Punjabi Musalman were tertiary class citizens under Ranjeet Singh

[Elite Pakhtun]

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.

The proof that you are wrong is very simply on the fact that it did not take off until a lot later. So if the desire to follow Chishti components were as valuable as you say they are, and being able to borrow from it to one's own benefit was not an option, then a following would've been generated a lot earlier.

Also important to know, is the 2nd guru of theirs was a Hindu who was driven from his village by Mughals and Baloch actually. He was a Hindu prior to meeting Nanak and converting to sikh.

Final important thing to note: one of the big reasons for their reverence of Baba Farid is because he was the first notable Sufi who wrote in Punjabi. The sikhs loved their punjabi and general punjab stuff. That's why it's a religion isolated to those people.

Here, this is a highly biased source, but if you just look at the objective stuff they say and ignore the obvious PR, you can see that Sufis and Hindus learned a lot from each other:

"The early exposition of spiritual thought in the Upanishads formed an ideological bridge between Vaishnavism and Sufism. At the same time, the Sufis were so impressed by Indian thought and practices that many of them adopted these ideas. Similarly some Kayasthas, Khatris, Kashmiri Pandits and Sindhi Amils adopted Muslim culture, cultivated Persian language and literature, and participated in the administration of Islamic states during the medieval period.2

During the rule of Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin, the Kashmiri Pandits, especially the Sapru clan took up the study of Persian. This was the only group of Brahmins who took to Muslim culture. The Amils of Sindh were a hereditary caste of government servants. After the incorporation of Sindh in Delhi Sultanate, they turned to the study of Persian. Their Sindhi literature remained fully integrated with Muslim traditions and they wrote Sindhi in Arabic script.3
Tara Chand rightly observes, ‘ Hindus offered sweets at Muslim shrines, consulted the Quran as an oracle, kept its copies to ward off the evil influence, and celebrated Muslim feasts. The Muslims responded likewise.’4"


Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The proof that you are wrong is very simply on the fact that it did not take off until a lot later.

that isnt proof of anything you're interpolating big time

[Elite Pakhtun]

that isnt proof of anything you're interpolating big time

So are you. My interpolation is more likely to be correct. That's what I'm arguing.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

So are you. My interpolation is more likely to be correct. That's what I'm arguing.

This post is simply confirmation bias, nothing to do with likelihood. And no I'm not interpolating, I'm demonstrating your conspiratorial slant doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

[Elite Pakhtun]

[MENTION=19435]Iblis_Efreetzai[/MENTION]

It feels like you're just trolling right now.

The fact that sikhism didn't take off till a lot later is ample proof that the Chishti Sufis' teachings were not even much (if any) of a factor in the raison d'etre for sikhism's existence.

Had many people merely wanted to adopt the Sufi teachings (and if you ignore the passage I pasted, from a source that is pro-sikh no less), and for some miraculous reason they couldn't do so by being either Hindu or a Muslim, then Sikhism making something like this available should have been a lot more popular. The Sufis couldn't convert the Hindus, so Sikhism must have succeeded, right? That's your argument in a nutshell.

What about the additional fact that the religion was at it's absolute infancy when one of their guru's was of Hindu origin and was already wronged by Muslims i.e. 2nd guru. This guy was one of the disciples of Nanak.

If I'm interpolating that this was an alternative/resistance to the prevailing process of expansion to which they were subject to from it's very creation, then you're interpolating (with almost no good argument) that it was just certain facets of Sufi teachings that they wanted to adopt independently of being either Hindu or Muslim. I have provided far better and more logical reasons for my case. Intuitively it makes more sense too... you are underestimating how much aggravation they must've had as a result of being dominated in such a manner.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=19435]Iblis_Efreetzai[/MENTION
The fact that sikhism didn't take off till a lot later is ample proof that the Chishti Sufis' teachings were not even much (if any) of a factor in the raison d'etre for sikhism's existence.

.

