Punjabi Musalman were tertiary class citizens under Ranjeet Singh

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

YThis is my opinion, but I have a hard time thinking how it could be inaccurate. Because of this, I'm fairly confident that it was meant as a project to minimize Muslim progression, t.

this sounds like veiled conspiracy theory.

[Elite Pakhtun]

this sounds like veiled conspiracy theory.

Funny. But instead of making cheap shots, if you think my hypothesis is inaccurate, poke holes in it.

Why else would it be an amalgamation of Islam and Hinduism in a time of Muslim expansion? As you yourself pointed out, Muslims were persecuting people of other religions in the area.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Funny. But instead of making cheap shots, if you think my hypothesis is inaccurate, poke holes in it.

Why else would it be an amalgamation of Islam and Hinduism in a time of Muslim expansion? As you yourself pointed out, Muslims were persecuting people of other religions in the area.

I just did.

[Elite Pakhtun]

I just did.

Why does it sound like veiled conspiracy theory? Because I used the words "I'm fairly confident" instead of "this is conclusive proof/this makes it obvious"? Is it because it was stopping Muslim progression? I'm not sure what you think makes it sound conspiracy.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Why does it sound like veiled conspiracy theory? Because I used the words "I'm fairly confident" instead of "this is conclusive proof/this makes it obvious"? Is it because it was stopping Muslim progression? I'm not sure what you think makes it sound conspiracy.

your statement suggests that there was some organizational plan to undermine Islam by inventing a whole doctrine.

I think Sikhs just flourished because of the lax influence of the Chishti Sufis on the Hindus they encountered. Bengalis have a similar phenomena called the Bauls. It's not surprising that many parts of Sikh literature is actually the poetry of Baba Farid, one of the main progenitors of Chishti Sufi tradition.

[Elite Pakhtun]

your statement suggests that there was some organizational plan to undermine Islam by inventing a whole doctrine.

I think Sikhs just flourished because of the lax influence of the Chishti Sufis on the Hindus they encountered. Bengalis have a similar phenomena called the Bauls. It's not surprising that many parts of Sikh literature is actually the poetry of Baba Farid, one of the main progenitors of Chishti Sufi tradition.

But you're saying the same thing almost. You just missed out the violent backdrop. You're saying many Hindus would not convert at all, not even with the Sufis. If you isolate that and ignore everything else, who cares? They don't convert. So what? If you add the empire building and the blood that was being shed by both sides (1 side was winning as we know), then it makes a lot more sense.

Unless you're implying there's something Chishti Sufism offers that Hinduism was missing, and Sikhism happened to fill that void - to which I disagree. Read up on Hinduism. Within Hindusim there are many different schools. Some accept Jesus as a reincarnation of God. They can almost pick and choose entirely. But they are still Hindu.

Your reasoning doesn't explain why there would be a need to create a religion separate from both Hinduism and Islam, which yet included elements directly from both. If you include the violent environment in the story, it makes a lot more sense as to why such an amalgamation would be desired to begin with.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

But you're saying the same thing almost. You just missed out the violent backdrop. You're saying many Hindus would not convert at all, not even with the Sufis. If you isolate that and ignore everything else, who cares? They don't convert. So what? If you add the empire building and the blood that was being shed by both sides (1 side was winning as we know), then it makes a lot more sense.

Unless you're implying there's something Chishti Sufism offers that Hinduism was missing, and Sikhism happened to fill that void - to which I disagree. Read up on Hinduism. Within Hindusim there are many different schools. Some accept Jesus as a reincarnation of God. They can almost pick and choose entirely. But they are still Hindu.

Your reasoning doesn't explain why there would be a need to create a religion separate from both Hinduism and Islam, which yet included elements directly from both. If you include the violent environment in the story, it makes a lot more sense as to why such an amalgamation would be desired to begin with.

Chishtis tend not to be oriented to converting and they often have the rhetoric that Spirituality is the core of every religion and that should be the focal point. So I'm not sure how you infer that I'm saying the same. I'm saying they're lax so that Laxness probably rubbed off.

As Samandri mentioned, the Sikhs started their vitriol with Muslims long after the Sufi exposure happened. so I don';t think your hypothesis works.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Chishtis tend not to be oriented to converting and they often have the rhetoric that Spirituality is the core of every religion and that should be the focal point. So I'm not sure how you infer that I'm saying the same. I'm saying they're lax so that Laxness probably rubbed off.

