. Guru Har Rae stayed away from his headquarters at Nahan for twelve years.

https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-institutions/the-sikh-institutions-manji-masand

And about Guru gobind singh I read sakhi in Suraj prakash

[kdsingh80]

4 hours ago, Crystal said:

What? Majority of the converts from thr arab world and africa has been under the sword of face death...

Quote

Phase I: Early Caliphs and Umayyads (610–750 CE)[edit]

See also: Muslim conquests, Rashidun Caliphate and Umayyad Caliphate

Within the first century of the establishment of Islam upon the Arabian peninsula and the subsequent rapid expansion of the Arab Empire during the Muslim conquests, one of the most significant empires in world history was formed.^[8] For the subjects of this new empire, formerly subjects of the greatly reduced Byzantine, and obliterated Sassanid Empires, not much changed in practice. The objective of the conquests was more than anything of a practical nature, as fertile land and water were scarce in the Arabian peninsula. A real Islamization therefore only came about in the subsequent centuries.^[9]

Ira Lapidus distinguishes between two separate strands of converts of the time: one is animists and polytheists of tribal societies of the Arabian peninsula and the Fertile crescent; the other one is the monotheistic populations of the Middle Eastern agrarian and urbanized societies.^[10]

Islam was introduced in Arabia in the 7th century when the Muslim Arabs fled from the persecution of the Pagan Qurayshtribe. When the Muslims defeated the Pagans, some returned to Arabia, but many decided to stay there and established Muslim communities along the Somali coastline. The local Somalis adopted the Islamic faith well before the faith even took root in its place of origin.^[11]

For the polytheistic and pagan societies, apart from the religious and spiritual reasons each individual may have had, conversion to Islam "represented the response of a tribal, pastoral population to the need for a larger framework for political and economic integration, a more stable state, and a more imaginative and encompassing moral vision to cope with the problems of a tumultuous society."^[10] In contrast, for sedentary and often already monotheistic societies, "Islam was substituted for a Byzantine or Sassanian political identity and for a Christian, Jewish or Zoroastrian religious affiliation."^[10]Conversion initially was neither required nor necessarily wished for: "(The Arab conquerors) did not require the conversion as much as the subordination of non-Muslim peoples. At the outset, they were hostile to conversions because new Muslims diluted the economic and status advantages of the Arabs."^[10]

Only in subsequent centuries, with the development of the religious doctrine of Islam and with that the understanding of the Muslim ummah, did mass conversion take place. The new understanding by the religious and political leadership in many cases led to a weakening or breakdown of the social and religious structures of parallel religious communities such as Christians and Jews.^[10]

The caliphs of the Arab dynasty established the first schools inside the empire which taught Arabic language and Islamic studies. They furthermore began the ambitious project of building mosques across the empire, many of which remain today as the most magnificent mosques in the Islamic world, such as the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. At the end of the Umayyad period, less than 10% of the people in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Spain were Muslim. Only on the Arabian peninsula was the proportion of Muslims among the population higher than this.^[12]

Phase II: The Abbasids (750–1258)[edit]

See also: Abbasid Caliphate

 

The Abbasids are known to have founded some of the world's earliest educational institutions such as the House of Wisdom.

Expansion ceased and the central disciplines of Islamic philosophy, theology, law andmysticism became more widespread and the gradual conversions of the populations within the empire occurred. Significant conversions also occurred beyond the extents of the empire such as that of the Turkic tribes in Central Asia and peoples living in regions south of the Sahara in Africa through contact with Muslim traders active in the area and Sufi orders. In Africa it spread along three routes, across the Sahara via trading towns such asTimbuktu, up the Nile Valley through the Sudan up to Uganda and across the Red Sea and down East Africa through settlements such as Mombasa and Zanzibar. These initial conversions were of a flexible nature.