There's no trolling here, you're affirming your own premise, this is circular reasoning and confirmation bias. that;'s not how you demonstrate things.

learn better arguments and drop this Pakistani conspiracy stuff.

[Elite Pakhtun]

There's no trolling here, you're affirming your own premise, this is circular reasoning and confirmation bias. that;'s not how you demonstrate things.

learn better arguments and drop this Pakistani conspiracy stuff.

My arguments are fine, you're not presenting me a valid response, just "this is circular reasoning". What part of this is circular? Doesn't look circular to me. If it's so circular, be more specific i.e. present a better argument/be more specific and articulate because it simply doesn't look circular.

The part you quoted is not me affirming my own premise, it is me demolishing yours.

No confirmation bias, just plain simple logic. While I agree it did not start with the anti-Islamic vitriol, it was at a time when Muslims were killing lots of Hindus and other non-Muslims. Among many things, these 2 are things we can infer:

1) A new religion was very likely to have it's followers killed as well (the moment it became prominent enough). Once that happened, it was guaranteed that either they would stop preaching and give up, start hiding and keep preaching (which, if discovered, would lead to getting killed again) or they would fight back. There is no other option.
2) This new religion borrowed parts from Islam and Hinduism. In the best case most utopian scenario for these guys, everyone follows this and Muslims stop killing Hindus and vice versa and there's just peace and harmony in the region because now they're part of this new religion. In the realistic case, Hindus that were going to convert to Islam would likely take this path instead and/or those aggrieved by what they had experienced would see this as a viable option.

Both those are my premises, and they are based on the logical foundation of the historical environment at the time. Your Chishti Sufi theory has been absolutely slaughtered. I mean just absolute wholesale slaughter, complete annihilation, debunked, rebuked, rebuffed, nulled, nuclear holocaust, etc. It was not a factor in their reason for existence. Hindus have no problem copying other religions and staying hindus. Those who did, but wanted to convert could do so easily. I have proven that both the Chishti Sufis and the Hindus had borrowed from each other as a matter of historical fact. Why even convert to a third option if you can just "borrow" and keep 1 of the 2?

[Samandri]

The part you quoted is not me affirming my own premise, it is me demolishing yours.

No confirmation bias, just plain simple logic. While I agree it did not start with the anti-Islamic vitriol, it was at a time when Muslims were killing lots of Hindus and other non-Muslims. Among many things, these 2 are things we can infer:

1) A new religion was very likely to have it's followers killed as well (the moment it became prominent enough). Once that happened, it was guaranteed that either they would stop preaching and give up, start hiding and keep preaching (which, if discovered, would lead to getting killed again) or they would fight back. There is no other option.
2) This new religion borrowed parts from Islam and Hinduism. In the best case most utopian scenario for these guys, everyone follows this and Muslims stop killing Hindus and vice versa and there's just peace and harmony in the region because now they're part of this new religion. In the realistic case, Hindus that were going to convert to Islam would likely take this path instead and/or those aggrieved by what they had experienced would see this as a viable option.

Both those are my premises, and they are based on the logical foundation of the historical environment at the time. Your Chishti Sufi theory has been absolutely slaughtered. I mean just absolute wholesale slaughter, complete annihilation, debunked, rebuked, rebuffed, nulled, nuclear holocaust, etc. It was not a factor in their reason for existence. Hindus have no problem copying other religions and staying hindus. Those who did, but wanted to convert could do so easily. I have proven that both the Chishti Sufis and the Hindus had borrowed from each other as a matter of historical fact. Why even convert to a third option if you can just "borrow" and keep 1 of the 2?

Eblees , this guy call himself "cleverrider" on defence.pk.......

