Battles

[Drogba]

If the Sikh Gurus were messengers of God, then why were they always being killed by Moghul forces? Shouldn't God have protected his messengers? I ask because I heard some muslims talking about how muhammad (sp?) was a victorious figure who overcame the odds to win in battle and religion. When I looked up one battle it seems as though muhammad did find himself getting a lot of "breaks" such as an enemy general secretly converting to islam and causing an overwhelming force of muhammad's enemies to flee when muhammad's defeat (and death) seemed certain. These breaks could easily be interpreted as divine intervention by muslims. When the Gurus needed God most God did not intervene. So why did the Sikh Gurus get killed off but Muhammad survived/thrived? If God was really on their side then wouldn't God have intervened like God did for muhammad? This is larger than the question of why bad things happen to good people (which this question could be interpreted as asking), since the Sikh Gurus were not just ordinary people. They were supposed to be carrying God's message.

if the gurus lost, we would not be here. we are living proof of the maharaj's victory. also read about the shaheedi of dhan dhan guru arjan dev ji maharaj. the gods were prepared to protect them, however they did not want any interference

[SunSingh]

You are right I was wrong about Guru Hargobind. However, I still consider having Guru Tegh Bahadur give his head a loss. After all, the only winners from this were the Muslim rulers because they got rid of someone they considered a nuisance. It didn't put a dent in muslim tyranny at the time, and it didn't do a single thing to stop muslim tyranny in later years. A real victory would have been the end of mughal rule (similar to how muhammad ended pagan rule in saudi arabia).

The assassination of Guru Gobind was not addressed.

I'm not an expert on Christianity, but according to Christians, Jesus had to die violently in order to pay for the sins of humanity. Thus, it is only because of Jesus that salvation can be obtained (according to them) because he paid for man's original sin. Also, they feel Jesus came back to life 3 days after he died on the crucifix.

Look at different muslim kingdoms as separate, as they fought against each other too.

the guru's had the power to establish raj in the wink of an eye, but as shown at the time of Guru Arjan Dev ji's shaheedi when sufi sain MianMir asked about destroying the evildoers, Guru ji preferred to remain in Hukam. As it's all a play where certain things are happening as they should.

every raj is based on bhagti. it is from past bhagti that raj is established. Guru Nanak allowed the Muhal emperors their raj, provided that they rule justly. Akbar was a just ruler. His successor was not, and after the shaheedi of the 5th Guru the Moghuls fought 4 battles against Guru Hargobind sahib and they were routed in all 4.

They re-established peace and friendly relations, and the ones responsible for the 5th Guru's shaheedi were punished.

every raj is based on bhagti. it is from past bhagti that raj is established. The 9th Guru was also made shaheed. In Bani it says that the Guru broke his body pot on the emperor of Delhi's head. This was a play that destroyed the kamai of the moghul raj. After that the raj quickly spiraled downhill.

During the 10th Guru's time, the Guru told Sikhs at chamkaur fort to remain with him, remain strong, and stay defending the fort and they would soon win. The sikhs lacked faith and deserted.

Later, Banda Singh Bahadur routed the Moghuls. He also lost his khalsa raj once he stopped following Gurmat.

The Missl period re-established Sikh rule. Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled right after, but failed to follow key Gurmat principles. His raj was also lost.

This is the lesson throughout sikh history. That Gurmat must always be above our own sianap(way of thinking) and above rajneeti. Whenever sikhs stopped following Gurmat, they lost. When they followed it, they were victorious.

This is what the Guru wanted to entrench and establish - he wanted a Khalsa that respected Gurmat above all, not a mere dhaniabi raj.

[TejiKaur]

death is not loss

succumbing to fear is loss

one could say that y did muhammad(pbuh im not saying this is true) die?

is that deafeat too

Gurus could have converted

they could have avoided pain

but that shows weakness

they took hukam as sweet and showed the world that death is nothing to the soul who is bowed at Gods feet

[Curioussingh]

death is not loss

succumbing to fear is loss

one could say that y did muhammad(pbuh im not saying this is true) die?

is that deafeat too

Gurus could have converted

they could have avoided pain

but that shows weakness

they took hukam as sweet and showed the world that death is nothing to the soul who is bowed at Gods feet

I want to thank everyone for their responses. I like TejiKaur's explanation the best. Thank you TejiKaur.

[Curioussingh]

Ur post is full of incorrect facts first even during Guru Nanak times notable muslims such as Rai Bular

,Mardana, Dluat khan became sikhs . Guru Arjun dev ji times many muslims strated becoming sikhs, during Guru Hargobind shiab times for the 1st time in1634 mughal forces forces severe defeat it was first defeat of any muslim empire from inside the empire. Besides sduring 10th master times some prominent muslims like Pir buddhu shah were devotees of gurus ansd guru resolve to remain under the will of god makes them much superior than any prophets of not only other religions but other reformers

My post is not full of incorrect facts just one and I admitted my error. Besides the conversion of some muslims to sikhism doesn't constitute a victory against the Mughals who had tens of millions of muslims backing them during that time period. Winning a battle in 1634 does not mean winning a war.

