By Sikh Answers
This is quite long but worth reading.
Answering Muslims – Part 2
The author claims in response to our article the he has written a reply with “more depth, and at a more complex level”. If only this were true. The author, who claims to be a former-Sikh once again shows UTTER ignorance of Sikh principles and scripture and quite clearly was too afraid to even read our reply fully. How unfortunate.
Although the structure and numbering of the article is convoluted and disordered, we’ll reply in the same order for the sake of ease of reference.
1. Guru Nanak Sahib a Satguru
The author writes: QUOTE
"Simply being written, in a book, the method of Guru Nanak receiving revelation, is not proof if we cannot authenticate, nor verify, that the book is from God. To clarify, if I am to claim that I am speaking on behalf of God, and then one was to ask proof, and I pointed to a book that I myself had written with my own hand, or with that of my scribe, would a neutral observer then accept it? Of course not. They would demand that I prove that the book is revelation.”
To one who refuses to believe, no proof is ever enough. First, the author wants a proof from Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee and when provided he refuses to accept it using the excuse of “it is not authentic”. What is the proof that Quran is authentic or “Word of God” other than it is written in Quran? It is a fact that Quran was written by contemporaries of Mohammad, which according to Muslim scholars was revealed through Angel Gabriel. How can this be proved other than pointing to a book full of errors that Mohammad had his contemporaries write? Can a neutral observer accept the baseless statement that Quran is word of God because it is written in Quran? Certainly not.
Islam claims that the Quran contains such “scientific” facts like the development of the foetus and the water cycle, etc. The fact is that these “facts” were known to philosophers and scientists MUCH before the Quran. The Quran has in fact repeated their incorrect assumptions as well. But this is not the place for a refutation of the “science” of the Quran (which makes foolish claims like mountains keeping the earth stable).
The Quran’s “test” is “Produce a Chapter like it if you doubt this is from God.” and other challenges that no person has ever met in over 1400 years since the Quran was first revealed.
This is not an objective test. There have been many verses produced that are just like the Quran’s (and can be found on answering-Islam websites) but Muslims will simply say, “no…that’s not of the same quality”. It’s a totally subjective test and hence impossible to satisfy for one who refuses to accept.
The author also infers that because Guru Nanak received “direct” revelation, this is somehow of more stature than receiving revelation from an Angel who has been sent to carry Gods word down. All of this of course is preposterous. If it is Gods word, then what does it matter how it is delivered?
How the message was delivered makes a huge difference and serves as the proof of message’s authenticity. Message of God was directly revealed through Guru Nanak Sahib which He penned down. This preserved the message in its original form. The same cannot be said about Quran since it was written by contemporaries who did not have any revelation and divine understanding. Furthermore, there is no way to prove that the alleged message was correctly understood by Gabriel, Mohammad and the contemporaries. Message being verbally passed on to the third person is highly susceptible to errors and misinterpretations. When the message became corrupted, Mohammad, an illiterate person, had no capability whatsoever to correct it. Therefore, any grammatical errors, misinterpretations and contradictory statements were not fixed. All of these reasons confirm that Quran is not an original message of God.
Guru Nanak Sahib jee’s revelation contains the Truth. Truth of the internal world of the soul and mind, and the truth of the external world and the countless universes and galaxies. Truth about the creation of the universe and even a PROVEN prophecy predicting the fall of the Mughal Empire. Furthermore, it contains teachings that when practiced are proven as truth to the adherent. As they say “the proof is in the pudding”.
The author then asserts that Sikh sources say Guru Nanak Sahib jee said “there is no Hindu and no Muslim” and expresses shock that we have said these words don’t exist. What’s so shocking? There are many things I can find in Islamic books, which are incorrect, so is something by default correct because it is published? This quote is not found ANYWHERE in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and so it cannot be accepted.
Moving on to the issue of miracles, the author says, “I would ask, in theology, what other type of miracle is there, except one which is willed by God? Miracles can ONLY be from God.”
Sadly he once again shows his ignorance of spirituality and the Indic traditions in particular. Meditation yields “miraculous” powers. These powers can be misused for egotistical purposes and to impress others. These “miracles” are not acceptable. Only that miracle is accepted which is done by the order of God and for HIS purposes. A yogi levitating or living under the ground without air for days is not a miracle for God’s purposes.
