Guru Gobind was conveying his message by word of mouth or using army to convert people? There is difference between the way Aurangzeb tried to impose religion (against the basic teaching of Islam - La ikrah Fiddin - There is no compulsion in religion) and the way Sikh gurus conveyed their message. How many Muslims converted to Sikhi due to message / force of Guru Gobind? Did he wage war on people, who didn't convert to Sikhi? I don't think so.
Sikhs started using force, when their gurus were killed and oppressed, whereas Aurangzeb got history of killing his brothers and arresting old father just for the sake of rule.
Thats what history tells us. Aurangzeb was even detested by poets like Khushal Khan Khatak.
so you think it is ok to order people to defuse thier religion?
so you think it is ok to order people to defuse thier religion?
Not at all. Diffusion is losing identity, co-existence is to live in harmony with people having different ideologies. Sufis doesn't promote diffusion, they promoted co-existence.
There is difference between the religion as was followed in Arab and India before Islam. Indian religion got strong roots and characterisation ( you may name it mythology) as compared to Arabs. Islam's message was spread gradually ( almost 23 years) with the caveats like there is no compulsion in Islam.
Situation in India was bit different. Rulers were not interested in public welfare. They looted their wealth and tried to impose a totally new religion on them. It was Sufi saints who used way of poetry and hybrid ways to convey soft image of Islam in India. In doing so they did took examples of Hindu mythology popular with masses to convey their message, but no Muslim Sufi promoted idol worshiping.
Not at all. *Diffusion is losing identity, co-existence is to live in harmony with people having different ideologies. Sufis doesn't promote diffusion, they promoted co-existence. *
There is difference between the religion as was followed in Arab and India before Islam. Indian religion got strong roots and characterisation ( you may name it mythology) as compared to Arabs. Islam's message was spread gradually ( almost 23 years) with the caveats like there is no compulsion in Islam.
Situation in India was bit different. Rulers were not interested in public welfare. They looted their wealth and tried to impose a totally new religion on them. It was Sufi saints who used way of poetry and hybrid ways to convey soft image of Islam in India. In doing so they did took examples of Hindu mythology popular with masses to convey their message, but no Muslim Sufi promoted idol worshiping.
I am asking you about the order of Guru Gobind. if that should had been appreciated?
I agree with his message, because he talked against useless things like Satti, killing daughters, etc.
Regarding Pilgrim and Purda points, its his views, which we can't say were also opposed by Bulleh Shah in totality.
the notion is muslims were "oppressors" and Sikh and Hindus were "victims".
if you think that it suits to Sufi Poet to appreciate such opressor then thread is already concluded. I would post the source about Bulleh Shah and Inayat Shah incident formally.
the notion is muslims were "oppressors" and Sikh and Hindus were "victoms".
if you think that it suits to Sufi Poet to appreciate such opressor then thread is already concluded. I would post the source about Bulleh Shah and Inayat Shah incident formally.
There was no question of oppressor and victim during Bulleh Shah's period, as Muslims were in sizable majority in the area where Bulleh Shah lived ( Bulleh Shah himself was son of Muslim clerk). There was no need for adventure on the name of religion as done by Aurangzeb.
On other hand, some historians also believe that it was all about rule and Aurangzeb's expeditions were not for religion. Talking against the exploiters doesn't mean that someone is against the religion of that oppressor. On other hand if someone is doing reforms and talk about reforms in society, we should not point fingers towards his / her religion.
There was no question of oppressor and victim during Bulleh Shah's period, as Muslims were in sizable majority in the area where Bulleh Shah lived ( Bulleh Shah himself was son of Muslim clerk). There was no need for adventure on the name of religion as done by Aurangzeb.
On other hand, some historians also believe that it was all about rule and Aurangzeb's expeditions were not for religion. Talking against the exploiters doesn't mean that someone is against the religion of that oppressor. On other hand if someone is doing reforms and talk about reforms in society, we should not point fingers towards his / her religion.
If Bulleh shah were a righteous Sufi poet he would had opposed the Guru Gobind. The reforms you take as righteous are clearly against the liberty of people who want to do Pardah and perform Pilgrim.
If Bulleh shah were a righteous Sufi poet he would had opposed the Guru Gobind. The reforms you take as righteous are clearly against the liberty of people who want to do Pardah and perform Pilgrim.
