Came across this article and thought it was a interesting post..
Aurangzeb: A Life of Tolerance | IndiaFacts
Thoughts
Aurangzeb: A Life of Tolerance | IndiaFacts
Thoughts
I thought so. Acts as a warning to those of us who present history through rose-tinted glasses, through eulogies and hagiographic accounts of our heroes. Something we do a lot in Sikhi...?Interesting piece of satire...
I think you're missing the point.. The article is satiricalInteresting, even if past Sikh stories were somehow in error; from the smallest to the largest.
It does not dismiss the big events like that of the battles and the betrayal, and the killings of big Sikh figures.
The whole article is written in a way that portrays the 'good' and promotes him. The one we were aware of does not fit this, unless he changed eventually but then writing this sentence, is just
"In fact, Aurangzeb was a great champion of organ donation. While in Delhi, his powerful lectures on the subject had even convinced the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur to donate his entire head."
Taken from Wiki - with caution:
Wilfred Smith[43] states that, "the attempt to forcibly convert the ninth Guru to an externalized, impersonal Islam clearly made an indelible impression on the martyr's nine year old son, Gobind, who reacted slowly but deliberately by eventually organizing the Sikh group into a distinct, formal, symbol-patterned community". It inaugurated the Khalsa identity
The life of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, to me shows that he strongly was against what had happened to his father. His life not only confirms this more, but demotes the writings this thread is talking about, which have no source to point to, to change what history says. As an emperor, it is Aurangzeb's duty to request conversions of non muslims, or they pay the tax. If he did not follow the Quran by letter to letter, then his Leadership would have been questioned, and hence overthrown in those times, as religion was a very big day to day way of life.
Interesting, even if past Sikh stories were somehow in error; from the smallest to the largest.
It does not dismiss the big events like that of the battles and the betrayal, and the killings of big Sikh figures.
The whole article is written in a way that portrays the 'good' and promotes him. The one we were aware of does not fit this, unless he changed eventually but then writing this sentence, is just
"In fact, Aurangzeb was a great champion of organ donation. While in Delhi, his powerful lectures on the subject had even convinced the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur to donate his entire head."
Taken from Wiki - with caution:
Wilfred Smith[43] states that, "the attempt to forcibly convert the ninth Guru to an externalized, impersonal Islam clearly made an indelible impression on the martyr's nine year old son, Gobind, who reacted slowly but deliberately by eventually organizing the Sikh group into a distinct, formal, symbol-patterned community". It inaugurated the Khalsa identity
The life of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, to me shows that he strongly was against what had happened to his father. His life not only confirms this more, but demotes the writings this thread is talking about, which have no source to point to, to change what history says. As an emperor, it is Aurangzeb's duty to request conversions of non muslims, or they pay the tax. If he did not follow the Quran by letter to letter, then his Leadership would have been questioned, and hence overthrown in those times, as religion was a very big day to day way of life.
I thought so. Acts as a warning to those of us who present history through rose-tinted glasses, through eulogies and hagiographic accounts of our heroes. Something we do a lot in Sikhi...?