Another thing is that how come his poetry has become blasphemous after Zia's government? Was it not blasphemous during the past couple of hundred years? Till recently his poems were recited in the villages. I dont know if his poetry is blasphemous or not, one thing is for sure we are becoming more and more hardline with the passage of time.
you mean you are not ready to hear other(opposite) point of view irrespective of bulleh shah' peotry is blasphemous or not. then what is point of discussion dear? why come and say us hardliner, just display desclaimer at the thread that "we are not open to listen opposite point of view otherwise we shall label you hardliners".
so people should come and approved just what OP written, like each others post and that all, is that how a thread should run its course?
we are hardliners because we just care about lines faith draws, on the other side we are making our people ashamed of our forefathers lik Iqbal to lessen 'extemism' of Muslims.
how can you prove that all of them were sikh and all the people accepted Sikhi willingly?
these are assumptions that there were no muslims and all of them were Sikh.
till the time of Guru Gobind Singh (10th Guru), Sikhism had gone through the masses acceptance (that may include minority of Muslims also). The passage you posted say that Sikh Guru asked people, who are you? and the crowd replied that they are Sikhs. This proves that Sikh guru was addressing people who were already converted to Sikhism.
Besides, we should also see historical records, when forced conversion to Sikhism happened.
you mean you are not ready to hear other(opposite) point of view irrespective of bulleh shah' peotry is blasphemous or not. then what is point of discussion dear? why come and say us hardliner, just display desclaimer at the thread that "we are not open to listen opposite point of view otherwise we shall label you hardliners".
so people should come and approved just what OP written, like each others post and that all, is that how a thread should run its course?
we are hardliners because we just care about lines faith draws, on the other side we are making our people ashamed of our forefathers lik Iqbal to lessen 'extemism' of Muslims.
ajaz, my post never meant to make people ashamed of Iqbal. I do have some differences about the areas he hilighted in his poetry. I do respect Iqbal as his message was for the betterment of Muslims , which has been used by some hardliners like Zaid Hamid to enter into adventures like Ghazwa e Hind. Such people will never own Iqbal for writing 'sare jahan se acha Hindustan hamara'.
As far as approving my post is concerned, I just shared my view and ready to open for any view against it.
In Bulleh Shah's time we had one Aurangzaeb who was quite cruel with non muslims and this Guru Gobind Singh who might not be ideal himself (but was preaching equality). It seems that Bullah Shah would have supported his call for equality. If you support a particular stance of some one does not mean that you believe in everything that he says. Is there any particular instance of Bulleh Shah in his poetry condemning Burqa or Hajj??
Muqa also has made similar argument. To give this argument first you will agree that Guru was wrong. Now, if you accept that, then Muqa's argument regarding praising MQM's administration becomes apparently valid. I counter this argument, you praise MQM's administration and you people do solicit your critical opinion about wrongdoings of MQM as well. But the moment i prove that Bulleh shah was unconcerned for Guru's order you will start again covering Guru's order with cultural aspects.
I would say Bulleh shah was interested in mingle of religions that's why he didnt write anything against such activities of Non-muslims.
till the time of Guru Gobind Singh (10th Guru), Sikhism had gone through the masses acceptance (that may include minority of Muslims also). The passage you posted say that Sikh Guru asked people, who are you? and the crowd replied that they are Sikhs. This proves that Sikh guru was addressing people who were already converted to Sikhism.
Besides, we should also see historical records, when forced conversion to Sikhism happened.
sory to say this is still an assumption. Why bulleh shah favoring Guru? for prtecting people from conversion, but Sikh(may be Guru too) was also involved in focreful conversion of Muslims into sikh, whatever the reason was become irrelevant when parties at both side did this crime.
sory to say this is still an assumption. Why bulleh shah favoring Guru? for prtecting people from conversion, but Sikh(may be Guru too) was also involved in focreful conversion of Muslims into sikh, whatever the reason was become irrelevant when parties at both side did this crime.
Thats what I'm asking. What are the sources that support forced conversion of people into Sikhisim, because Sikh claim that its against basic teachings of their Gurus, who denounced all religions and rituals.
Muqa also has made similar argument. To give this argument first you will agree that Guru was wrong. Now, if you accept that, then Muqa's argument regarding praising MQM's administration becomes apparently valid. I counter this argument, you praise MQM's administration and you people do solicit your critical opinion about wrongdoings of MQM as well. But the moment i prove that Bulleh shah was unconcerned for Guru's order you will start again covering Guru's order with cultural aspects.
I would say** Bulleh shah was interested in mingle of religions** that's why he didnt write anything against such activities of Non-muslims.
He was interested in harmony of people irrespective of their religion. He was living in land, where Muslims were rulers, but still in minority, so it was also better for Muslims to have good relationships with the others, which was not possible considering the forcible conversions pleas taken by some rulers.
Again, same question coming into my mind. What are the sources supporting forcible conversions of Muslims into Sikhism? Did that happened during Ranjeet Singh era or it was always prevalent from Guru's time?
Thats what I'm asking. What are the sources that support forced conversion of people into Sikhisim, because Sikh claim that its against basic teachings of their Gurus, who denounced all religions and rituals.
Thats what I'm asking. What are the sources that support forced conversion of people into Sikhisim, because Sikh claim that its against basic teachings of their Gurus, who denounced all religions and rituals.
so you deny any focreful conversion of Muslims into sikh had happend?
so you deny any focreful conversion of Muslims into sikh had happend?
I'm not denying. I'm asking for any source which proves against the Sikh claim that their Gurus detested forceful conversion of people into any religion including Sikhism.
It explains that bulleh shah was thrown out of court of his Peer Anayt Shah Qadri due to false PROPAGATION of religious concepts.
Following is the source I was talking about incident of Bulleh Shah and Anayat Qadri.
I'm not denying. I'm asking for any source which proves against the Sikh claim that their Gurus detested forceful conversion of people into any religion including Sikhism.
other sikh did, so can be said about this guru, as his order is prety much clear.
nevertheless, it proves my point that Bulleh shah was unconcerned for forceful conversion of Muslims into Sikh but not for Sikh into Muslims.
other sikh did, so can be said about this guru, as his order is prety much clear.
nevertheless, it proves my point that Bulleh shah was unconcerned for forceful conversion of Muslims into Sikh but not for Sikh into Muslims.
But I would like to see statistics of Muslims conversion into Sikhism before drawing any conclusion as to Bulleh Shah's support for conversion to Sikhism. It would be far fetched conclusion, if its drawn on only one general statement by Guru Gobind.
^ May be I could not provide you statistics but, crime is still there.
But there might be some historical material which might suggest the conclusion you are drawing. It would be interesting to know that Besides Muslims, locals also imposed forcible conversion on Muslims. Popular version of history suggest that apart from tussle between Sikh Gurus and Mughal rulers, both the communities lived in harmony before 1947 massacre.
you mean you are not ready to hear other(opposite) point of view irrespective of bulleh shah' peotry is blasphemous or not. then what is point of discussion dear? why come and say us hardliner, just display desclaimer at the thread that "we are not open to listen opposite point of view otherwise we shall label you hardliners".
so people should come and approved just what OP written, like each others post and that all, is that how a thread should run its course?
we are hardliners because we just care about lines faith draws, on the other side we are making our people ashamed of our forefathers lik Iqbal to lessen 'extemism' of Muslims.
I never said that I dont want to hear opposing voices. The narrative regarding these people is new, after the 1979 'Islamization' process. Before that for hundreds of years we didnt have any issue regarding these things. If you go into rural areas you will still hear the poetry of Bulleh shah. Anyways every one is free to interpret how they want to.
