Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shastarSingh

Proof of Sikhs eating Meat in 17th Century!

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2
1 minute ago, muscleman said:

You gave your head but took your EGO home with you and as though this wasn't enough, you brought it on this forum masked under the name of 'daas.'

The username of this account is, "Jacfsing2", not "Daas", that's a different user all together. Daas means SERVANT, (what's hard for you to understand about it, it's not an egotistical word, but rather one that cuts Haumai). If you don't like the teaching someone gives, just move on and not make a big deal of their grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Do you even  know the definition of a racist?  Muslims were converting Hindus/ Sikhs to Islam, how can they be trusted with writing anything favorable about the Sikhs, Sikhism or the Sikh gurus?  Have you tried authenticating this document against more viable piece of evidence?

i also admire prophets of other dharams doesn't mean I am going to write beautiful poetic verses or prose about them. I will write these only to show my dharam in a favorable way. We are all conditioned by our environment and this conditioning is not easy to eradicate.

Sufism was not very close to Islam, if that's what you were expecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Do you even  know the definition of a racist?  Muslims were converting Hindus/ Sikhs to Islam, how can they be trusted with writing anything favorable about the Sikhs, Sikhism or the Sikh gurus?  Have you tried authenticating this document against more viable piece of evidence?

i also admire prophets of other dharams doesn't mean I am going to write beautiful poetic verses or prose about them. I will write these only to show my dharam in a favorable way. We are all conditioned by our environment and this conditioning is not easy to eradicate.

Are u saying the entire muslim community shud not be trusted ?

A true sikh fights against the tryannical kings and governments but never dislikes the entire civilian population belonging to a particular religion.

And yes, there is nuthing wrong if an amritdhari calls himself Daas. So stop troubling the young kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Are people really arguing that Vaheguru  on Earth ate meat? This is basically a complete decline in our thinking, at O.P.

Such statements never make sense.  Next a Sikh will come around and say, are people really arguing that Vaheguru on Earth went to the toilet?????  The op quoted some writing or suggesting the writing is from the Gurus period and an authentic source.  The source says Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji did not eat meat and kept a non meat diet.  If the op wants to accept this source, then he needs to be careful.  Now we have a clear distinguish of what is meat and what is not meat.  So this destroys the op argument to say everything is meat eat either.  The meat eaters always like to quote the Shabad of moorakhs argue over flesh and they love to say their is no distinguish factor between animals and plants. 

The difference in lifestyle after Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji changed.  Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji was martyred and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji took up arms.  Sikhs were being trained in warfare.  This became the focus.  The focus was Naam, but Naam took the form of bir raas.  Guru Sahib started training his Sikhs marital arts, so they can defend the weak and themselves from the dictators.  Many Sikhs don't want to trust this source because its a muslim or its an easy way for them to reject the source without really thinking about it.  However Sikhs can't deny the fact Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji tells us Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji hunted.  In hindsight some would say the op quoted source is given validity by Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, but it doesn't because it's like the argument what came first the chicken or the egg.  Also the source for the Punj Pyare heads being actually cut off was a Muslim spy in the Guru's darbar.  Yet many Sikhs accept this account without even thinking about it.

Place your mind in the time period of the Gurus.  The land layout of Punjab was very different from now.  Majority of Punjab was a forest.  No vehicles, no local markets on the way from town to town to get food.  Either carry it on your back or find it in the wild.  The Gurus established towns themselves in 1469 to 1708.  This alone should tell you how abandoned Punjab was.  The main aim for Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib to hunt may have been to teach Sikhs how to fight.  It's not like today, where there is shooting ranges, training simulations.  If we use the logic, Sri Hargobind Sahib ji only hunted because the local animals were attacking the villagers.  Then why is there no account of any Guru from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji hunting for the same reason or at all.  Did the first five Gurus have no sense of protecting the locals from the vicious animals attacking the locals?  If the vegetarian cults use the logic, Satguru (first five forms) with his Shakti stopped animals from attacking; Satguru brought daya into the vicious animal with his shakti.  Then the sakhi of Punj Sahib loses merit because many will question, why didn't Satguru use his Shakti to release the person's greed and anger for holding the water source hostage?  Instead the person throw the rock at Guru Sahib and Guru Sahib had to stop it with his hand. 

