Why Sikhi failed to spread

[Guest guest]

so you meant in Syria, not India.  thank you for clarifying.  I still dont understand what you point is.  are you saying that the syrian christians (and Yazidis) in india, are lying or misguided about their history?

also, are you trying to blame the western powers of the situation Syrian and Iraqi Yazidis are in?  As far as I'm aware, its not English or American soldiers who are killing and enslaving them? 

[dalsingh101]

52 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

so you meant in Syria, not India.  thank you for clarifying.  I still dont understand what you point is.  are you saying that the syrian christians (and Yazidis) in india, are lying or misguided about their history?

also, are you trying to blame the western powers of the situation Syrian and Iraqi Yazidis are in?  As far as I'm aware, its not English or American soldiers who are killing and enslaving them? 

No I'm not saying they are lying but pointing out that sizeable communities existed there for many many centuries - until now. Maybe what happened was the rich and powerful (who had some issue with other emerging powers there) are the ones who emigrated, not Joe Public.  You have to look at causal factors carefully. Prior to removing the local tyrants like Saddam and Qaddafi, certain minorities in the region weren't going through the hell they are right now. Whatever else they may have been, these despots kept their fundamentalists under check.

You could also use the example of pre and post annexation Panjab. Where the former state had Islamic fundamentalists on a back foot, and 100 years of colonialism later - Islamic separatism (bolstered by British style politics) burst onto the scene again, with the creation of a new nation.

 

Another example is Afghanistan. Look at it prior to the Russian invasion - moderate, with a large Sikh thriving community. Look at it now. 

My point is that poorly thought out, selfish foreign interventions open up a Pandora's box which often leads to the bolstering of extreme fundamentalist movements. People in the west have little idea of the complexity of eastern societies, which usually balance themselves under a tyrant. When they remove these 'strong men' something even worse emerges. And we aren't even going into the motives for them interfering - which is invariably resource driven, as opposed to the propaganda line of wanting to establish democracy and emancipate the public. 

[kdsingh80]

On 2/6/2016 at 10:51 PM, 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

I am not saying that muslims never converted by force. Muslims applied multiple ways of finding new converts that include sufi, imposing taxes and in very extreme punishment.

Parsi's faced the wrath of muslims  and urban Paris's converted first , but rural area's remained untouched and conversion took by gradual process. The irony is that they never fought against muslims or provided solid resistance.It took centuries before Iran became muslim majority.

Also just look at Delhi sultanate , Delhi was under muslims roughly 600 years and many of them were tyrants but still surrounding area's of Delhi ,Haryana , Rajasthan , Uttar pradesh etc are still Hindu majority  On the other hand hand majority of Punjabi's roughly 75-80% , Bengali's converted to islam, so this forced conversion theory is not fully true

[kdsingh80]

On 2/6/2016 at 10:53 PM, Guest guest said:

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?)

The only legitimate way to gain converts is preaching.I think you are referring to dirty tricks which sikhs hardly applied

[Guest]

On 07/02/2016 at 4:48 PM, dalsingh101 said:

On 07/02/2016 at 4:48 PM, dalsingh101 said:

No I'm not saying they are lying but pointing out that sizeable communities existed there for many many centuries - until now. Maybe what happened was the rich and powerful (who had some issue with other emerging powers there) are the ones who emigrated, not Joe Public.  You have to look at causal factors carefully. Prior to removing the local tyrants like Saddam and Qaddafi, certain minorities in the region weren't going through the hell they are right now. Whatever else they may have been, these despots kept their fundamentalists under check.

You could also use the example of pre and post annexation Panjab. Where the former state had Islamic fundamentalists on a back foot, and 100 years of colonialism later - Islamic separatism (bolstered by British style politics) burst onto the scene again, with the creation of a new nation.

 

Another example is Afghanistan. Look at it prior to the Russian invasion - moderate, with a large Sikh thriving community. Look at it now. 

