|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| A good page except in the follwing paragraph:
| |
|
| |
|
| The Gurus particularly regretted the antagonism between the two main religious of that region - Hindus and Muslims. Instead of working towards the one God, the proponents were working against each other in complete disregard of the central tenets and basic ideology of their own faiths. Guru Nanak's most famous saying is, "There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim, so whose path shall I follow? I shall follow the path of God."
| |
|
| |
| If i was to read the above sentence, knowing no history of India at all, i would assume that India was a country of two religions where each religion was equally responsible of working against each other in complete disregard of the central tenets and basic ideology of their own faiths.
| |
|
| |
| However history tells me that Hindus after offering some resistance to the foreign invasions of Islam acepted the second religion and adapted to it in a peaceful manner, learning to speak Persian and Urdu and even married their '''daughters''' into the 2nd religion though that seems to be a one way street as i know of no powerful (or lowly) Mughals who offered their daughters to marry powerful Hindus or Sikhs. I also know that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was called to task for his taking a Muslim wife and ordered whipped thought spared that by Baba Deep Singh on bowing to accept the judgement, for marrying someone not a Sikh.
| |
|
| |
| The back of the Mughal and Afgani invasions were broken by the Sikhs and the Marathis while the majority of the Rajput warriors gave in and became partners against the Sikhs who they attempted to destroy. i also see in history the Sikhs working against the Muslim Religion in complete disregard of the central tenets and basic ideology of their own faith while the Hindus save the Marathas offered no resistance, other than not drinking from each other's well. Had the Sikhs not fought the likes of Aurangzeb, Farrukh Siyar and the Durranis all of the Punjab and at least half of India would all have been Muslims and there would have been no need for a partition.
| |
|
| |
| While i have read of the Afgani's and Moghuls slaughtering cattle around Sikh Dharmasalas and Hindus homes and Mandirs, i see no stories, in history of Hindus driving herds of pigs into Muslim neighborhoods to eat their vegetables and ravage their crops.
| |
|
| |
| -----------
| |
| Suggestion on changing the paragraph to not be condecinding to the Hindu religion and forgiving of the Mughal and Islamic atocities, only to be charged with disregarding the central tenets and basic ideology of their own faith. The problem today is that there is still the same wing of Islam that existed in the 16th ,17th and 18th centuries who believe that the only good non Muslim is a dead one. And to their dis-credit there are Hindus groups who see it the same way—seeking a Hindu only India—
| |
|
| |
| Guru Nanak regretted the antagonism and cruelty of the Islamic invaders who forced their religion upon the people of the Punjab and India even at the point of a sword, yet neither he nor the next four Gurus would ever raise a sword against their percecution by the Ghaznis of Islam. It was only after the tortured death of his father that Guru Hargobind first turned to the sword and raised an army and a political state (Miri & Piri). It took the death of Guru Tegh Bahadur to finally have the young Guru Gobind Singh raise an army of Saint-Soldiers by giving birth to the Khalsa in 1699 and even then their use of force was only in defense. It was only after his own family and thousands of Sikhs were killed that the dying Guru Dasvin tasked Baba Bahadur Singh to drive the Zealous Mughals and their Rajpoot allies out of power in India.
| |