There is a middle ground here and Gurbani teaches the middle ground to this discussion.  The meat eaters will blindly keep eating meat.  They have no idea to fight, train, or lay their life on the line for Sikhi.  I know what the meat eater is thinking right now.  What about the vegetarians?  Well History tells us the first 5 Gurus didn't hunt or eat meat.  Those Sikhs who hunted and ate meat put their life on the line for Sikhi in battle.  They gave up a worldly life like changing clothes.  Are you ready to fight, all those chicken wings must have given you the strength to fight 4 men all at once.  You have the heart to fight, we vegetarians only chop up vegetables even then arm starts to hurt.  Cutting all those goats head off must have given you the strength to fight.  But I hear no gun going off, no sound of two swords striking, no grenades going off in direction of the dusht.  Face it, it's all talk, and silent farts hoping the girl sitting two seats over doesn't hear because you want to start a brother and sister relationship with her. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
3 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Such statements never make sense.  Next a Sikh will come around and say, are people really arguing that Vaheguru on Earth went to the toilet?????  The op quoted some writing or suggesting the writing is from the Gurus period and an authentic source.  The source says Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji did not eat meat and kept a non meat diet.  If the op wants to accept this source, then he needs to be careful.  Now we have a clear distinguish of what is meat and what is not meat.  So this destroys the op argument to say everything is meat eat either.  The meat eaters always like to quote the Shabad of moorakhs argue over flesh and they love to say their is no distinguish factor between animals and plants. 

The difference in lifestyle after Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji changed.  Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji was martyred and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib ji took up arms.  Sikhs were being trained in warfare.  This became the focus.  The focus was Naam, but Naam took the form of bir raas.  Guru Sahib started training his Sikhs marital arts, so they can defend the weak and themselves from the dictators.  Many Sikhs don't want to trust this source because its a muslim or its an easy way for them to reject the source without really thinking about it.  However Sikhs can't deny the fact Sri Dasam Granth Sahib ji tells us Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji hunted.  In hindsight some would say the op quoted source is given validity by Sri Dasam Granth Sahib, but it doesn't because it's like the argument what came first the chicken or the egg.  Also the source for the Punj Pyare heads being actually cut off was a Muslim spy in the Guru's darbar.  Yet many Sikhs accept this account without even thinking about it.

Place your mind in the time period of the Gurus.  The land layout of Punjab was very different from now.  Majority of Punjab was a forest.  No vehicles, no local markets on the way from town to town to get food.  Either carry it on your back or find it in the wild.  The Gurus established towns themselves in 1469 to 1708.  This alone should tell you how abandoned Punjab was.  The main aim for Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib to hunt may have been to teach Sikhs how to fight.  It's not like today, where there is shooting ranges, training simulations.  If we use the logic, Sri Hargobind Sahib ji only hunted because the local animals were attacking the villagers.  Then why is there no account of any Guru from Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji to Sri Guru Arjun Dev ji hunting for the same reason or at all.  Did the first five Gurus have no sense of protecting the locals from the vicious animals attacking the locals?  If the vegetarian cults use the logic, Satguru (first five forms) with his Shakti stopped animals from attacking; Satguru brought daya into the vicious animal with his shakti.  Then the sakhi of Punj Sahib loses merit because many will question, why didn't Satguru use his Shakti to release the person's greed and anger for holding the water source hostage? 

There is a middle ground here and Gurbani teaches the middle ground to this discussion.  The meat eaters will blindly keep eating meat.  They have no idea to fight, train, or lay their life on the line for Sikhi.  I know what the meat eater is thinking right now.  What about the vegetarians?  Well History tells us the first 5 Gurus didn't hunt or eat meat.  Those Sikhs who hunted and ate meat put their life on the line for Sikhi in battle.  They gave up a worldly life like changing clothes.  Are you ready to fight, all those chicken wings must have given you the strength to fight 4 men all at once.  You have the heart to fight, we vegetarians only chop up vegetables even then arm starts to hurt.  Cutting all those goats head off must have given you the strength to fight.  But I hear no gun going off, no sound of two swords striking, no grenades going off in direction of the dusht.  Face it, it's all talk, and silent farts hoping the girl sitting two seats over doesn't hear because you want to start a brother and sister relationship with her. 