As Samandri mentioned, the Sikhs started their vitriol with Muslims long after the Sufi exposure happened. so I don';t think your hypothesis works.

Sorry...the laxness rubbed off on who? Sikhs? Hindus? Naat make sense.

OK so the Chishtis didn't actively convert. But that doesn't answer why the locals would want to convert to begin with? What did the Chishtis offer that neither Islam nor Hinduism offered. Nothing, really.

So why create a new religion to begin with? Because 1 was absolutely dominating the other, was progressing and expanding, and this was an attempt to create somewhat of a "draw" in the initial phases (instead of a win/loss). Without the 1 dominating the other, this new one would simply never have existed period full stop caamaa semi colon colonoscopy. My hypothesis is solid.

What I said was:

1. Muslims were expanding, mainly militarily. They were dominating the sub-continent.
2. This was a time when people of different religions weren't getting along. Muslims were dominant by far. This meant lots of bloodshed based on religion.
3. Given the environment, if any new religion had a following, it would meet the same fate that every religion had been meeting at the time.
   • Muslims were dominating so they were doing the persecuting.
   • Other religions were weak, so they were the ones getting persecuted.
4. Therefore creation of any religion, particularly one that's taking pieces of the dominant religion and combining it with the other popular religion, will be met with persecution the moment it had a following.
   • Anyone could've seen this at that time.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

OK so the Chishtis didn't actively convert. But that doesn't answer why the locals would want to convert to begin with? What did the Chishtis offer that neither Islam nor Hinduism offered. Nothing, really

They liked their spirituality, it was as simple as that. Take of the Paki nationalist glasses for once. Not every Hindu is corrupt, not every Paki is a saint.

[Elite Pakhtun]

They liked their spirituality, it was as simple as that. Take of the Paki nationalist glasses for once. Not every Hindu is corrupt, not every Paki is a saint.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I already addressed this Ibleesa. Hinduism is flexible enough to copy their spirituality parts without violating their own religion. To a large extent they can pick and choose. So no, their spirituality did not even need their involvement. They could've done it without them.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I already addressed this Ibleesa. Hinduism is flexible enough to copy their spirituality parts without violating their own religion. To a large extent they can pick and choose. So no, their spirituality did not even need their involvement. They could've done it without them.

That's irrelevant, you don't always need to approproiate something to like something.

[Elite Pakhtun]

That's irrelevant, you don't always need to approproiate something to like something.

Not at all irrelevant. You are correct about that, and they could like it without appropriating. But that just goes completely counter to the existence of Sikhism which was an appropriation of it, plus other stuff.

I'm telling you... without invaders, there would simply be no raison d'etre for Sikhism.

[Charsi Malang]

Interesting discussion.... Have a read of this guys...



"The Sikh is the guardian of the Marches. He was originally invented to
combat the Pathan. His religion was designed to be diametrically opposed
to Mahommedanism. It was a shrewd act of policy. Fanaticism was met by
fanaticism. Religious abhorrence was added to racial hatred. The Pathan
invaders were rolled back to the mountains, and the Sikhs established
themselves at Lahore and Peshawar. The strong contrast, and much of the
animosity, remain to-day. The Sikh wears his hair down to his waist; the
Pathan shaves his head. The Sikh drinks what he will; the Pathan is an
abstainer. The Sikh is burnt after death; the Pathan would be thus
deprived of Paradise. As a soldier the Pathan is a finer shot, a hardier
man, a better marcher, especially on the hillside, and possibly an even.
more brilliant fighter. He relies more on instinct than education: war
is in his blood; he is a born marksman, but he is dirty, lazy and a spendthrift."



This is taken from the writings of Winston Churchill.

[Elite Pakhtun]

The end ruined it a bit, but still an interesting quote and very relevant to this thread.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Not at all irrelevant. You are correct about that, and they could like it without appropriating. But that just goes completely counter to the existence of Sikhism which was an appropriation of it, plus other stuff.

I'm telling you... without invaders, there would simply be no raison d'etre for Sikhism.

Not really, since people are no monoliths, some people may have thought perhaps we can just do our own thing some people didn't. You're making a lot of faulty assumptions.