Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sikh History from Persian sources Page56-57

Guru Arjan’s Martyrdom, 1606

From Jahngir, Tuzuk-I Jahangiri

Translated by Shireen Moosvi

Translation

Text, p34

In Gobindwal, which is on the river of Beas, a Hindu named Arjan used to live in the garb of a spiritual master and mystic guide, under the influence of which he had induced a large number of simple-minded Hindus and even some ignorant and silly Muslims, to become attached to his ways and customs. He had the drum of his spiritual leadership and sainthood loudly beaten. They called him Guru. From all sides and directions ignorant ones and dervish-garb worshippers (Gaul-parastan) inclined towards him and reposed full faith in him. For three or four generation they [he and his precursors] had kept this business brisk. For a long time the thought kept coming to me of either putting an end to this shop of falsehood or to bring him into the fold of the people of Islam. It happened now that Khusrau was passing by that route. This useless manlet wished to attend on him. Khusrau halted at the place where he had his seat and residence. He saw him and conveyed to him some far-fetched (Fara-yafta) things and on his forehead put a finger-mark in saffron, which in the usage of Hindus is called qashqa [Persian for tilak] and is held to be auspicious. When this matter was brought to the notice of this glorious court and I realised the full extent of his false conduct, I ordered that he be brought to my presence [at Lahore]. I gave over his homes and houses and children to Murtaza Khan [Jahangir’s Mir Bakshi], confiscated his goods and ordered him to be capitally punished.

[Appendix ommitted]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Khusrau was jhangirs eldest son. This tilak wearing is interesting some say wearing a tilak isn't allowed in sikhi if that's the case did the guru do it purposely to antagonise mughals purposefully? Or was it a lie invented or tilak allowed?

Question here is that did Jahangir verify all this or just reply on reports???? Did Khusrau ever mention anything in any manuscripts not raped by muslims???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims tend to have a habbit of not saying the truth just like when you look at how they report wars, such as israel or 7 7 and 9 11 for them was done by zionist alien freemason jews satan worshipping 20th dimensional reptiles who wish to defame shariah and impose democracy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found abit more on Guru Arjan Dev ji

Sikh History from Persian Source: Sikhism and the Sikhism 1648-46 From Mobad Dabistan-I Mazahib P62 + P78-79

Many persons became his disciples. Nanak believed in the Oneness of God and in the way that it is asserted in Muammadan theology. He also believed in transmigration of souls. Holding wine and pork to be unlawful, he had [himself] abandoned eating meat. He decreed avoidance of causing harm to animals. {4} It was after his time that meat-eating spread among his followers.

Arjan Mal, who was one of his lineal successors, found this to be evil. He prohibited people from eating meat, saying: “this is not in accordance with Nanak’s wishes”, Later, Hargobind, son of Arjan Male, ate meat and took to hunting. Most of their [the Gurus] followers adopted his practice.

Just as Nanak praised the Muslims, he also commended the avatars, gods and goddess of the Hindus, but he regarded them all as created beings, not the Creator. He denied the [possibility of] Descent [of God into human soul] or Union [between God and man].{5} They say, he held the Muslims’ rosary in his hand and put [the Hindus’] sacred thread on his neck. (He recited the formula of faith and offered prayers in the Muslim manner, and recited the mantras and gayatri and offered puja according to the Hindu Religion)

[4] Version A makes a more detailed statement in the passage corresponding to the last four sentences and the first sentences of the next paragraph:

Nanak asserted the oneness of God, and believed in the Bridge across Hell, the Day of judgement, Hell-fire, Hell, and Paradise and all the rules of Muhammadan Law (Shar’-I Muhammadi) and the word of God. He also forbade as unlawful things like wine and pork in the same way he held it to be forbidden by Muslims and His Holiness Mohd...; and whatever it is permissible to eat, under Muslim Law, he did not forbid, except for beef and meat. He taught that the cow be honoured, and himself abandoned eating meat. He commended all Muslims. He believed too in avatars [incarnated deities]. Devas [gods], devis [goddesses] and rakhisars [saints] of the Hindus. He also held as true what they say in respect of sarg [sanskrit svarga] and narak [sanskrit, naraka], that is heaven and hell, according to their own belief, and of transmigration of souls (tanasukh). But he regarded all of them [the deities] as servants of the Unique Creator-Lord, and denied [the phenomena of] God’s descent into man (hulul) and communion between God and man (ittihad).

[5] Hulul o ittithad, the word hulul standing for God’s alighting to dwell in a human soul, and ittihad for the soul’s communion with God, both being sufic concepts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use