Your conspiracy theory, rightly called so by Ifreetzai, falls flat because no slaughter of Hindus was taking place at that time. In fact, 'Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi', written in that period, as well as other sources like "Afsana-i-Shahan" prove that Hindus and Muslims were coming closer in Afghan period and Hindi language was sponsored by state along with Persian for facilitation of Hindus working in the administration of Lodi and Sur Sultans. Akbar's tolerant policies were simply continuation of Afghan policy towards Hindus........so in entire 16th century period, no religious prosecution of Hindus is taking place, except military expeditions against those who rebelled. Not just Guru Nanak, but you have also figures like Kabir, who is mixing Islam with Hinduism....

Hindu behind every evil and mishap......this is simply Pakistani zeal and mindset.....its a common Pakistani notion that it were Hindus who were pulling the strings of Sikhs and made them kill Punjabi musalman in 1947......Pakistanis have invented this notion, because they had to support Khalistan movement

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

My arguments are fine, you're not presenting me a valid response, just "this is circular reasoning".

You're claiming something as proof which does not automatically imply your thesis. This is part of what circular reasoning is. You're interpolating things my friend. this is why my responses are short here, because there's no need to respond to an conspiratorial narrative in detail, since it follows a standard line of thinking. This is how nationalism rots minds.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Eblees , this guy call himself "cleverrider" on defence.pk.......

Your conspiracy theory, rightly called so by Ifreetzai, falls flat because no slaughter of Hindus was taking place at that time. In fact, 'Waqiat-i-Mushtaqi', written in that period, as well as other sources like "Afsana-i-Shahan" prove that Hindus and Muslims were coming closer in Afghan period and Hindi language was sponsored by state along with Persian for facilitation of Hindus working in the administration of Lodi and Sur Sultans. Akbar's tolerant policies were simply continuation of Afghan policy towards Hindus........so in entire 16th century period, no religious prosecution of Hindus is taking place, except military expeditions against those who rebelled. Not just Guru Nanak, but you have also figures like Kabir, who is mixing Islam with Hinduism....

Hindu behind every evil and mishap......this is simply Pakistani zeal and mindset.....its a common Pakistani notion that it were Hindus who were pulling the strings of Sikhs and made them kill Punjabi musalman in 1947......Pakistanis have invented this notion, because they had to support Khalistan movement

I must admit I laughed for about 10 minutes because of the defence thing. I'm not on defence.pk, I'm not a person you guys are familiar with, I'm not a past member. I'm not someone you know/knew.

I went through a handful of cleverrider's posts... I see some similarities, but really not that much to warrant being thought of as him. It's unfair praise to him if you ask me.

I was about to say I have no idea why you thought I was him, but I see why now. I'm seeing a post by some indiot sikh cockroach worthless garbage **** of the earth telling them about fairy tales of how Sikhs fought off 14000 Pakhtuns, and cleverrider calls them cannon fodder as well. YES!!! I must make friends with this guy. Him, that Rooh Arain person who hates sikhs... anyone that despises a sikh cockroach is a friend of mine. I f*cking hate sikhs like no tomorrow... you have absolutely no idea how much I revile their guts. They're a bunch of f*cking punjabi patriot stupid hindu-cannon fodder pieces of cr*p.

From Past:: Battle of Saragarhi: When 21 Sikhs Faced 14, Pashtuns And Won (the thread in question)

Now, regarding your other stuff... yarra please, khudai da parra, khudai ta ugora... there was no slaughter of Hindus? Please look at this: Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to scroll up and down and every which direction as well, and you can see how long it's been happening for. Many many centuries before Nanruk (the "nr" should be pronounced like the last part of "Genr") showed up. Here's a quote that I like, about Lodhi since that's around the time Nanruk was around:

He (Lodi) was so zealous of a Musulman that he utterly destroyed diverse places of worship of the infidels. He entirely ruined the shrines of Mathura, the minefield of heathenism. Their stone images were given to the butchers to use them as meat weights,[74] and all the Hindus in Mathura were strictly prohibited from shaving their heads and beards, and performing ablutions. He stopped the idolatrous rites of the infidels there. Every city thus conformed as he desired to the customs of Islam. – Táríkh-i Dáúdí

There were notable exceptions as you mentioned, but we're talking many 100s of years, over half a millennium in fact, where most of the time the exceptions were not around.

