Why Is Sikhism Found Only In Punjab

[Kharku]

30 million sikhs hey, lol how many of them do u guys consider sikh?

[Guest peacemaker]

30 million sikhs hey, lol how many of them do u guys consider sikh?

We're not here to judge.

P.S. That African American Singh is sweet!! Didn't know he used to be a gangsta though, lol.

[malkeet]

woops. gurujis physical body died in 1708, but you all knew i meant that anyway :D

[guptveer1469]

official number is 25.8 million sikhs with not more than 2.5% amritdharis...

surenderjit bhhaji.. i didnt found the pics i was refering to.. but here are others..

here is a treat for ur eyes!

Chinese Nihung - Baba Wadhbag Singh from chinese ancestry born in Indonesia.

African Sikh (we shouldnt term them as kala/black sikhs because it sounds racist)

African Sikh, Gora Sikh and Punjabi Sikh

[Guest peacemaker]

^^

If kala sikh sounds offensive, then so does gora sikh.

[dalsingh101]

If you read texts from Guru Arjan Dev Ji's time, they indicate that Sikhism was spreading rapidly at that time all over India and beyond (Afghanistan for instance).

What I think slowed the growth down was the Mughal attacks on Sikhism which made it dangerous to be Sikh. In the period leading to the formation of the Khalsa there was real danger which would've deterred many.

From what I gather, Sikhs had to congregate and form a majority in an area for defensive purposes. I think their were loads of sangats outside of Panjab prior to the crazy 1700s. If we look at where some of the panj piaray came from we can see that some of the Sikhs were from places that were seriously distant from Panjab. This indicates the presence of strong sangats in these areas.

The warfare of the 1700s probably resulted in increasing oppression and isolation for these stranded sangats. These may have lost contact with the mainstream and merged back into Hinduism overtime. The so called "lost Sikh tribes" and Sindhi Sehajdharis are probably descendants of such sangats.

But what seems to have happened in the 1800s is that the Sikhs stopped being as open to others as they were previously and became increasingly insular. Sikhs still generally have this mentality till this day.

[Ranjeet]

Buddhism spread because of Ashoka

Christianity spread because of Emperor Constantine

Islam spread through the sword through the various Sultanates,Shahs, Nawabs etc etc .

In my opinion,Sikhi would have spread if the Khalsa Empire of Maharaj Ranjit Singh would have been consolidated and continued, I believed that the intention was to spread Khalsa Raj into Central Asia and into Sindh as Maharaj Ranjit Singh wanted (Personally I would feel uncomfortable for masses of Pathans to be come Sikh with their homosexual tendencies,and tribal values such as pillaging and raping).

For masses to convert to a religion, there normally means there has to be some social or political angle to it and there needs to be missionaries sent with back up monetarily and politically, usually some King would be a patron of sorts. Normally historically, a King would convert to a faith and force his subjects to adopt his faith.

Christianity and Islam are Salesman religions, they basically plugging themsleve to get more converts, Sikhi is not that type of religion.

In my opinion, the majority of Mankind will never be Sikh because the Sikhi mindset is rational and is not one that follows the crowd like sheep, unfortunately most of Human Race are sheep, Sikhs aren't. Sikhs by nature eventually come to become dominant, dominant people are always in the minority.

As society evolves, I believe more people around may not necessarily become Sikhs but may become more Sikh-like.

Just my 2 paise

[guptveer1469]

great ranjeet brother

peacemaker... gora means fair skinned... tht is a compliment

but in punjabi if u say kala its obviously not a comment okay?

[dalsingh101]

Buddhism spread because of Ashoka

Christianity spread because of Emperor Constantine

Islam spread through the sword through the various Sultanates,Shahs, Nawabs etc etc .

In my opinion,Sikhi would have spread if the Khalsa Empire of Maharaj Ranjit Singh would have been consolidated and continued, I believed that the intention was to spread Khalsa Raj into Central Asia and into Sindh as Maharaj Ranjit Singh wanted (Personally I would feel uncomfortable for masses of Pathans to be come Sikh with their homosexual tendencies,and tribal values such as pillaging and raping).

For masses to convert to a religion, there normally means there has to be some social or political angle to it and there needs to be missionaries sent with back up monetarily and politically, usually some King would be a patron of sorts. Normally historically, a King would convert to a faith and force his subjects to adopt his faith.

Christianity and Islam are Salesman religions, they basically plugging themsleve to get more converts, Sikhi is not that type of religion.

In my opinion, the majority of Mankind will never be Sikh because the Sikhi mindset is rational and is not one that follows the crowd like sheep, unfortunately most of Human Race are sheep, Sikhs aren't. Sikhs by nature eventually come to become dominant, dominant people are always in the minority.

As society evolves, I believe more people around may not necessarily become Sikhs but may become more Sikh-like.

Just my 2 paise

I get where your coming from but we need to take into account that Europeans categorically state in early observations, that Khalsa Sikhs openly accepted anyone (included Muslims) into their ranks during the late 1700s. What happened to that? (There was even a case of some Mogul general taking amrit but he later reconverted to Islam - these were probably political moves but they show just how powerful Singhs had become by then).

Today Singhs seem infinitely more closed up than they appear to have been in the past.

I disagree that Singhs are dominant these days btw. I personally believe the opposite is true.

[Ranjeet]

Buddhism spread because of Ashoka

Christianity spread because of Emperor Constantine

Islam spread through the sword through the various Sultanates,Shahs, Nawabs etc etc .

In my opinion,Sikhi would have spread if the Khalsa Empire of Maharaj Ranjit Singh would have been consolidated and continued, I believed that the intention was to spread Khalsa Raj into Central Asia and into Sindh as Maharaj Ranjit Singh wanted (Personally I would feel uncomfortable for masses of Pathans to be come Sikh with their homosexual tendencies,and tribal values such as pillaging and raping).

For masses to convert to a religion, there normally means there has to be some social or political angle to it and there needs to be missionaries sent with back up monetarily and politically, usually some King would be a patron of sorts. Normally historically, a King would convert to a faith and force his subjects to adopt his faith.

Christianity and Islam are Salesman religions, they basically plugging themsleve to get more converts, Sikhi is not that type of religion.

In my opinion, the majority of Mankind will never be Sikh because the Sikhi mindset is rational and is not one that follows the crowd like sheep, unfortunately most of Human Race are sheep, Sikhs aren't. Sikhs by nature eventually come to become dominant, dominant people are always in the minority.

As society evolves, I believe more people around may not necessarily become Sikhs but may become more Sikh-like.

Just my 2 paise

I get where your coming from but we need to take into account that Europeans categorically state in early observations, that Khalsa Sikhs openly accepted anyone (included Muslims) into their ranks during the late 1700s. What happened to that? (There was even a case of some Mogul general taking amrit but he later reconverted to Islam - these were probably political moves but they show just how powerful Singhs had become by then).

Today Singhs seem infinitely more closed up than they appear to have been in the past.

I disagree that Singhs are dominant these days btw. I personally believe the opposite is true.

Dal

what I mean that Sikhs by nature are dominant, unfortunatley our natural Sikh instinct is suppressed and constrained by today's society. Sikhs of today are shackled by too many hukamnamas and edicts, there is too much red tape.

The Sikhs of the past did not have all this baggage, they were free of all the constraints, today's Sikh has been emasculated and is made to feel guilty of who he really is.