By Pilgrim, one should not limit it to Haj. there were hundreds of pilgrims in Indian society, which were imposed irrespective of someone's financial condition. You and me, being Muslim know that Haj is not obligatory for all. As far as I know, Sikhs don't follow ny restrictions on pilgrims todate. They have many pilgrims including Gurdwara Panja Sahib, Harimandar Sahib inaugurated by Muslim saint Miyan Meer. guru Nanak is also reported to have performed Haj as per popular Sikh folklore.
Purdah is also a separate issue.Purdah as followed in one region is different from the other.
Besides all the above things, Do we have any proof that Bulleh Shah himself opposed right pilgrim or purdah?
By Pilgrim, one should not limit it to Haj. there were hundreds of pilgrims in Indian society, which were imposed irrespective of someone's financial condition. You and me, being Muslim know that Haj is not obligatory for all. As far as I know, Sikhs don't follow ny restrictions on pilgrims todate. They have many pilgrims including Gurdwara Panja Sahib, Harimandar Sahib inaugurated by Muslim saint Miyan Meer. guru Nanak is also reported to have performed Haj as per popular Sikh folklore.
so you say, mean he meant, Hajj is allowed but other pilgrims are not allowed?
[QUOTE]
Purdah is also a separate issue.Purdah as followed in one region is different from the other.
[/QUOTE]
region is irrelevant here., who gave him right to tell people do or do not pardah?
[QUOTE]
Besides all the above things, Do we have any proof that Bulleh Shah himself opposed right pilgrim or purdah?
[/QUOTE]
but we have proof that he praised a person who order people to not to Do pardah and Pilgrim. for the sake of arguement, as mater neutrality he could had been silent but he praised such Guru. Although I still believe that Bulleh shah were clearly aware of Guru's order.
so you say, mean he meant, Hajj is allowed but other pilgrims are not allowed?
Pilgrims and rituals that burden the followers, which is not against any religious teaching. You know there are still rituals that family of a deceased have to fulfill irrespective of the fact that religion doesn't require that.
[QUOTE]
region is irrelevant here., who gave him right to tell people do or do not pardah?
[/QUOTE]
It was his personal view and what was reason behind such view should be seen, before ascertaining severity of the matter.
[QUOTE]
but we have proof that he praised a person who order people to not to Do pardah and Pilgrim. for the sake of arguement, as mater neutrality he could had been silent but he praised such Guru. Although I still believe that Bulleh shah were clearly aware of Guru's order.
[/QUOTE]
praising someones doesn't mean following each and everything of that person. If I appreciate MQM for their administration powers, does that mean I also follow their infamous policies regarding alleged terrorism?
Pilgrims and rituals that burden the followers, which is not against any religious teaching. You know there are still rituals that family of a deceased have to fulfill irrespective of the fact that religion doesn't require that.
It was his personal view and what was reason behind such view should be seen, before ascertaining severity of the matter.
praising someones doesn't mean following each and everything of that person. If I appreciate MQM for their administration powers, does that mean I also follow their infamous policies regarding alleged terrorism?
that is the point, you want to justify his Order :D. may be Muslims opression was the reason. but it not a way to spread socalled peace and love. oppression in return of oppression means both of them were wrong.
that is the point, you want to justify his Order :D. may be Muslims opression was the reason. but it not a way to spread socalled peace and love. oppression in return of oppression means both of them were wrong.
lols, Purdah was also prevalent in areas like Rajhisthan before Muslims, so its not purely Muslim concept at first hand for people of India. Besides this, society was not adaptive to any concept against eastern modesty, with or without purdah.
lols, Purdah was also prevalent in areas like Rajhisthan before Muslims, so its not purely Muslim concept at first hand for people of India. Besides this, society was not adaptive to any concept against eastern modesty, with or without purdah.
:)
that cannot infringe the right of Muslims to do Pardah.
who wanted to infringe Muslims rights? My point is eastern modesty was as good as purdah. If you look at traditional costumes of Thari women (majority Hindu), they have a goonghat in front of their face.
Besides that question is how many Muslim women followed Guru’s order via Bulleh Shah?