My point is that poorly thought out, selfish foreign interventions open up a Pandora's box which often leads to the bolstering of extreme fundamentalist movements. People in the west have little idea of the complexity of eastern societies, which usually balance themselves under a tyrant. When they remove these 'strong men' something even worse emerges. And we aren't even going into the motives for them interfering - which is invariably resource driven, as opposed to the propaganda line of wanting to establish democracy and emancipate the public. 

No I'm not saying they are lying but pointing out that sizeable communities existed there for many many centuries - until now. Maybe what happened was the rich and powerful (who had some issue with other emerging powers there) are the ones who emigrated, not Joe Public.  You have to look at causal factors carefully. Prior to removing the local tyrants like Saddam and Qaddafi, certain minorities in the region weren't going through the hell they are right now. Whatever else they may have been, these despots kept their fundamentalists under check.

You could also use the example of pre and post annexation Panjab. Where the former state had Islamic fundamentalists on a back foot, and 100 years of colonialism later - Islamic separatism (bolstered by British style politics) burst onto the scene again, with the creation of a new nation.

 

Another example is Afghanistan. Look at it prior to the Russian invasion - moderate, with a large Sikh thriving community. Look at it now. 

My point is that poorly thought out, selfish foreign interventions open up a Pandora's box which often leads to the bolstering of extreme fundamentalist movements. People in the west have little idea of the complexity of eastern societies, which usually balance themselves under a tyrant. When they remove these 'strong men' something even worse emerges. And we aren't even going into the motives for them interfering - which is invariably resource driven, as opposed to the propaganda line of wanting to establish democracy and emancipate the public. 

what is a "sizeable" community?  werent the Yazidis a nomadic community living up in the mountains?  and didn't they have aspects of Islam in their religion the way Paris and other communties dont?

"large thriving sikh community" in Afghanistan before the Russians?  large?  thriving?  have you spoken to any of these people?

Didnt Saddam commit war crimes against the Kurds?

The British came after the moghuls, not before.  You think things 'balanced out' under Aurangzeb?  Oh Nadir Shah?  Or Timur?

[Guest]

18 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

I am not saying that muslims never converted by force. Muslims applied multiple ways of finding new converts that include sufi, imposing taxes and in very extreme punishment.

Parsi's faced the wrath of muslims  and urban Paris's converted first , but rural area's remained untouched and conversion took by gradual process. The irony is that they never fought against muslims or provided solid resistance.It took centuries before Iran became muslim majority.

Also just look at Delhi sultanate , Delhi was under muslims roughly 600 years and many of them were tyrants but still surrounding area's of Delhi ,Haryana , Rajasthan , Uttar pradesh etc are still Hindu majority  On the other hand hand majority of Punjabi's roughly 75-80% , Bengali's converted to islam, so this forced conversion theory is not fully true

can you name me any Sufi school that engages in active conversions?  Arent Sufi's usually renunciates?  on the other hand, arent the Nashqbandis considered Sufis?  But their leader of Guru Arjan's time is on record as wanting him dead, right?

How is it an 'irony' that Parsis never fought against muslims?  and how did you know the didnt?  A muslim told you?

There were sultanates in Bengal and South India.  Havent you at least heard of Tipu Sultan? 

And you are talking about Haryana, UP etc POST-PARTITION.

Every hindu historical place of note in North India has been demolished by muslim rulers, PRE-BRITISH INVASION.  These is all in the history books.  Harimandir Sahib was also demolished by Nadir Shah (i think? long time since i read the history).  Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Tegh Bahadur would not have been executed if they acceded to conversion to Islam. 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

I am not saying that muslims never converted by force. Muslims applied multiple ways of finding new converts that include sufi, imposing taxes and in very extreme punishment.

Parsi's faced the wrath of muslims  and urban Paris's converted first , but rural area's remained untouched and conversion took by gradual process. The irony is that they never fought against muslims or provided solid resistance.It took centuries before Iran became muslim majority.

