Sikhs and history

[Guest guest]

On 19 June 2016 at 11:18 AM, truthseeker546 said:

@IJJSinghFrom my experience with Sikhs, I can divide them into two groups, the militant type, who have the worst understanding of history and ironically Sikh theology also – I like to call them the Guru Gobind group (simply because they think they are inclined towards his teachings). Then there are the peaceful, mystic type who actually are balanced and have a good understanding, and are not afraid to say I don’t know when they don’t know something – (the Guru Nanak group.)

^creepy agenda at work

[truthseeker546]

This is will be last post on this topic as I feel I'm just repeating myself, and rather then discussing history it's coming to personal attacks, that's not something I wanted.

Fisrt of all Friend, I'm sorry if I've come across too candidly in some of my posts, I understand this obviously a sensative topic and should require more tact. 

I've already mentioned my thoughts on Mughal sources and Jahangirs account so I wont repeat myself.

The only interesting point you raise is of " letters of the leader of Nagshbandi sect " - the sufis were a non-political entity in India, that were  mainly not affected by the political climate of the time. You can also site Mian Mir -who was quite close to a few Gurus, in fact he also laid down the foundation stone of the Golden temple. However the problem you'll have is the Sufis also speak highly of Aurengzeb, calling him a devout and a pious Muslim who was a just ruler. And that proves my point, the issues between the Gurus and Mughals were entirely political, conveyed in religious language over the years to portray and religious dichotomy that never was.

I don't know of the Sikh historian as he's book was never published - although you are right, I shouldn't say "proved" as he only put his own research/opinions forward, like everyone else. I stand corrected on that point.

Ps. I don't think Guru Nanak was a Muslim, It's pretty clear that he wasn't. However I think he, like so many others in his time were influenced by some sufi ideas, which is pretty clear from his teachings. eg The teachings of falseness of the world, mirror's sufi poetry such as Kabir/Farid/Bulle Shah etc also the idea of the oneness of being/creation, unity of all religious etc can be seen in  Arab Sufism that was reflected in Naqshibandi orders in India, hence why you see certain Naqshi sources being close to the Gurus, - also see the sufi influences on Hinduism Dvaita movement, and Sikhism (Guru Nanak) was influenced from that. you can see similarities with Akbar's din-e-elahi movement and the sufis of his court. etc etc

My "agenda" was to open a dialogue to better understand religious bias that stem from particular historical narratives.  I think I have what I wanted

That's the end of my post on this topic, take care and Peace out

[Guest guest]

again admin here censored my response to this

you don't know of the sikh historian as his book was never published, yet you base your points on this book?  

you dismiss Jehangirs diary because it doesnt fit your bigotry.

the sufi concepts falseness of the world and oneness of creation, were in India before the founding of Islam.

Kabir wasnt a muslim.  his guru was hindu brahmin and he worshipped Raam Naam, he also denoucned sharia law like cirucmcisions and halal meat

[Guest guest]

the only religious bias is yours- its only you dismissing historical proof and making up 'unnamed historians'.

[Guest guest]

On 26 June 2016 at 9:55 AM, truthseeker546 said:

However the problem you'll have is the Sufis also speak highly of Aurengzeb, calling him a devout and a pious Muslim who was a just ruler. And that proves my point, the issues between the Gurus and Mughals were entirely political, conveyed in religious language over the years to portray and religious dichotomy that never was.

which sufis speak highly of Aurengzeb?

 

[paapiman]

15 hours ago, Guest guest said:

which sufis speak highly of Aurengzeb?

 

Even if some stupid people speak only highly of Aurengzeb, it will not change the fact that he was a bigot, intolerant and unjust ruler. There was an instance where he ordered his elephants to trample innocent people.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=BpQboYaGnuwC&pg=PA374&lpg=PA374&dq=aurangzeb+ordered+hindus+to+trampled+by+elephants&source=bl&ots=Z0WPtRVlUB&sig=zlyd8h2nNpPiBIPH_7lthBS1oTc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3xreo-9XNAhWExYMKHZ6fCiYQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb ordered hindus to trampled by elephants&f=false

 

Bhul chuk maaf