Nice discussion. I like what I am reading about Bulleh Shah and Guru Gobind so far. Personally, I think customs like burqua/Ghoongat/purdah and sati are all unnecessary. There is more to modesty than covering your face. Also this kind of modesty is one dimensional. There are a lot of customs for women w.r.t modesty which would have made more of an impression if it was reciprocated by the male half of society. For example Men wearing blinkers to women covering their faces. It is not fair to enforce "modesty" on only one segment of the population. If a women's beauty may cause lust in a man, what about handsome men who can do the same for women. There should be some new rules like only avg looking or ugly people can show their faces but beautiful women and handsome men should cover up from head to toe. :)
Seriously speaking, I also like the part about piligrimages. No pilgrimage in any religion must be made compulsory. If people feel the divine call, they will go on their own. But pilgrimages which are obligatory and enforced/encouraged by religions or social customs/rituals are sort of hypocrisy IMO.
Seriously speaking, I also like the part about piligrimages. No pilgrimage in any religion must be made compulsory. If people feel the divine call, they will go on their own. But pilgrimages which are obligatory and enforced/encouraged by religions or social customs/rituals are sort of hypocrisy IMO.
Islamic concept of Pilgrimage (Haj) is obligatory for those who can afford it, after fulfilling other needs. If a person is indebted, he is not required to perform Haj, but some how some people perform Haj by taking loans. Religions (including Islam) emphaises on internal aspects of worship and not apparent form of rituals and if anything talked against religion by Sufi saints like Bulleh Shah, related to such rituals and not the actual substance of religion.
Muqa this is your personal view, as know muslim religious people has/had been there on earth since appearance of Islam.
yes, you can count it my personal view, based on the observation of my surroundings. For me, a Hindu woman in Sind / Punjab gives s same kind of preference to modesty, as a Ba-Hijab Musim woman from same area. I believe Guru's words were not against modesty, as even todate Sikhs are as emotional about Honor, as people in Muslim majority Sindh / Punjab.
[QUOTE]
nowhere I said that Bulleh Shah was actively involved in spreading the Guru's order. But he was unconcerned for oppression of Guru.
[/QUOTE]
How do you prove that Sikh Guru oppressed / used force for spreading his message?
In 1699, the Guru sent hukmanamas (letters of authority) to his followers, requesting them to congregate at Anandpur on 13 April 1699, the day of Vaisakhi (the annual harvest festival).[12] He addressed the congregation from the entryway of a small tent pitched on a small hill (now called Kesgarh Sahib). He first asked everyone who he was for them? Everyone answered - “You are our Guru.” He then asked them who were they, to which everyone replied - “We are your Sikhs.” Having reminded them of this relationship, He then said that today the Guru needs something from his In 1699, the Guru sent hukmanamas (letters of authority) to his followers, requesting them to congregate at Anandpur on 13 April 1699, the day of Vaisakhi (the annual harvest festival).[12] He addressed the congregation from the entryway of a small tent pitched on a small hill (now called Kesgarh Sahib). He first asked everyone who he was for them? Everyone answered - “You are our Guru.” He then asked them who were they, to which everyone replied - “We are your Sikhs.” Having reminded them of this relationship,** He then said that today the Guru needs something from his Sikhs.** Everyone said, “Hukum Karo, Sache Patshah” (Order us, True Lord). Then drawing his sword he asked for a volunteer who was willing to sacrifice his head. **No one answered his first call, nor the second call, but on the third invitation, Daya Ram (later known as Bhai Daya Singh) came forward and offered his head to the Guru. Guru Gobind Rai took the volunteer inside the tent. The Guru returned to the crowd with blood dripping from his sword. He then demanded another head. One more volunteer came forward, and entered the tent with him. The Guru again emerged with blood on his sword. This happened three more times. Then the five volunteers came out of the tent in new clothing unharmed.
Guru Gobind Singh then poured clear water into an iron bowl and adding Patashas (Punjabi sweeteners) into it, he stirred it with double-edged sword accompanied with recitations from Adi Granth. He called this mixture of sweetened water and iron as Amrit (“nectar”) and administered it to the five men. These five, who willingly volunteered to sacrifice their lives for their Guru, were given the title of the Panj Piare (“the five beloved ones”) by their Guru**.[12] They were the first (baptized) Sikhs of the Khalsa: Daya Ram (Bhai Daya Singh), Dharam Das (Bhai Dharam Singh), Himmat Rai (Bhai Himmat Singh), Mohkam Chand (Bhai Mohkam Singh), and Sahib Chand (Bhai Sahib Singh).