Also just look at Delhi sultanate , Delhi was under muslims roughly 600 years and many of them were tyrants but still surrounding area's of Delhi ,Haryana , Rajasthan , Uttar pradesh etc are still Hindu majority  On the other hand hand majority of Punjabi's roughly 75-80% , Bengali's converted to islam, so this forced conversion theory is not fully true

can you name me any Sufi school that engages in active conversions?  Arent Sufi's usually renunciates?  on the other hand, arent the Nashqbandis considered Sufis?  But their leader of Guru Arjan's time is on record as wanting him dead, right?

How is it an 'irony' that Parsis never fought against muslims?  and how did you know the didnt?  A muslim told you?

There were sultanates in Bengal and South India.  Havent you at least heard of Tipu Sultan? 

And you are talking about Haryana, UP etc POST-PARTITION.

Every hindu historical place of note in North India has been demolished by muslim rulers, PRE-BRITISH INVASION.  These is all in the history books.  Harimandir Sahib was also demolished by Nadir Shah (i think? long time since i read the history).  Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Tegh Bahadur would not have been executed if they acceded to conversion to Islam. 

[Guest guest]

On 07/02/2016 at 4:48 PM, dalsingh101 said:

No I'm not saying they are lying but pointing out that sizeable communities existed there for many many centuries - until now. Maybe what happened was the rich and powerful (who had some issue with other emerging powers there) are the ones who emigrated, not Joe Public.

By this logic, sikhs, hindus, jains etc, since they didnt emigrate enmasses during mughal times, we actually having a jolly good time!

[kdsingh80]

4 hours ago, Guest said:

can you name me any Sufi school that engages in active conversions?  Arent Sufi's usually renunciates?  on the other hand, arent the Nashqbandis considered Sufis?  But their leader of Guru Arjan's time is on record as wanting him dead, right?

How is it an 'irony' that Parsis never fought against muslims?  and how did you know the didnt?  A muslim told you?

There were sultanates in Bengal and South India.  Havent you at least heard of Tipu Sultan? 

And you are talking about Haryana, UP etc POST-PARTITION.

Every hindu historical place of note in North India has been demolished by muslim rulers, PRE-BRITISH INVASION.  These is all in the history books.  Harimandir Sahib was also demolished by Nadir Shah (i think? long time since i read the history).  Guru Arjan Dev and Guru Tegh Bahadur would not have been executed if they acceded to conversion to Islam. 

I don't know whether there is sufi school or not but just read this

Quote

Baba Farid visited a city called Mokhalpur, it is now called Faridkot in honor of the Baba Farid, and is in the Indian part of Punjab. Then he turned towards the Punjabi mountains where he converted a tribe

https://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-bhagats/sikh-bhagats-baba-sheikh-farid-ji

The baba farid whose bani is in Guru granth sahib too converted people, then you can imagine how many other sufi saints were involved in that . No doubt Muslim rulers gave incentives to people who converted.also you have to remember that in India there are still plenty of dargahs and despite all this islamic hostility it is 70-80% Hindu's that visit them

 

 

Regarding Haryana and UP , even before pre partition , UP and Haryana were Hindu majority , Just check population of Muhajirs  in Pakistan , it is 1 crore 40 lakhs. if you add this to population of Uttar pradesh that will it roughly add 4-5 % more muslims and there combined population to 22-23% from present 18-19 %. and yes there were sultantes that were in west  and south India , but still South India is largely Hindu and marathwada is also Hindu, but Bengal is now muslim majority, this does not explain why some people converted in large number while others remained largely untouched.

[Guest seeker]

I have met hundreds of vanjaras in south india who still worship Nanak but have no clue about Sikhism. The focus of the whole thread is wrong. Sikhi spread a lot. Discuss why the growth wasnt sustained and we had a sharp decline in the last 100 yrs

[jaikaara]

8 hours ago, Guest seeker said:

I have met hundreds of vanjaras in south india who still worship Nanak but have no clue about Sikhism. The focus of the whole thread is wrong. Sikhi spread a lot. Discuss why the growth wasnt sustained and we had a sharp decline in the last 100 yrs

Brother they are all attached to Hazoor Sahib , Nanded and its not they dont have clue . After marriage they come to Hazoor sahib to do mathha tek.