In the earlier article, the author asserted that in the Quran, “these miracles have been verified both through scriptures and through science.” Now he has changed his mind and declared, “the real proof these miracles described in the Quran is the Quran itself. If no-one can prove that the Quran is not from God, then we must accept all that is contained within it”. So the science angle when challenged was immediately discarded. How convenient!
The author asserts, “The Gurus miracles have not been independently verified, in the same way that no-one can verify that Moses parted the Red Sea. However, the incident of the Red Sea is mentioned in the Quran, a miraculous book based upon the fact that none can replicate or reproduce even so much as a chapter.”
I’m surprised by the low-level intellectual engagement of this article that was supposed to be “more in-depth”. I invite the author to engage in his very own independent verification of Guru Nanak Sahib jee’s miracles by travelling to Hassan Abdal, Pakistan and seeing the spring he caused to burst from the ground (which still flows today) and also the rock that still bears his hand-print. There are many other places like Lake Gurudongmar and Gurdwara Pathar Sahib in Sikkim where miracles and their proof exist even today and are verified by non-Sikh locals.
Which miracle of the Quran am I to verify? When Satan sent the “Satanic Verses”, were they not just like the Quran, so much so that they even fooled Mohammad? The test fails in itself.
One of the most eminent of Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Fazlur Rahman, found no difficulty in accepting the truth of the "Satanic verses" incident in the light of the Qur'an's repeated assertion that Messengers were only human, and hence fallible.
But whatever fears or thoughts - or even gestures - of compromise the Prophet might make, they were soon "abrogated" or "erased" by God, as verse 22:52 makes clear. The well-known story that after mentioning the pagan goddesses once (53:19-20), the Prophet described them as "exalted swans whose intercession [with God] is to be hoped for"... only to abrogate these words in 53:21-23, is perfectly intelligible, for this incident occurred at a time of great trial and persecution of his followers, whom he had ordered to emigrate temporarily to Abyssinia. There are other indications that certain verses were replaced by others: 2:106, 13:39, 16:101... For the Quran, it is neither strange nor out of tune nor blameworthy for a prophet that he is not always consistent as a human. It is nevertheless as a human that he becomes an example for mankind, for his average level of conduct is still so high that is is a worthy model for mankind... there is abundant evidence in the Quran that while the Prophet did at times wish that developments would take a certain turn, God's Revelation went a different way: "Do not move your tongue with [i.e., ahead of] the Revelation, hastily anticipating it. It is upon Us to bring it together and to recite it - so that when We recite it, let you follow its recitation." (75:16-19) (Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes in the Quran, pages 88-90).
Why have conservative Muslims largely refused to discuss al-Tabari's account of the "Satanic verses"? The simple reason seems to be that it presents a messy picture of the Prophet as fallible, and a Quran capable of being temporarily distorted by his human inclinations to win over his tribe. More importantly, the immense body of Islamic Law is based upon the reports (Hadith) of the Prophet's life and teachings. However, if even the Quran, which is held to be pure divine revelation, was subject to the fallibility of the Prophet, then the Hadith are even more so, since they are explicitly his words and not God's.
The miracle of Gurbani is that the grammar and numbering system developed (independent of the Punjabi language) is so complex and detailed that the EXACT meaning of each verse is clear by the use of grammatical devices like Siharis and aunkarhs. This grammar system is not replicated anywhere and was created by the Gurus. Such a scientific grammar cannot be anything but divine. The numbering system for each and every stanza, verse and chapter are so uniquely implemented that it acts as a central locking system preventing any adulteration or addition to the Divine Revealed Word.
2. Are the Sikh Scriptures authentic?
QUOTE
“It is clear that a lot of what Sikhs believe to be Guru Nanaks life and subsequent Gurus lives, have been extrapolated from these and are considered as fact.”
Just as there are errors in Muslim historical sources (which includes countless Hadiths), there are errors in Sikh ones as well which have been heavily adulterated by anti-Sikh forces over the years. The author doesn’t answer our question regarding where he read that Sikhs consider the Bala Janamsakhi to be divinely revealed? There are many other Janamsakhis like Meharban Janamsakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi, etc. These are all historical sources from which the life of Guru Nanak Sahib jee is learned.
