proof of sikhs eating meat in 17 century!

The DabestÄn-e MazÄheb, also transliterated as DabistÄn-i MazÄhib (Persian: دبستا٠ÙذاÙب‎‎) "School of Religions", is an examination and comparison of South Asian religions and sects of the mid-17th century. The work is written in Persian, probably having been composed in about 1655 CE.

‘The Guru believes in one God. His followers put not their faith in idol-worship. They never pray or practice austerities like the Hindus. They believe not in their incarnations, or places of pilgrimage nor the Sanskrit language which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak. The Sikhs are not restricted in the matter of eating or drinking. When Partap Mall Giani saw a Hindu boy who had a mind to embrace Islam, he said, 'Why do you become a Muhammadan? If you have an inclination to eat everything, you may become a Sikh of the Guru and eat whatever you like.’


-Mohsin Fani, 'Dabistan-e-Mazahib.'

Dubidha Eh Fal Naahi Jeeo.

Where does it mention meat?

A Gursikh told me to even think that Guru Sahib's son ate meat is hell bound. Now imagine the punishment of believing Guru Sahib himself did. To say this of Guru Sahib, of such a compassionate person, that he would allow the evil action of slaughtering and consuming an animal just so that it will go along with your weakness is disgusting. Gurbani tells us to adopt the quality of compassion and speaks against meat. The definition of compassion is to be concerned for the suffering of another. Killing an animal is causing it to suffer. Gurbani says religion comes after compassion - if you are not compassionate you are far from being a Sikh. Causing the suffering of another and aiming to become a Gurmukh of Vaheguru are two completely different paths, the path of Tyranny and Illusion and the path of Justice and Truth. You cannot have both. Even non-sikhs who become vegetarian/vegan understand the basic meaning of compassion, this is due to having an intellectual awareness of understanding compassion and strength of being able to practice compassion. Don't come here out of your false happiness and ego to tell others that carrying out an evil action is pure, especially to use Guru Sahib to justify your cause.

Eating meat is probably the least compassionate thing anyone can do. To add to what Bhai Kaal Singh said in his post, goray even take it a step further than us by not consuming dairy and becoming vegan. It is Guru Sahib's Hukam to not consume meat and that's to make us compassionate, which is something even non-Sikhs understand and practice. By the way, what you quoted is not even a Sikh Granth.

Jujhar Singh Ji, there is some serious mistakes in what you have written I dont know where to start.

Firstly, a writing from the 17th century by a Muslim does not supersede a writing from the 16th century by Guru Sahib. Both Sri Guru Amar Das Ji and Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji have written in their Hukumanams to sangat to not eat meat. Gubani also mentions where there is room for maas there is no room for NAAM. A Muslim historian has no authority in saying what is Sikh rehat, even many Sikh historians do not have this right. Only those who keep rehat can speak of the written and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation. Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji has written a good pamphlet about why Jhatka is manmat.

Secondly, Mohsn Fani is not a contemporary of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, some historians say he was a contemporary of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji some say Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib JI, either way he not around during the time of the Khalsa Rehat.

Lastly, the story makes no sense at all. Muslims do have strict dietary rules they do not have " an inclination to eat everything". They can only eat halal meat, and certain meat like Pig is forbidden.

Quote

Muslims do have strict dietary rules they do not have " an inclination to eat everything".

Bhai Sahib Jeeo, it is written otherwise. The author actually believes that a Sikh of Guru Sahib has an inclination to eat whatever he likes.

I don't understand what on Earth would make a Sikh believe in such writings.

Quote

Muslims do have strict dietary rules they do not have " an inclination to eat everything". They can only eat halal meat, and certain meat like Pig is forbidden.

Why dont u read my post properly?
I know muslims have dietary rules and thats what Mohsin Fani is also saying.
Mohsin Fani is saying that Muslims cannot eat pork etc but according to him sikhs can eat all eatable meat.
Mohsin fani was a contemporary of Guru Hargobind Sahib and had friendly relations with him.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

Born around 1615 in Iran,[2] Mohsin Fani was once migrated to India, for the study of the religions there, in the time of the sixth Sikh guru, Guru Hargobind Sahib[1] with whom he had friendly relationships.[2] Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha gave some references to him and his (Fani's) book Dabistan-E-Mazahib to claim his point on Sikhs not following Hindu rituals in Ham Hindu Nahin.[1]

Mohsin Fani’s writings should be taken with a grain of salt because he was not a theologian nor a trained historian. He just wrote what he was told by people he met. He most likely met Sikhs who were not strict in Rehit and not well versed in the Sikh scriptures. In those days, a vast majority of people (Sikhs or non Sikhs) were totally uneducated, as such their opinions about Sikhi can't be taken seriously.

Now a days too, many times non-Sikh people from Bombay and Delhi etc. get very surprised when we tell them that in Sikhi meat and alcohol are prohibited. They say that meat, alcohol and Bhangra are the inseparable traits of Sikhs. If a traveler from USA or UK was to come today, and visit Sikhs in Punjab, he would write that Sikhs are allowed to eat meat, consume alcohol, cut hair and what not. That would not be an accurate account of real Sikhi.