The reasons why, by the end of the 10th century, a large part of the population had converted to Islam are diverse. According to British-Lebanese historian Albert Hourani, one of the reasons may be that

"Islam had become more clearly defined, and the line between Muslims and non-Muslims more sharply drawn. Muslims now lived within an elaborated system of ritual, doctrine and law clearly different from those of non-Muslims. (...) The status of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians was more precisely defined, and in some ways it was inferior. They were regarded as the 'People of the Book', those who possessed a revealed scripture, or 'People of the Covenant', with whom compacts of protection had been made. In general they were not forced to convert, but they suffered from restrictions. They paid a special tax; they were not supposed to wear certain colors; they could not marry Muslim women;."^[12]

It should be pointed out that most of these laws were elaborations of basic laws concerning non-Muslims (dhimmis) in theQuran. The Quran does not give much detail about the right conduct with non-Muslims, in principle recognizing the religion of "People of the book" (Jews, Christians, and sometimes others as well) and securing a separate tax from them inlieu of the zakat imposed upon Muslim subjects.

Albert Hourani points towards "interwoven terms of political and economic benefits and of a sophisticated culture and religion" as appealing to the masses.^[13] He writes that :

"The question of why people convert to Islam has always generated intense feeling. Earlier generations of European scholars believed that conversions to Islam were made at the point of the sword, and that conquered peoples were given the choice of conversion or death. It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare. Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, and most conversions to Islam were voluntary. (...) In most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended together. Moreover, conversion to Islam did not necessarily imply a complete turning from an old to a totally new life. While it entailed the acceptance of new religious beliefs and membership in a new religious community, most converts retained a deep attachment to the cultures and communities from which they came."^[13]

The result of this, he points out, can be seen in the diversity of Muslim societies today, with varying manifestations and practices of Islam.

Conversion to Islam also came about as a result of the breakdown of historically religiously organized societies: with the weakening of many churches, for example, and the favoring of Islam and the migration of substantial Muslim Turkish populations into the areas of Anatolia and the Balkans, the "social and cultural relevance of Islam" were enhanced and a large number of peoples were converted. This worked better in some areas (Anatolia) and less in others (e.g. the Balkans, where "the spread of Islam was limited by the vitality of the Christian churches.")^[10]

Along with the religion of Islam, the Arabic language, number system and Arab customs spread throughout the empire. A sense of unity grew among many though not all provinces, gradually forming the consciousness of a broadly Arab-Islamic population: something which was recognizably an Islamic world had emerged by the end of the 10th century.^[14] Throughout this period, as well as in the following centuries, divisions occurred between Persians and Arabs, and Sunnis and Shiites, and unrest in provinces empowered local rulers at times.^[12]

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

When a religion start it cannot convert people just by sword, the hostile response by people may overthrow it

Quote

In the 20th century, Islam grew in Africa both by birth and by conversion. The number of Muslims in Africa grew from 34.5 million in 1900 to 315 million in 2000, going from roughly 20% to 40% of the total population of Africa.^[53] However, in the same time period, the number of Christians also grew in Africa, from 8.7 million in 1900 to 346 million in 2000, surpassing both the total population as well as the growth rate of Islam on the continent.

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

African slave could had been converted by force but major conversions took place in 20th century and similarly christians too grew in africa almost 45 times in 20 century

Please remember conversion by sword is very costly process it require enough man power which could  broke the back of kingdom , it also give births to many revolts.Only when a kingdom was in very powerful state with majority belonging to their then only they could force minority to accept their religion

[chatanga1]

On 03/02/2016 at 6:48 PM, kdsingh80 said:

Oh please just accept the fact that Ram raheem better approached  dalits and other communitties that were feeling alienated by Sikhism and Hinduism.

not just ram rahim but the radha swamis at least 2 decades before that.

[chatanga1]

8 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

When a religion start it cannot convert people just by sword, the hostile response by people may overthrow it

African slave could had been converted by force but major conversions took place in 20th century and similarly christians too grew in africa almost 45 times in 20 century

India could not provide much of a hostile response because society was very fractured.

 

8 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

 

Please remember conversion by sword is very costly process it require enough man power which could  broke the back of kingdom , it also give births to many revolts.Only when a kingdom was in very powerful state with majority belonging to their then only they could force minority to accept their religion

Muslims proved this wrong in India. They were always a minority but rules India easily because of the varna ashram system.

[kdsingh80]

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

India could not provide much of a hostile response because society was very fractured.

 

Muslims proved this wrong in India. They were always a minority but rules India easily because of the varna ashram system.

Minority ruled the majority in several places , infact most of times there was hardly any difference in common man's life , It is only when a king extremely cruel and decide to forcibly convert or impose heavy tax the common man used to revolt. Aurangzeb's Indian empire was largest but it fell like pack of cards after him while his ancestors ruled India quite comfortably with help of Rajputs .