Sargun/Nirgun
The author asks (unrelated) “why does the SGGS contain articles from Sufi Fakhirs, who were adherents of Islam, if there is only one way to God?”
Would you care to name these “Fakhirs”? In your ignorance I suppose you are referring to Sheikh Farid. Sheikh Farid in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is a contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib jee. Sheikh Farid Sani was in the line of the original 12th Century Farid and upon meeting Guru Nanak Sahib jee became his disciple. The fact that these verses are from this contemporary Sheikh Farid Sani is admitted even by Prof. Khalil Nizami, the present descendant of Sheikh Farid.
All the Bhagats in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee were contemporary to Guru Nanak Sahib jee and his disciples.
The author then cites verses in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee that talk of heaven/hell such as “Even so, if they have not embraced love for the Supreme Lord God, then they shall surely go to hell.” – Page 70, Line 16
Once again, sadly his ignorance of the Sikh faith shines through. For a Sikh heaven is living a life in remembrance and loving devotion to God and hell is separation from his remembrance and devotion and as consequence separation from his Grace and blessings attained through Naam. Sikhism accepts the existence of countless heavens and hells. These places however are not permanent. The soul spends time in these places (there are more than one heaven and more than one hell) and after receiving reward for his karma, is sent into reincarnation. This goes back to the point that was made earlier that reincarnation is not a system of punishment but the continuation of the soul’s journey.
As Guru Granth Sahib says, “The world is under the influence of the three qualities.
The mortal goes to heaven and hell [based on actions] and is reincarnated over and over. ||3|| (389)
Heaven and Hell are both places which a Sikh seeks to avoid and does not have the desires for Heaven or the fear for Hell. “Kabeer, I have been spared from heaven and hell, by the Grace of the True Guru.” (1370).
A Sikh aims only for Sackhand which far greater than any lowly heaven or materialistic fulfilment of desires.
Contradiction, in fact, exists in Quran. On one hand, Muslims after death have to wait in the graves until the judgement day and on the other hand Quran talks about rewards of 72 virgins and rivers of milk and wine. Non-believers go straight to hell. This is a direct contradiction because a Muslim cannot be in the grave and enjoying the reward in heaven at the same time. Why do non-believers go to hell and not wait for judgement day? If believers as well as non-believers stay in their graves then are heaven and hell empty? What are 72 virgins and rivers of wine for? Are Allah and Mohammad enjoying them? The author has ignored the main question purposely: If wine is considered haram (unlawful) on earth then why is it served in heaven? Allah of Quran is self-contradictory indeed as is the Quran. In Sikhism the Word and Hukam (Command) of God is Eternally True from the beginning, now and beyond. “True in the beginning, True before the beginning of Time. True now, and Nanak says True forever” (1)
3. More About Reincarnation
The author tries to justify the illogical approach of the Quran to human life. He not only fails completely unfortunately but also contradicts his statements and rejects the teachings of Quran. He states that “Allah(swt) will judge a soul according to its deeds and actions, and we cannot possibly judge the souls ourselves” which is a false statement according to Quran because no one is judged by actions or deeds in Islam but on the simple basis of whether one is a “believer” (Muslim) or an “infidel” (non-believer). Quran is clear on this stance:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fire. They swear by God that they said nothing. Yet they uttered the word of unbelief and renounced Islam after embracing it. They sought to do what they could not attain. Yet they had no reason to be spiteful except perhaps because God and His apostle had enriched them through His bounty. If they repent, it will indeed be better for them, but if they give no heed, God will sternly punish them, both in this world and in the world to come. They shall have none on this earth to protect or help them." (Sura 9:73-74 )
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Then how did the author come to the conclusion that Allah of Islam will judge every soul based on its actions? This fair justice is part of Sikhi not of Islam. Islam is a “contract” religion whereby a person, if he declares himself a Muslim and obeys the stipulations of the agreement with Allah (observes 5 pillars of Islam), he will go to heaven. Sikhism by contrast declares that a person may call himself whatever he likes, it will be his conduct that is judged. If a person walks on the path of Dharam with the instruction of the Guru, he will meet God. But simply calling yourself a Sikh or obeying some regulations is not enough. One must actively strive to meet God.