Did Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale eat meat? He was the tough fighter for Gurmat of the last century, if a Mahapurukh like him doesn't need meat to fight, then why should we expect any less from our Guru?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
6 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Then be a humble 'daas!' Stop your holier than though mentality. It does not seem to have cut your humai?

We could argue forever, but you still don't seem to understand what Daas means, you assume it means "Mahapurukh", when it means "Servant", how long will you argue on this one point?

4 minutes ago, muscleman said:

Name a true Sikh?  Please, don't mention the 'daas' upstairs.

There's many true Sikhs, but the odds that you'd meet them easily is as rare as the odds of you actually stop arguing on Amritdharis calling themselves Daas, have you even taken Amrit, or are you here just to argue with the Sangat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jacfsing2 said:

Did Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwale eat meat? He was the tough fighter for Gurmat of the last century, if a Mahapurukh like him doesn't need meat to fight, then why should we expect any less from our Guru?

Read the post again some other time.  Clearly your anger is not allowing you to read my post as it was written.  Put the carrot down or better yet, use it as a pointer and read my post again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, muscleman said:

You gave your head but took your EGO home with you and as though this wasn't enough, you brought it on this forum masked under the name of 'daas.'

Are you Amritdhari?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
6 minutes ago, muscleman said:

 

 

1 minute ago, muscleman said:

To be honest, I don't know what you mean? I don't understand you. Please clarify.

If your willing to learn, Sufism is the idea of Islamic mysticism, the foundation of Sufism from the start was very similar to the Gnostics Christians in that they were considered heretics and were persecuted for the claims that they could have a divine experience. Sufism is more similar to Gnostics and Sikhi than it is to Islam, for this reason. Sufism also doesn't believe in the 5 pillars of faith and rarely do they go on pilgrimages to Mecca, (but do so in other places). Pir Buddhu Shah was a Sufi who had become Shaheed for assisting Guru Sahib during a few battles, and all of his children became Shaheed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
11 minutes ago, muscleman said:

You are a very angry person for  someone who addresses him/herself as a 'daas.'

So you don't won't to move on from the "Daas" topic? Despite its completely unimportant compared to any other thing, we could be talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ok, I think hadiths play a role in the conflict too because they reject each others hadiths. They  basically arguing over one matter but each using a different set of books with different narratives lol  Cant see them reaching a conclusion with that any time soon!   Shias dont like Aisha the child bride. Sikhs are really lucky that we dont have major differences in Sikh sects like muslims and Christian's do. The worst I can think of is the nirankaris and their on going line of gurus but they are pretty much are out of the fold of Sikhi now and did whatever damage they wanted to back in the 80s. 
    • Yes, @MuslimNeighbour, please do enlighten us on this (and other questions we have).
    • That's not entirely true. There is a Hadith (and I'm paraphrasing here as I don't remember all the details) when the prophet initially invited all the quresh tribes to dinner to invite them to Islam. He asked the question, who will be my brother (in faith), my friend and my successor (khalifa). Imam Ali immediately stood up. The prophet asked him to sit down (as he was still quite young, though extremely loyal to the prophet from day one). The prophet asked the question again, and again the same thing happened. On the third time, when Imam Ali stood up, the prophet said, very well, you will be my brother, my friend and my successor. This hadith is found in both sunni and shia books. There is also a verse in the quran (and please correct me if I'm wrong) where Allah says that he chooses his khalifa. Depending on the context of this verse, this could invalidate the khalifate of Abu Bakar and validate the divinity of Ali being the khalifa. There is also a "Hadith-e-Noor" (found in both sunni and shia books) in which the prophet says, Me and Ali are created from the same light. These (and many others) are just some of the points which could point to the divine claim that Imam Ali was indeed the divine successor to the prophet.  But yes, there was plenty of killing of the family of the prophet. And many battles ensued, which resulted in parts of the quran being lost. But...that's a different topic entirely....
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use