[Guest seeker]

ur talking about maharashtrians, ever met any from andhra they not attached to hazur sahib as theyre not even in sikhi saroop and know no prayers besides singing the word nanak nanak? if we do a survey they number in lacs

again im saying just like now we're losing 2-5 million outside sikhs, we've lost countless millions in the past. in terai area, in bihar the indigenous people were sahajdharis, not all but a significant amount. if you read studies done towards that in the 1960s 1970s (before the awareness somehow went downhill) you will notice that scholars even managed to find sahajdharis outside of india e.g. iraq (ganda singh met them earlier on).

[Harman deep singh]

 

Any of you brother know incident when Bhim rao ambedkar accepted to get baptize with million dalits ?

But mahatma Gandhi told 

Shiromani Gurudawra committee not drop offer 

 

The head that time was some tarn Singh (not sure ) 

He was worried abt cost to prepare event and free kirpan service 

So he dropped offer -_- 

If offer was accepted 1984 would have never occured

[Northern]

Many valid points.  An important factor is language - when our communities have moved to places like Russia, France, Brasil - we were not quick enough to translate our beautiful gurbani in to a language the locals could understand when they visit the Gurudwara.  This is improving in the English speaking nations like England.

Mind you, you have to also bear in mind that when other religions have expanded so to have the interpretation of their way of life.  I was chatting to a Catholic friend awhile ago and she explained how different Catholic worshippers in Espania differ to those in Latin America and again in parts of Africa.  We do not have to be big in terms of numbers, but united and strong as a sangat where we are now too.

[kdsingh80]

On 13/02/2016 at 6:09 PM, Harman deep singh said:

 

Any of you brother know incident when Bhim rao ambedkar accepted to get baptize with million dalits ?

But mahatma Gandhi told 

Shiromani Gurudawra committee not drop offer 

 

The head that time was some tarn Singh (not sure ) 

He was worried abt cost to prepare event and free kirpan service 

So he dropped offer -_- 

If offer was accepted 1984 would have never occured

Ambedkar embraced Budhism but Budhism is still 0.5% Indian population

[Harman deep singh]

5 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Ambedkar embraced Budhism but Budhism is still 0.5% Indian population

Veer g that's another incident 

He didn't embraced Buddhism with million of dalit

[kdsingh80]

17 hours ago, Harman deep singh said:

Veer g that's another incident 

He didn't embraced Buddhism with million of dalit

So how can you say that Ambedkar was embracing sikhism with 1 million dalits? What I have searched on this topic is that it is more of another sikh myth which is in circulation , yes he had idea of embracing sikhism in mind, but that was solely for political purpose.And yes Ambedkar told his followers to embrace Budhism

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=riTiTry4U3EC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=ambedkar+sikhism&source=bl&ots=6lf_ZCQQ_a&sig=pvQGbjP4N862Ae2LmXQBn9xsmgA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8iLrUoIfLAhWGp5QKHae0Dis4FBDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=ambedkar%20sikhism&f=false

 

The popularity of Ambedkar grew much after his death rather than when he was alive,. He himself lost elections from a reserved seats from Congress candidate

[Harman deep singh]

9 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

So how can you say that Ambedkar was embracing sikhism with 1 million dalits? What I have searched on this topic is that it is more of another sikh myth which is in circulation , yes he had idea of embracing sikhism in mind, but that was solely for political purpose.And yes Ambedkar told his followers to embrace Budhism

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=riTiTry4U3EC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=ambedkar+sikhism&source=bl&ots=6lf_ZCQQ_a&sig=pvQGbjP4N862Ae2LmXQBn9xsmgA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8iLrUoIfLAhWGp5QKHae0Dis4FBDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=ambedkar%20sikhism&f=false

 

The popularity of Ambedkar grew much after his death rather than when he was alive,. He himself lost elections from a reserved seats from Congress candidate

Your source to make this statement was this book? 