The Quran has different levels of heaven for different souls. Martyrs and Prophets reside in Firdaws, the highest level of Paradise. But if a baby dies in the womb or after one scream, they were not given any opportunity to reach this level. Why? What was the purpose of its life? Why does God not give us ALL the opportunity to reach the highest level? Why the unfairness? A mentally handicapped person too will not have the ability to reach the highest levels. Why are they being discriminated against? Why did God create them with such serious problems?
No answers from Islam. In frustration perhaps the author asserts, “With regards the authors discussion of “Tests”, how can we possibly interpret Allah’s wisdom and logic for our own ends? How can we, a creation, possibly believe that we can understand the Creators reasoning and rationale?”
If you cannot discern the Creator’s rationale, then clearly Islam can’t claim to be a “rational” religion! The Islamic system doesn’t make any sense! It is unjust! The Sikh system, revealed to Guru Nanak Sahib jee however makes perfect sense and operates in perfect justice and mercy.
The author asks, QUOTE
“Am I going to hell for rejecting the Gurus, or am I currently in a “bad karma” phase?”
Only God knows where you are going. No one is condemned to Hell simply for having incorrect belief I think. It is our actions, which are judged. A Sikh, who has meditated on Naam will break through this prison of action/reaction or Karma and enter Sachkhand. You unfortunately clearly do not yet have the good karma of meeting Satguru and receiving Naam and so in that sense you do have “bad karma”.
The author then makes the curious statement, QUOTE
“If the answers were in Sikhism, you would not find Sikhs leaving Islam in droves.”
Sikhs are leaving Islam in droves? I suppose that can’t be a bad thing. Though I didn’t think there were droves in Islam to begin with…
In response to our question regarding what gauge the author uses to determine the world is in “decline” he replies, “The gap between rich and poor is greater all the time, more people die through war and hunger every century. There have been wars in Africa and Laos going on for 50 – 60 years. To suggest that the world is not in decline is an incredulous statement.”
Were there more wars in the past or less? MORE! Practices like slavery and human sacrifice were common in the past. The number of wars and conflicts was also greater in the past. Measuring “decline” is not an objective process. The point is that such a statement is your opinion and nothing more.
Furthermore, in the UK the culture of binge drinking is increasingly inclining and the government is worried about the future health of young people. The UK has the most underage pregnancies and young teenagers in Europe and America and across the globe are engaging more intimate relationships before and outside marriage and as a result Aids and HIV have risen. For one to argue that drinking alcohol must be right because all my school class drinks alcohol and I don’t or that having a one-night stand is acceptable because the majority of society finds it is acceptable or practice it would be ludicrous. What makes someone leave a normal happy family life to become a terrorist? If I was to use your logic to apply to this statement then you would be justifying terrorism because someone has left the former which they are unsettled with to join the former, which must be appealing. However, I am sure we both know this is nonsense.
The author then says that it is impossible that there are those who have never heard of God:
QUOTE
““And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allâh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tâghût[] (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tâghût besides Allâh)." Then of them were some whom Allâh guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth).” Surah 16, Verse 36, The Holy Qu’ran
Therefore, to claim that no-one has heard of islam, or of the message of One God, throughout time, is false. If anyone does not believe this, then they must prove the Qu’ran wrong.”
I suggest to the author that he’s starting from the wrong premise. He must prove the Quran RIGHT, not the other way around. Can he explain what happened to those countless Inuit and Natives and Aborigines and African Tribalists who did not have a concept of a single God as in Islam? History itself proves this verse wrong.
Islam would condemn these people to Hell for worshipping many gods. Sikhism answers that it was not in their karma to know of God and depending on their actions they may be rewarded with human life again and the opportunity to know God. They are by no means condemned for having wrong belief. Condemnation is for those who commit wrong action.
4. “Gods Omnipotence” (sic)
In this section the author once again contradicted himself.
QUOTE
Instead, the devil is allowed to lead us all astray until the day of judgement, after which, iblis will be punished like all the humans and jinn that disobeyed God. The reason why Iblis is allowed to do this is known only to God. So, God has not created a monster that he cannot destroy, as the author claims. Instead, Allah(SWT) can create all and destroy all, if he so wills.
