Amrita Pritam

Re: # 242

``Spare the sarcasm for Islam please. This individual does not represent the whole of Islam.
As a religion every religion is good, but sometime people`s interpretation hijack them. ``

But he is a part of it. Koran must have molded his thought process and understanding of the world around him. Especially when he regards it literally as a word of god.
Regarding ``interpretation``, I think it is just an excuse to overlook the root cause. You just cannot call Wahabism as just a wrong interpretation of Islam, especially when it is followed/supported on the soil that houses the foundation of the religion. Early chritian texts also called for crusades against non-believers but with the passage of time violent actions were purged/not glorified. You can`t do that with Koran as it is the word of god, it is infallible. Personally I don`t think what Taliban did to Bamiyan Buddha was anything against Islam per se, they did what Mohd would have done too.

``Dara Shikoh and Alamgeer Aurengzeb were both born of same father (not sure of mother). Look at both of them, Aurengzeb killed all his brothers, imprisoned his father and died horribly(read Aurengzeb ki Akhri raat). ``

Been born to the same parents doesn`t mean that people will have the same outlook. Two brothers born out of the same parents but raised differently will have different personalities. It is no secret that Aurangezeb was more influenced by Islamic principles and lead a life as close to the one recommended in the Koran (to his credit he did not waste public money on extravagent projects, lead a spartan life and preferred to have a open air /simple grave rather than a big monumnet). His banning music, reimposition of jaziya and other taxes, enthusiam for converting non-muslims to islam has made him a hero in islamic cirlces.

``Dara Shikoh, a man of peace, true Muslim, a friend of the Guru, they both were Muslims, but what a contrast. ``

Now heres my beef, how do you regard Dara as true muslim but say than Aurangzeb and like-minded people have just ``interpreted`` Islam wrongly?

Tahmed,
Idol breaker does not mean the same as yiu think. It means metamorphically, in the sense that I don`t believe in Idols.
But you are right, there are same words as in Quran for the merciful.
My daily prayer Jaap Sahib has many Farsi words in it too.
Such as
Raziek Rahim Hai
Karimul Kunind Hai
Hirasul Fikan Hai
Imaiqul Kuna Hai

and so on.

Without sounding too bad, if you take Shariat out of Islam then there are lots of similarities between not only Sikhism but also Sanatan Dharama of Hindus.

Another major difference between Sikhism and Islam is, Sikhs don`t believe in converting others to their faith, and think that it is their path for salvation(for others). In fact in our daily Ardas, we say ``Nanak Nam Chardi Kala, Tere Bhaney Sarbat Da Bhalla``.

Whereas in Islam Dar-Ul-Islam and Dar-Ul-Hadd clearly states responsibity of a faithful Muslim to make every region under Islam and do a Zihad(various forms). I remember once hearing that killing a Non-Muslim after he has refused to be converted a poius duty and was not considered a crime(I heard from an Old Policeman in UP).

Re: # 237

Tahmed Pind kerRa hai Tuahday?

TAHMEED,


Do not make this mistake. It could also be seen as this (I think of it as this way too) ..... Guru Gobind Singh ji was using his religion to shame him ..... A fanatic and religious person like Aurangzeb would not have listened or had any affect on him IF Guru had used some other text as his basis ..... SO, he used Quran to shame him for his bigoted misdeeds ..... Quoting Quran or its values does NOT necessarily mean that the Guru believed in them .....

I or anyone else can NEVER know what the Great mind was thinking when he penned those verses ..... He was a brilliant writer of many languages ......

Farsi wasn`t the language of his courts. Most followers were illiterate and formed the `court` - it was Gurmukhi. He kept many poets in his court .....

Nand Lal Goya was the most famous Farsi poet. He fled Aurangzeb`s court when Arngzeb tried to convert him to Islam by force, and came under Guru`s protection.

CLICK HERE for his Farsi tribute to the Guru It is incomplete and you may google him. His poetry is splendid.

What is the name of your ancestral village? And where abouts is it? Most probably your ancestor was the same as non muslims of the village.