Who is author?

[kdsingh80]

11 hours ago, Harman deep singh said:

Your source to make this statement was this book? 

Who is author?

Not only this book but whenever I read about Ambedkar from non sikh sources about his conversions to sikhism or budhism. I never read anything about Ambedkar  offered to convert along with 1 million . Yes he was thinking  to convert to sikhism  but more of a political move .

[Guest guest]

On 10/02/2016 at 6:13 AM, kdsingh80 said:

I don't know whether there is sufi school or not but just read this

The baba farid whose bani is in Guru granth sahib too converted people, then you can imagine how many other sufi saints were involved in that . No doubt Muslim rulers gave incentives to people who converted.also you have to remember that in India there are still plenty of dargahs and despite all this islamic hostility it is 70-80% Hindu's that visit them

Regarding Haryana and UP , even before pre partition , UP and Haryana were Hindu majority , Just check population of Muhajirs  in Pakistan , it is 1 crore 40 lakhs. if you add this to population of Uttar pradesh that will it roughly add 4-5 % more muslims and there combined population to 22-23% from present 18-19 %. and yes there were sultantes that were in west  and south India , but still South India is largely Hindu and marathwada is also Hindu, but Bengal is now muslim majority, this does not explain why some people converted in large number while others remained largely untouched.

according to what a website?  where is the missionary zeal in Baba Farids Saloks in SGGS?  That doesnt seem like hie was interested in the world.

as for dargahs- yes but those people remain hindus. 

you can list off population numbers all you like, but where is the proof? where did yo ueven get these numbers?  theres more muslims now in india than there are in pakistan.  there is a large muslim population in the south.

i think you associate with muslims and have been brainwashed by them.

[Guest guest]

On 19/02/2016 at 9:41 PM, Northern said:

Many valid points.  An important factor is language - when our communities have moved to places like Russia, France, Brasil - we were not quick enough to translate our beautiful gurbani in to a language the locals could understand when they visit the Gurudwara.  This is improving in the English speaking nations like England.

forget the layman, the average Paathi has no understanding of Vyaakaraan, neither do most of the 'experts'.  if sikhs themselves do not fully understand what is written, how can they translate it?

[Guest guest]

btw kd singh, according to some muslims these days Aurangzeb was a 'saint'

[Harman deep singh]

9 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Not only this book but whenever I read about Ambedkar from non sikh sources about his conversions to sikhism or budhism. I never read anything about Ambedkar  offered to convert along with 1 million . Yes he was thinking  to convert to sikhism  but more of a political move .

I see 

Looks like it's not completely confirmed

[kdsingh80]

8 hours ago, Guest guest said:

according to what a website?  where is the missionary zeal in Baba Farids Saloks in SGGS?  That doesnt seem like hie was interested in the world.

as for dargahs- yes but those people remain hindus. 

you can list off population numbers all you like, but where is the proof? where did yo ueven get these numbers?  theres more muslims now in india than there are in pakistan.  there is a large muslim population in the south.

i think you associate with muslims and have been brainwashed by them.

I don't associate with muslims, I barely know any. I just try to find out the truth.Pro muslim writers will always say that people converted to islam by will, while many anti muslim writers will say that all converted toislam because of sword.

The truth always lie in between  , no side ever tell you full story.Jinnah's a ancestors were Hindu's ,they did not convert because of sword , probably greed.

 

[kdsingh80]

16 hours ago, Harman deep singh said:

I see 

Looks like it's not completely confirmed

people talk about Ambedkar but totally forgot that another very powerful Dalit leader Kanshi Ram ( the creator of BSP)was born in Ravidasia sikh family, he was given Hindu name but his brother and sisters are pooran Gursikhs. Yet despite that he broke all alliance with sikhism., He became more successful in Uttar pradesh than in Punjab he even planned to convert to plenty of Dalit along with himself to Budhism

When we can't keep our own lower caste in Sikhism how can we expect other lower castes to become sikhs