The above quote raises many questions. First of all, was Satan created by the will of God? If yes, then is the Satan leading astray human being by the same will? If yes then those human beings should not be punished as it was will of God for them to commit sins and there is no need for a judgement day. If no then how can the creation go against the will of God? Can something take place against the will of God? If yes then clearly there is a rival power against God.
The author addresses the question of “devils” in Sikhism. To be clear, Sikhism does not have the concept of a single entity called the “devil” which single-handedly deceives humans. Sikhs believe that the five vices (lust, ego, greed, anger, attachment) as a result of the perversion of the mind deceive us and cause us to separate ourselves from God and the rest of creation.
The problem the author faces is that he relies exclusively in often incorrect translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee in which the true meaning of the term is not reflected clearly. God has created many “gods” and “devils” but not as rival powers. The mind is often referred to as “shaitan” because it misdirects us.
The author then comments on purity. He seems to have missed the entire point of the argument, perhaps due to haste in reading. God has created all of creation. For us, there are of course clean and unclean things. But for God, all creation is his. He is not disgusted by any of it, because he created it! On another level, the only truly “pure” thing is Naam and Shabad which are “pure” because they are “true” in the sense that they are eternal and link us to the ONE real truth: God. The author seems to think that God would be disgusted by his own creation and things such as excrement and dirt. The point is clear: God is not disgusted by anything. That doesn’t lead to the author’s nonsensical conclusion that there is nothing clean/unclean however.
5. Sikh laws
The Sikh system of governance was CLEARLY outlined in the earlier response. Unfortunately the author refuses to read it (out of fear it seems).
Islam has been given a static system of law, frozen in time at 600 AD. Sikhism on the other hand has been given PRINCIPLES that are applied according to the situation and like any GOOD system of law can adapt to meet change. The principles however governing the law, as found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, are eternal and cannot change.
Sikhs believe in a clear theo-democratic legal system. The law is administered (as mentioned earlier) by the Panj Pyaaray, and ultimately Sri Akal Takhat Sahib and the Sarbat Khalsa.
The author also doesn’t understand that Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is a spiritual guide setting out PRINCIPLES that are applied by the Sikh and is a guide to experiencing God. It does not cover mundane issues like cutting off hands and how to beat wives, etc. Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, unlike the Quran and the Semitic Books, talks the individual’s SOUL and MIND rather than to talk to MEN and WOMEN. Therefore, code of conduct and discipline is recorded in the Sikh Rehit Maryada booklet instead. The Quran talks to males and the Bible talks to males. This is evident when one reads it.
Things like tax rates are once again frozen in Arabia circa. 600AD. Does that make sense? Should tax be frozen? Tax even as a government policy tool has to be flexible to meet the needs of the people and the times. God does not need to set petty issues like “tax”. He can guide however how to tax justly.
Taxes like the Jizya are clearly expressed as unjust in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Taxing someone for their beliefs is wrong: The Primal Lord God is called Allah. The Shaykh's turn has now come.
The temples of the gods are subject to taxes; this is what it has come to. ||5||
(1191)
In Sikhism, there is no punishment for holding honest belief. There is truly in Sikhism no compulsion in religion: There is no tax on non-believers, nor any fines or taxes at death. (430)
Testimony: The self-willed manmukhs read and study, but they do not know the way.
They do not understand the Naam, the Name of the Lord; they wander, deluded by doubt.
They take bribes, and give false testimony; the noose of evil-mindedness is around their necks. ||3|| (1032)
The author then returns to the mundane issues of “sentence for stealing, age of consent, riding a horse, nuclear weapons”.
Any rational person can tell you that a text written in 600AD should not govern these issues. Sentencing for stealing cannot be set in stone. In any JUST system of law, the sentence depends on motivation, past conduct of the accused, what was stolen, and why? All these questions must be answered. Punishment must be given with an idea to reform and help.
Let’s take the crime of theft. Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is clear No one will take responsibility for a thief.
How can a thief's actions be good? ||1|| (662)
There are many other verses condemning moral vices like theft, adultery, looting, etc. The principles are established but it would be foolish to cement punishments without examining the individual cases.