Stupid thread if the person posting is a Sikh he would know the message was universal by the Sikh Gurus. Muhammad preached nothing new but Arab culture, Arabic mixed with ideas borrowed from Christians and Jews. Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji was not executed by the Mughals.

Was the beheading of 900 Jews in Medina also a miracle for Muslims?

Muhammad died in 632 A.D. He died as a result of being poisoned following his attack upon and conquest of the Jewish settlement of Khaibar. About 2 month before his attack on Khaibar Muhammad failed in an attempt to go to Mecca. This failure resulted in the Treaty of Hudaybiyya with the Meccans. He returned humiliated in the eyes of the Meccans and in the minds of his people. To lift their defeated spirit, Muhammad told his followers that the events at Hudaybiyya were really a victory. In fact, another convenient "revelation" was given to Muhammad as proof that it really was a victory (Sura 48:1). However, Allah was not able to deliver the Meccan's goods as booty, so Muhammad told his followers that they were going to attack and plunder the weaker Jewish settlement of Khaibar.

About 6 weeks later Muhammad led his army and attacked the Jews while they were on their way to work on their date palms. Khaibar was a settlement defended by a number of forts spread apart from each other. One by one Muhammad's army took the forts. Finally, the last few surrendered to him. Muhammad had several of the leaders of the Jewish settlement beheaded, one leader (Kinana) was tortured to reveal where buried treasure was hidden. Then when Kinana was near death, Muhammad commanded that he be beheaded. Many of the women and children were enslaved. Muhammad even took the most beautiful woman for himself and married her (Safiyah).

Some of Khaibar's residents made a deal with Muhammad. Instead of enslaving them, which would leave the rich orchards of Khaibar to go untended and unproductive, the Jews would give Muhammad and the Muslims 1/2 of all of what they produced. Muhammad accepted the deal, with the stipulation that they could be expelled at his slightest whim. Years later, Umar expelled the last remaining Jews from Khaibar.

Immediately following the conquest of Khaibar, a Jewish woman prepared a dinner for Muhammad and some of his men. Unknown to the Muslims was that she had put a poison into the lamb (some say goat) that was served at dinner. Muhammad ate some of the poisoned lamb and died as a result three years later.

It seems like you are just using my question as an excuse to vomit anti-muslim sentiment. Insulting someone who asks a question by saying "stupid thread" shows something about your ability to argue anything about religion. Please refrain from answering any question I post.

[whyhellothere]

I ask because I heard some muslims talking about how muhammad (sp?) was a victorious figure who overcame the odds to win in battle and religion. When I looked up one battle it seems as though muhammad did find himself getting a lot of "breaks" such as an enemy

This thread is insulting, Mohammed may have been good at the beginning but he became a bad guy and a peodophile, he married a 9 year old.

Our gurus were and still are perfect in every way and always will be. They loved god so much that they submitted to his will, Guru Gobind Singh Ji even gave up his own children, yes he could have saved them, our gurus powers are unrivalled and their prayers would have been answered straight away.

Can you imagine how much love one must have for someone to make a sacrifice like that? It was a love so immense, pure and holy it cannot even be imagined.

They remained loyal to their father and protected his gift of sikhi and never deviated off their path's like Mohammed did. Sikhi survived because of this, remember that they did it all for sikhi and for it's survival, as most people are quick to forget.

[hawk13]

My post is not full of incorrect facts just one and I admitted my error. Besides the conversion of some muslims to sikhism doesn't constitute a victory against the Mughals who had tens of millions of muslims backing them during that time period. Winning a battle in 1634 does not mean winning a war.

It seems like you are just using my question as an excuse to vomit anti-muslim sentiment. Insulting someone who asks a question by saying "stupid thread" shows something about your ability to argue anything about religion. Please refrain from answering any question I post.

U r still confused yes it is true our Gurus were againist the most powerful kingdom unlike prophet Mohhabat who fought againist a small tribe and did not face much resistance but mention any event in history where 43 hungury and injured persons pitted againist a 1 million well armed force still none surrendered and commender in chief of forces the govornor of delhi killed. Sikhs caused a mirale by losing 95% population still defeated the enemy and established its rule it is the biggest ever victory . Our Gurus never fought for kingdom or rule but for the overall freedom of human being had guru ji wished he could have created a kingdom but he never wanted only political freedom but social ,ecomic and cultural freedomtoo.