This is nothing to be ashamed off. Technology was poor back then, we couldn't afford human rights. This is just part and parcel of how empire building was. The angrezan wiped people out entirely. Look up Tasmanian natives. They are extinct because of white people. There's even documentation of the last 2 living Tasmanians. It's better to be on the winning side as far as I'm concerned. These are just harsh realities of the past.

Regarding Pakistani nationalists saying hindu hands in everything. Thanks, I did not know that. Also, rora, if were claiming I said Hindus were behind the Sikh's pathetic behavior during partition, please find it and show it. And if you were doing that then please stop trying to tarnish my image, even if I am merely an anonymous profile on the internet. If you were making a general remark then ignore this. See how polite I am? I know you were trying to tarnish my image, but I'm willing to pretend I didn't.

For what it's worth, Sikhs did it themselves. They didn't need Hindus. They grew up listening to a history of their butchering. They hate us by default. They didn't need anyone to pull any strings. This is what I've been saying throughout this thread.

I called them a Hindu project it was started by a Hindu, all their "gurus" were either recently converted Hindu, or born Sikh, and they really had no purpose other than to be a human shield i.e. Hindu-cannon fodder. I'm very proud of that diss. I came up with it myself.

You're claiming something as proof which does not automatically imply your thesis. This is part of what circular reasoning is. You're interpolating things my friend. this is why my responses are short here, because there's no need to respond to an conspiratorial narrative in detail, since it follows a standard line of thinking. This is how nationalism rots minds.

My thesis was that the gurus and really any monkey would've predicted that this resistance to Islam at the time was going to be met with violence eventually. My proof was that non-muslims were consistently met with violence at that time.

Case closed.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

My thesis was that the gurus and really any monkey would've predicted that this resistance to Islam at the time was going to be met with violence eventually. My proof was that non-muslims were consistently met with violence at that time.

Case closed.

No right now, you're changing goal posts. Case was closed before you made this post. Conspiracy Theory is not history.

[Elite Pakhtun]

No right now, you're changing goal posts. Case was closed before you made this post. Conspiracy Theory is not history.

No I'm not. It was made to counter Islam by being an merge of Islam and Hinduism in an era when Muslims were dominating Hindus, and doing so in a brutal manner for a very long time. There was no other reason for it existing... your Chishti theory has been debunked. It started as a counter by merging, eventually moved to violence when it had a noticeable following. Them being met with violence was not a unique event isolated to them only.

Unless there's a new argument/new information, I'm done here.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

No I'm not. It was made to counter Islam by being an merge of Islam and Hinduism in an era when Muslims were dominating Hindus, .

You're recycling your own hypothesis again. I'll leave the work to qualified historians, not people with an agenda.

[Shapur]

i don't know much about sikhs but I know they are one of the most fun loving people I have ever met. They seem to get on with everyone.

[Elite Pakhtun]

i don't know much about sikhs but I know they are one of the most fun loving people I have ever met. They seem to get on with everyone.

I can see how it can appear that way to the casual observer. For what more does one observe other than a near instantaneous, borderline ninja level of stealth, and surprisingly spontaneous appearance of these repulsive creatures whenever any Punjabi MC track is played. While minding your own business, you will be forgiven for being startled upon the sudden appearance of dancing Bundjabi condom-head pa ji buffoons out of nowhere, as if they were teleported there, the moment said Bhangra music is played. As soon as the track is finished, they disappear into the wilderness, never to be heard of again (well... at least not until another ****ty Bhangra track is played).

I can see how that may appear fun-loving......................

But **** 'em, they're an anti-islamic and anti-pakhtun cult. **** 'em up right up their hairball ass with some sharp metallic object, and force feed them Halal beef that they seem to revile so much.