Islam unfortunately doesn’t have this concept. Shariah is quite clear: if there is theft of something of value, there are 2 witnesses: off with their hands! If someone commits adultery: stone and kill them! Even more distressing is to highlight the Shariah law in regards to rape. If a woman cannot produce four witnesses to claim she was raped then she is stoned in accordance to Islamic Law and charged with adultery. Is this pure dark age mentality or do they really believe this is justice? If a woman is raped in a field by a man, where will she find four witnesses? How can the Qazis and Mullahs turn their back to the honour, dignity and respect of their mothers, sisters and daughters. A disgrace!
These are BARBARIC punishments. Can an adulterer or a thief not be reformed? Can they not become good humans? Guru Nanak Sahib jee has shown us that they indeed can. Where Islam kills them, Guru Nanak Sahib jee reforms them and makes them useful and productive members of society like Sajjan the robber or later like Bhai Bidhi Chand.
Any rational reader can understand which the better system is: Panj Pyaaray governing on principles established by Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee or concrete punishments established by an ancient book for Arabs. Maybe that’s why we hear so many stories of innocent rape victims being whipped and stoned in Muslim countries. Islamic “justice” at its finest
6. Just War
The concept of Just War has been explained to before. Sikhism is clear that offensive attacks are forbidden. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib jee has said clearly in the Zafarnama: “When all other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword."
All the wars fought by the Sikh Gurus were defensive in nature.
The author asks about Air India: QUOTE
“ I am still intrigued as to whether this is justified according to the religion?”
The answer is clear: NO. Killing of civilians is not justified in Sikh Just War Doctrine.
The author still hasn’t explained how and why Islam has spawned more terrorist organizations and movements that kill innocent civilians than any other group if Islam’s war doctrine is so developed? Terrorist movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq, and many other countries all kill civilians in the name of Islam. How is this possible unless Islam itself inspires violence and such inhumane and cold-blooded atrocities?
Muslims often reply, “well Hitler was a Christian and he killed more humans than anyone”. He may have been a mass murderer but he never did so in the NAME of Christianity. The Muslim murderers consider it their duty to kill non-Muslims. Why is this?
7. God Creating Himself
Once again, perhaps due to lack of reading the author makes uniformed statements. As explained before, in the nirgun/sargun section, God “creating himself” is a reference to creation. Creation is the sargun form of God as he exists within it. God has always existed but creation has not. This is a fairly easy concept to grasp.
God is one, but until we have meditated on Naam and see His light everywhere and expedience and reach Sachkhand, the only part of God we can “see” is His creation. God is unitary and not split by this doctrine and I fail to understand your confusion or relating it to the Catholic faith.
8. Sikhism and Women
I find it incredulous that a Muslim of all people would challenge the role of women in Sikhism. Sikh women have always been given leading roles in the Sikh community. Guru Amar Das Sahib jee appointed women missionaries and Sikh women have always been free to lead congregations. Sikh women cannot be restricted from entering any Sikh shrine (unlike restrictions on Muslim women from entering many mosques). All rights are equal for men and for women. All religious obligations are also identical. Panj Kakaars (5Ks Sikh external uniform) are shared by both for example.
The author is focused on the absence of instructions for divorce in Sikh scripture. We repeat: Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee does not cover the intricacies of such mundane non-spiritual matters. But how is this discriminatory to women if there is no written system for divorce that affects both men and women equally?
At any rate, the system of divorce has already been outlined previously and all are free to re-read the pertinent section. However, questions asked previously were intentionally ignored by the author, which are presented again:
If a man says “Talaq” three times to his wife, they have to get divorced. This cannot be reversed which makes it clear that any Muslim under the influence of frustration or anger can simply destroy the relationship and the lives of his children. A woman on the other hand has no right or say in this. If Islam was really all about equality then the woman would also have the right to say the same word three times to get a divorce. But this is not the case. Man has more rights and final say. There is little to no room for thinking and communication. Once the word “Talaq” has been said it brings the hell process only for women. Divorced woman cannot remarry her previous husband. She first has to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and get divorce in the same manner and only then she can remarry her previous husband.