Usually, one person developed a village/kabila/taani/pind etc....down the generations, it got divided. Many became muslims due to different reasons - mostly outside force, like in 47. In our Mohalla, we can find common ancestor of several homes if we go back a few generations. That is why it was considered an incest to marry within the same pind or `gotra`.

further to #234 I messed up that post. Please ignore with my apologies for the confusion. The corrected post #234 follows:

kaurasach #232 Thanks for posting the very interesting document. Beautifully written (in farsi, the court language of the time). In summary, it makes clear that Sikhs and Muslim recognize the same Almighty, and the rest of the document basically berates Aurangzeb for straying from his religion by not keeping the oath he had taken on the Quran (e.g. ``Aurangzeb is the king of kings...but he is far from his religion``).

Some of these words are what I have been ranting about for years on chowk, and so were music to my ears. That is, that it is not the Quran that is to blame for the evil deeds done in its name, but the evil-doers. This is clear, e.g., in the quote above where he berates Aurangzeb for being far from his religion.

He also makes it clear that he is referring to the same Almighty as the muslims. Thus: the Guru calls Him: hakikat shanas - o nabial kitab (``Nothing is hidden from Him. He is the inspiration of the Quran.`` The attributes of the Almighty (merciful, just etc.) can be found just as easily in the Quran.

What I found interesting was this section: ``I am also the annihilator of the hill rajas, the idol worshippers. They are idol worshippers and I am the idol breaker``!! This are almost the same words as Mahmud of Ghaznvi said before destroying Somnath. (For the record, I have always condemned that act as being counter to the Quranic teachings of respect for ALL religions).

I also thank delhiwala, jang, drlokraj for responding to my question. I shall come back to that and use them as leads to do some google research and thus overcome my sad ignorance of sikh religion and culture. (Hell, my ancestors shared the same village with sikhs and hindus for centuries - that is as much a part of my heritage as muslim culture).

kaurasach #232 Thanks for posting the very interesting document. Beautifully written (in farsi, the court language of the time). In summary, it makes clear that Sikhs and Muslim recognize the same Almighty, and the rest of the document basically berates Aurangzeb for straying from his religion by not keeping the oath he had taken on the Quran (e.g. ``Aurangzeb is the king of kings...but he is far from his religion``).

Some of these words are what I have been ranting about for years on chowk, and so were music to my ears. E.g. in referring to the Almighty, the Guru calls Him: hakikat shanas - o nabial kitab (``Nothing is hidden from Him. He is the inspiration of the Quran.`` The attributes of the Almighty (merciful, just etc.) can be found just as easily in the Quran.

What I found interesting was this section: ``I am also the annihilator of the hill rajas, the idol worshippers. They are idol worshippers and I am the idol breaker``!! This are almost the same words as Mahmud of Ghaznvi said before destroying Somnath. (For the record, I have always condemned that act as being counter to the Quranic teachings of respect for ALL religions).

I also thank delhiwala, jang, drlokraj for responding to my question. I shall come back to that and use them as leads to do some google research and thus overcome my sad ignorance of sikh religion and culture. (Hell, my ancestors shared the same village with sikhs and hindus for centuries - that is as much a part of my heritage as muslim culture).

#225 by delhiwala

dilli, calm down your insecurities, you are not a thekedar of ``pure`` sikhism, apreciate your information though.

Dr LR

Shivaji preceeded GGS ji by a few decades....thus no meeting. or references. Sivaji was a small chief and he probably wasn`t famous beyond Maharashtara domain at that time.

kaura,
Guru Gobind Singh and Shiva ji Marhatta were contemporaries.Is there any information of any communication between them.It seems unlikely that they would be oblivious of each other.

Tahmed,

if interested this is the letter Guru Gobind Singh wrote to Aurangzeb.

CLICK HERE For Zafarnama

you will need Acrobat on your computer to read it.


There is also NASEEHAT NAMA written to muslims. Some say Nanak wrote it, others dispute it. The writing style is not typical of Nanak`s writings; and it is in Urdu.

Guru Gobind Singh`s initial battles were with hill kings (Sivaliks). I`ve visited Bhangani (a famous battle), Paonta, etc. Beautiful scenery. These battles were over property disputes and petty issues.....NOT so much against sikhs and teachings. Mandi`s raja respected sikhs.