Guru Gobind Singh then recited a line which has been the rallying-cry of the Khalsa since then: ‘Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh’ (Khalsa belongs to God; victory belongs to God). He gave them all the name “Singh” (lion), and designated them collectively as the Khalsa, the body of baptized Sikhs. The Guru then astounded the five and the whole assembly as he knelt and asked them to in turn initiate him as a member, on an equal footing with them in the Khalsa, thus becoming the sixth member of the new order. His name became Gobind Singh. Today members of the Khalsa consider Guru Gobind as their father, and Mata Sahib Kaur as their mother.[12] The Panj Piare were thus the first baptised Sikhs, and became the first members of the Khalsa brotherhood. Women were also initiated into the Khalsa, and given the title of kaur (“princess”).[12] Guru Gobind Singh then addressed the audience -
“
From now on, you have become casteless. No ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, will you perform nor will you believe in superstition of any kind, but only in one God who is the master and protector of all, the only creator and destroyer. In your new order, the lowest will rank with the highest and each will be to the other a bhai (brother). No pilgrimages for you any more, nor austerities but the pure life of the household, which you should be ready to sacrifice at the call of Dharma. Women shall be equal of men in every way. No purdah (veil) for them anymore, nor the burning alive of a widow on the pyre of her spouse (sati). He who kills his daughter, the Khalsa shall not deal with him.
. Everyone said, “Hukum Karo, Sache Patshah” (Order us, True Lord). Then drawing his sword he asked for a volunteer who was willing to sacrifice his head. No one answered his first call, nor the second call, but on the third invitation, Daya Ram (later known as Bhai Daya Singh) came forward and offered his head to the Guru. Guru Gobind Rai took the volunteer inside the tent. The Guru returned to the crowd with blood dripping from his sword. He then demanded another head. One more volunteer came forward, and entered the tent with him. The Guru again emerged with blood on his sword. This happened three more times. Then the five volunteers came out of the tent in new clothing unharmed.
Guru Gobind Singh then poured clear water into an iron bowl and adding Patashas (Punjabi sweeteners) into it, he stirred it with double-edged sword accompanied with recitations from Adi Granth. He called this mixture of sweetened water and iron as Amrit (“nectar”) and administered it to the five men. These five, who willingly volunteered to sacrifice their lives for their Guru, were given the title of the Panj Piare (“the five beloved ones”) by their Guru.[12] They were the first (baptized) Sikhs of the Khalsa: Daya Ram (Bhai Daya Singh), Dharam Das (Bhai Dharam Singh), Himmat Rai (Bhai Himmat Singh), Mohkam Chand (Bhai Mohkam Singh), and Sahib Chand (Bhai Sahib Singh).
Guru Gobind Singh then recited a line which has been the rallying-cry of the Khalsa since then: ‘Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh’ (Khalsa belongs to God; victory belongs to God). He gave them all the name “Singh” (lion), and designated them collectively as the Khalsa, the body of baptized Sikhs. The Guru then astounded the five and the whole assembly as he knelt and asked them to in turn initiate him as a member, on an equal footing with them in the Khalsa, thus becoming the sixth member of the new order. His name became Gobind Singh. Today members of the Khalsa consider Guru Gobind as their father, and Mata Sahib Kaur as their mother.[12] The Panj Piare were thus the first baptised Sikhs, and became the first members of the Khalsa brotherhood. Women were also initiated into the Khalsa, and given the title of kaur (“princess”).[12] Guru Gobind Singh then addressed the audience -
“
From now on, you have become casteless. No ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, will you perform nor will you believe in superstition of any kind, but only in one God who is the master and protector of all, the only creator and destroyer. In your new order, the lowest will rank with the highest and each will be to the other a bhai (brother). No pilgrimages for you any more, nor austerities but the pure life of the household, which you should be ready to sacrifice at the call of Dharma. Women shall be equal of men in every way. No purdah (veil) for them anymore, nor the burning alive of a widow on the pyre of her spouse (sati). He who kills his daughter, the Khalsa shall not deal with him. Guru Gobind Singh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
after laying foundation of khalsa military with the blood of his five people, what else expect from people about obeying his order?
More Importantly, there were Sikh also, but he addressed Hindus and Muslims only, presuming that all is good with Sikh people.