This practice of inequality makes women suffer so much. Assume a man says “Talaq” three times in anger and gets a divorce. Now, he wants to remarry his wife and the woman wants the same as they both love each other very much. But this cannot happen. The woman has to marry someone else and consummate the marriage. If she gets a divorce from her newlywed husband only then she can remarry love of her life. If her new husband refuses to give divorce, her whole life is ruined and she is forced to spend her life with someone she doesn’t love. This is what traps a woman in a loveless marriage because the husband has no such punishment. Even if the woman gets a divorce the very next day, she still has to undergo humiliation as she will have to spend a night with someone she doesn’t consider her life partner. It is a woman who gets trapped, punishment and is forced to go through humiliating and barbaric process. Where is the so-called equality? It exists no where in Islam.
B. Believing Women to be second-class citizens
This section is a new one and is based on translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The so-called “attacks” on women are hardly attacks at all. They criticise those men who under the influence of lust become subservient to their female partners and do as the woman partner says. This is clearly a foolish thing to do and the cause of trouble.
Let’s analyse the verses supplied by the author:
“Those men who act according to the orders of women are impure, filthy and foolish.” – SGGS Page 304, Line 13
By quoting only one line it does not show the context of the verse. The verse applies to those men who due to lust try to appease and woo women become subservient to them and act according to their orders. The very next verse in this shabad says “The impure man is taken by lust and does all action after asking the woman”. To lose one’s own decision-making power due to lust is wrong and the verse makes it quite clear. Nowhere does it say that women are unequal or their opinions should not be considered.
“The fool loves Gold and Women” – SGGS Page 416, Line 3
Referring to those engrossed in worldly pleasures, how does this demean women? It is a fact that people lost in love for maya (materialism) seek out wealth and women. How does this demean women? Isn’t yearning for 72 virgins and wealth in paradise foolish when what one is only doing is becoming enslaved to their sexual desire (Kaam) and greed (Moh) and losing their opportunity to actually experience and have union with God Himself.
“They wander from house to house, with impure minds, like wicked, forsaken women.” – SGGS Page 651, Line 15
This is a reference to the woman who has been abandoned by her husband, which was a phenomenon seen in those days and even now. These women were rendered homeless and indeed had to go from house to house. It is a comparison between the person who does not accept the order of God and is lost in the world to a woman who has been abandoned by her husband. How does it say women are bad?
“Women have become advisors, and men have become hunters, Humility, self-control and purity have run away; people eat the uneatable, forbidden food. Modesty has left her home, and honor has gone away with her.” - SGGS Page 1243, Line 1
Look at the context. It refers to men who under the influence of lust obey orders of women to appease and woo them.
“For the sake of pleasure, you have become subservient to your woman, and now your feet are bound.” - SGGS Page 1352, Line 13
At the risk of sounding repetitive, this again refers to the man who for the purpose of lust obeys women to woo them.
When referring to husband/wife relations Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is clear that not only should the husband “consult” with his wife, but “They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together. They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies. ||3||”
“Woman is one half the complete personality of man, and is entitled to share secular and spiritual knowledge equally.” (Bhai Gurdas Ji, Var 5, Pauri 16:59)
Unlike the Quran, which clearly says: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Quran 4:34)
Muslim translators have struggled with this passage and have sought ways to water down its clear meaning by adding words like “if necessary” and "lightly", which do not occur in the original Arabic. Even after the addition of such word, the verse still allows husbands to beat their wives.
Furthermore, women are considered not only “impure” due to their menstrual cycle, but also have mind deficiency according to Sura 2:182 and Hadith of Bukhari. Women are not given the same reward as men and the only place in the paradise they can enjoy is to wait for “believers” to “visit them and enjoy them” (Ibid, Number 4879). According to Ibid, Number 1462 majority of the women are in hell due to their “deficiency in intelligence”. I could quote at length from the Hadiths with examples of wife beating and other injustices but the readers can refer to the countless sites on this issue.
The author then comments on slavery in Islam. He says, QUOTE
“It should also be pointed out that slavery was the defacto standard all over the world at that time, from Arabia to Rome. It should also be pointed out that the idea of Freeing slaves was radical at that time. The countries now, that like to point to Islam as a medieval and backward religion, only gave the right of freedom to slaves in the 19th Century, over 1200 years after Islam.”
If Islam was “true” and slavery is clearly wrong, Islam would have forbidden it outright. There were many things prevalent in the world but the job and duty of a messenger of God is to reveal the truth. Slavery is wrong and must be stopped. But Islam sidesteps and allows it which gives Masters permission to have sexual relations with them (which implies raping them) but puts some conditions on it. If something is wrong, it is wrong.