Similarly, Mohsin Fani’s writings about different religions in India are a result of his interaction with different people of different faiths. His conclusions depended on the kind of people he interviewed and met. If he had met Guru Sahib jee or prominent Sikhs of that time e.g. Bhai Bidhi Chand jee and had written facts citing them, then it would have been a different case but his writings are based on interviews with common people who may not have been strict in Sikhi or were most probably uneducated people with no knowledge of the Sikh scriptures; therefore, such writings should not be considered an authentic depiction of Sikhi of that time.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mohsin Fani’s writings should be taken with a
> grain of salt because he was not a theologian nor
> a trained historian. He just wrote what he was
> told by people he met. He most likely met Sikhs
> who were not strict in Rehit and not well versed
> in the Sikh scriptures. In those days, a vast
> majority of people (Sikhs or non Sikhs) were
> totally uneducated, as such their opinions about
> Sikhi can't be taken seriously.
>
> Now a days too, many times non-Sikh people from
> Bombay and Delhi etc. get very surprised when we
> tell them that in Sikhi meat and alcohol are
> prohibited. They say that meat, alcohol and
> Bhangra are the inseparable traits of Sikhs. If a
> traveler from USA or UK was to come today, and
> visit Sikhs in Punjab, he would write that Sikhs
> are allowed to eat meat, consume alcohol, cut hair
> and what not. That would not be an accurate
> account of real Sikhi.
>
> Similarly, Mohsin Fani’s writings about
> different religions in India are a result of his
> interaction with different people of different
> faiths. His conclusions depended on the kind of
> people he interviewed and met. If he had met Guru
> Sahib jee or prominent Sikhs of that time e.g.
> Bhai Bidhi Chand jee and had written facts citing
> them, then it would have been a different case but
> his writings are based on interviews with common
> people who may not have been strict in Sikhi or
> were most probably uneducated people with no
> knowledge of the Sikh scriptures; therefore, such
> writings should not be considered an authentic
> depiction of Sikhi of that time.
>
> Kulbir Singh

This is what Mohsin Fani wrote

'The Guru believes in one God. His followers put not their faith in idol-worship. They never pray or practice austerities like the Hindus. They believe not in their incarnations, or places of pilgrimage nor the Sanskrit language which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak'

All the above is Tatt Gurmat knowledge which means that Mohsin Fani did have contact with practicing sikhs.

Quote

'The Guru believes in one God. His followers put not their faith in idol-worship. They never pray or practice austerities like the Hindus. They believe not in their incarnations, or places of pilgrimage nor the Sanskrit language which the Hindus deem to be the language of gods. They believe that all the Gurus are the same as Nanak'

All the above is Tatt Gurmat knowledge which means that Mohsin Fani did have contact with practicing sikhs.

No it does not mean that he had contact with practicing Sikhs because if he did, he would not have written that Sikhs eat meat whereas there are Hukamnamas of Siri Guru HarGobind Sahib jee prohibiting Sikhs to eat meat. The Muslim who answered the question asked by Nadir Shah about Sikhs, gave similar account of Sikhs as in the quoted paragraph above.

In any case, this is a futile topic because practicing Sikh today knows it as unyielding truth that meat is prohibited in Sikhs. The topic of meat is settled in our mind and raising this topic only triggers a yawn, nothing else.

Kulbir Singh

Quote

The topic of meat is settled in our mind and raising this topic only triggers a yawn, nothing else.

the reason I posted this topic was not to start a debate on meat or convert vegetarians into non-veggies.
I was just not able to find counter arguments to refute this source of Mohsin Fani.

jujhar singh jio,
Just put barosa in Gurbani atey Gurmukhs (admin of this website) who keep full rehit...all will be Vaho Vaho, and ignore refuting kurr articles jio

Bhul chuk muaf Vahiguroo Jio

'Mohsin Fani’s writings should be taken with a grain of salt because he was not a theologian nor a trained historian. He just wrote what he was told by people he met. He most likely met Sikhs who were not strict in Rehit and not well versed in the Sikh scriptures. In those days, a vast majority of people (Sikhs or non Sikhs) were totally uneducated, as such their opinions about Sikhi can't be taken seriously."
Kulbir Singh Jio, a sikh cardiologist and his wife, in local area where I am, did not have any of their sikh children go for the baby amrit(bhul chuk muaf for not knowing the sikhi name for this very crucial ceremony), because they did not know...
this murakh papee believe it is all Guru Maharaj dya that we are blessed with knowledge of TRUE SIKHI as your very blessed Sachkhand Jeev today jio..
I myself offered Chinese meat food to Sachkhand Gurmukh former president of new Orleans Gurduara...but my visit to Dixie Gurduara hall no. 5 changed my life..dhan dhan dhan dhan Sachkhand Gurmukho Jio!_/\_
bhul chuk muaf Vahiguroo Jio

Quote

the reason I posted this topic was not to start a debate on meat or convert vegetarians into non-veggies.
I was just not able to find counter arguments to refute this source of Mohsin Fani.

Bhai Sahib Jeeo, why do you even need a counter argument, provided that this writing written by a Non Sikh is directly contradicting Gurbani and Hukamnamas by Guru Sahibaan.

No written works are greater than the Hukam given by Panj Pyare at the time of Amrit Sanchaar.

Vahiguroo Jio,
I would like to add to my post above about Gurmukh being offered Chinese meat by me on my daughter's birthday celebration at my late mother's home, many years ago,....Gurmukh laughed and declined, and I wondered why he came but ate nothing...today, I am blessed to know... and do daily ardas for all to know and be blessed...


Bhul chuk muaf Vahiguroo Jio atey Gurmukho Jio_/\_