 

Much of the islam in India was spread by sufi's or other missionary activities , muslim kings no doubt rewarded conversions

[Guest guest]

mughals never 'ruled' india, which is why they continually used such violence to try and crush revolt, thats not the sign of stable rule

mughals hid away in forted cities.  from there they terrorised india. but things were hardly going their way on the ground, and i don't mean just punjab.

 

[Guest guest]

kdsingh, ever heard of biased sources?

you can read mughals and other muslims chronicles (e.g. timur) to see how violence as imposed to convert people

Jehangir admits he wanted to convert Guru Arjan Dev by force or else kill him

(and no i'm not anti-muslim)

[Guest guest]

if muslims weren't converting by force in the middle east how do you explain the voices of the Jews, Syrian Christians and Parses who settled in India?  Shia muslims also fled there.

The sufi saints you talk of were there for the religious freedom, not a conversion campaign

[Guest guest]

kdsingh about masands- preaching isn't converting

e.g. Hare Krishnas preach on the road and give out books, but they don't go around actively converting people.  theres no emphasis or pressure on people to join them (as far as I am aware?)

[Guest guest]

you are also ignoring the 'kafir' tax the way non-muslims were legally pressed, and you had to convert to progress in career in army or government, hence an economic and social incentive for hard up people to convert.

[Guest guest]

Amandeep

mughals used such savage techniques as burning crops etc (read their diaries for proof).  you blame indian varna system etc but india survived the onslaught, unlike other countries that were completely converted (no offence meant to anyone by this statement, again i'm not anti-muslim)

[dalsingh101]

3 hours ago, Guest guest said:

if muslims weren't converting by force in the middle east how do you explain the voices of the Jews, Syrian Christians and Parses who settled in India?  Shia muslims also fled there.

The sufi saints you talk of were there for the religious freedom, not a conversion campaign

Conversely, how do explain that Yahzdhis have been there for thousands of years - well that is until goray started fudhooing around in the place recently? 

[dalsingh101]

3 hours ago, Guest guest said:

Amandeep

mughals used such savage techniques as burning crops etc (read their diaries for proof).  you blame indian varna system etc but india survived the onslaught, unlike other countries that were completely converted (no offence meant to anyone by this statement, again i'm not anti-muslim)

Burning crops like you mention isn't a Muslim phenomena, it's a globally standard military strategy. You can even read it in Sun Tzu's Art of war.  Europeans did it too. 

[Guest guest]

5 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Conversely, how do explain that Yahzdhis have been there for thousands of years - well that is until goray started fudhooing around in the place recently? 

both the content, the language, and the level of your 'contributions' really lowers the standard on this site. 

you can look into the voices of those communities i mentioned for yourself to say what they say about their arrival. 

I don't know where the Yazidhis are from and how long they have been in India but it isnt relevant to my point.  It is like saying 'why are there English people in India then?'

[Guest guest]

5 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Burning crops like you mention isn't a Muslim phenomena, it's a globally standard military strategy. You can even read it in Sun Tzu's Art of war.  Europeans did it too. 

i didn't say it was a muslim phenomena.  i said the moghuls used it on indian populations.  (i didn't say that they originated it either).

you seem to be implying that such actions were 'as standard' and hence not to be condemned.

i'm guessing that sadistic hatred for hindus and their civilisation wasnt a factor for europeans (or Sun Tsu?) as it was for Timurlang?

 

[Guest guest]

also theres a difference between burning army stores and burning civilian crops

[dalsingh101]

11 hours ago, Guest guest said:

both the content, the language, and the level of your 'contributions' really lowers the standard on this site. 

you can look into the voices of those communities i mentioned for yourself to say what they say about their arrival. 

I don't know where the Yazidhis are from and how long they have been in India but it isnt relevant to my point.  It is like saying 'why are there English people in India then?'

You totally missed my point.

 

I was talking about Yazhdis in and around the area of Syria. They have elements of their religion which predate both Christianity and Islam. My point was that they have been there since before the aforementioned religions emerged, in a Muslim majority environment. They seemed to have got by up until now, when the UK and US destabilised the region with poorly thought out invasions.

 

Now they are getting massacred and their womenfolk sold.