Guru Gobind Singh tried to unite the Hill Rajas against Mughals. Seeing their pettiness, and dumb squabbles, he knew he had to raise his own army, thus the KHALSA at Anandpur, to counter Mughal/Muslim atrocities.

Muslims were employed by the Guru, some betrayed. some remained faithful. Painday Khan betrayed HarGobind, and was killed and forgiven by the Guru. Nadu helped the guru after other muslims betrayed - Nada Sb. near Chandigarh. The Guru was stabbed by a muslim/pathan servant.
Guru`s childrens were betrayed by Gangu Brahmin of Kheri (Saheri) not far from Chandigrah, in Ropar district.
All in all, sikhs were pretty much alone in fighting Mughals and Afghans.

226,

Deeth Hijrya.

Re: # 223
Almost correct, except about the part about Guru Gobind Singh. Oneness of God(monothetism) was the main theme(Naam Simran), EkOnkar, they all say one God.
No other Hindu Bhagat had that concept.
Sikhism was not a correction of Hinduism, but a path of it`s own. Ofcourse, Sikhs have a lot in common with Hindus.

Like, Christ was Jewish, his teachings comes from Judiasm, similarly Prophet Mohammad continued from Christian and Jewish faiths.
But you don`t call Christ as Jew or Prophet as Jew or Christian.

My intent is not too prove that Sikhs are different and fell from Sky, but simply correct the misconceptions.
Baba like cults are some sort of reformers, they don`t become oragnized religions with their own country, land, army etc.


Tahmed: Look what have you started, are you watching this while sipping on your coffee?

Tahmed,

Nanak was a reformer - critical of BOTH Islam and Hindu practices, rituals, ideologies etc. He equally chastised Hindu Brahmins in Benares, and Mullas in Medina, and SUFIS too in Multan.

Political Perversity tries now to lay to claim to Nanak by both because his teachings now flourish and are universal. He wasn`t even a part of a Bhakti movement. This word was coined several centuries later by empty intellectuals.

Both Mullas and Brahmins didn`t like the teachings which decloaked them. The teachings contradict or at least question their rigidities. That is why both took on sikhs, and thus the bitter history.

Guru Gobind Singh didn`t make SGGSb. the guru because he immitated Islam. He did it to end the squabbles for `gaddi` (seat) inheritance that preceeded him.


223,

NO, but the hostilities by Mughals turned out to be the factor in transformation and addition of the martial aspects to the brotherhood.

224,

Hijrya, Dufaa HO! , dubara taadiyan mardaan deeth naa hovay taan.

Jang,
Your understanding of a faith that you say you are familiar with is almost zilch.
Comments like yours ``baba cult`` fuel more hatred than ever between Sikhs and Hindus. It also proves that at best your interaction with Sikhs has been eating Langar once in a while.

Please read the words that Guru Nanak wrote, there are translated versions available everywhere. Fortunately for Sikhs all of our religous scriptures are in original shape or form that we revere(SSGS and other banis). Guru Nanak`s message is very clear in his works, Japjee, Asa di Vaar, Kaafis, and other Saakhis written by Bhai Gurdas.
You will instantly notice that he was clearly creating a pure oneness of God that neither Muslims nor Hindus of that time possessed, former was arrogant, intolerant, hypocrite and the latter was weak, puritan, divisive, idol worshipper etc.

Second Guru created a Language/Script called Gurumukhi for Sikhs, third Guru started Masands, 4th Guru founded a mercantile city, Amritsar, 5th Guru established the scripture SGGS, 6th Guru raised an Army and Parcham(Nishan Sahib).
If it was a baba like cult, then howcome there are 25 million adherents to it, withing 2-300 yrs.
And you are saying that they were baba likes.

You are a Internet Syborg, who just wants to swallow everything. It is people like you whose rights Sikh Gurus were protecting and Sikhs will continue to hold the torch, come what may.

Inha Da Panth Nirala
Inha Di shaan Niralee

Well - I thought one of the founding principles of Khalsa/Sikhism was to fight muslim oppression. No?

Re: # 223
Totally incorrect, Guru Gobind`s army had many Pathans and other Muslims fighting on his side(some mercenary, some actually following the Guru).

70 % of Guru`s battles were with Hindu Rajas, 30 % with cruel, Muslim invaders.