Take the example of the Sikh Gurus and Caste. Where the Caste system was an ancient belief in India, the Gurus didn’t try the gradual approach to remove it. They didn’t try to recast it with new rules. They said it was wrong and took steps to actively reject it. The concept of langar where all sit and eat together broke caste lines. The concept of all castes drinking from the same vessel during initiation absolutely smashed any semblance of caste. The Sikh Gurus were unequivocal when demanding equality for all humans. This is once again a contrast to Islam.
If Islam rejected Slavery and sexual exploitation then how can the author explain the following verses?
The Believers must (Eventually) win through—Those who humble themselves In their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds Of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined To them in the marriage bond, Or (the captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (in their case) they are Free from blame. (23:1-6)
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; (33:50)
You can have sexual intercourse with two slave girls at a time without ghusl (bath) but can’t do like this with free women…(Malik’s Muwatta 2.23.90)
Terms “right hand possesses” refer to captives in Jihad. Thus it is established that in Islam it is not only permissible to have slave girls but also use them for sexual intercourse. Can Muslims on any moral ground defend this barbaric and old age thinking?
The author still has not explained why sex with slaves, as clearly mentioned in the following passage, is anything less than savage:
“Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, send down the Qur'anic verse: "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possess."[Surah 4:24] ...Sunan Abu Dawud, Book V, Chapter 711, Number 2150”
These poor women who had been taken prisoner were authorized to be raped by Mohammad in FRONT of their still living HUSBANDS! How is this just? How is this even human?
The example of Saffiyah is also shocking. This Jewish woman who’s father had just been killed by the Muslims and husband had just been TORTURED to death was taken by Mohammad as his wife. Would she have happily married him? Could this have been a marriage free from fear and compulsion? What kind of Woman could see her husband tortured to death and then happily marry the torturer?
Or explain why Mohammad married a 6 year old while in his 50s and then had sex with her at the age of 9? According to all modern law he’d be a paedophile. The Muslims argue that Ayesha had entered puberty. but it is extremely rare that someone has completed puberty by that age. But Even if a 9 year old’s body is matured the mind is still that of a child. How was this justified? Was this the actions of a just and holy man let alone messenger of God?
9. Many Paths to God
Yes, there is only one path to God: Gurmat . Now you know and as they say, “knowing is half the battle”.
10. Why is Sikhism Not Evangelical?
The author says,
QUOTE
“They believe only Sikhs achieve the status of WaheGuru, yet they don’t make any effort for non-sikhs to embrace their path.
QUOTE
How ironic that Guru Nanak spoke against Pride and Ego, and yet their ego and pride is stopping them from converting others. If it is the truth, then why would you not want humanity to follow it and be saved also?”
I agree with the author that Sikhs have failed in spreading the mission of Sikhism to the world. I think it is a wake up call for all of us. I don’t hate Muslims. I respect them in many ways. I terribly disagree with a lot of Islamic beliefs and the missionary tactics of fear, greed and the sword. However, I am impressed by the passion and enthusiasm to share their faith. Sikhism is the truth and when offered the truth, people will eventually accept it. It is the truth that smoking tobacco will kill you and will harm those around you. However, despite knowing this, and regardless of that fact that on the cigarette pack itself it says “This will Kill you and harm those around you” a large number of mothers, fathers and so call responsible people who have capability of choosing from right and wrong continue to smoke and damage their health and society’s health. Why don’t they respond to the truth? The answer is that those who are fortunate enough wake up to the truth, the others are yet intoxicated and attached so deeply to Maya (the illusionary world) that they don’t recognise the truth.
As has been seen in the West, many Westerners have adopted Sikhism without any concerted missionary movement. The one Sikh missionary in the west, Harbhajan Singh Yogi converted thousands single-handedly. Imagine what more than one could accomplish?
At the same time, Sikhs are always weary of hurting the sentiments of others. A Sikh lives, speaks and acts with dignity, grace and honour. At the same time Guru Nanak Sahib jee said, the time is for truth and truth must be proclaimed: “Nanak speaks the Bani (Word) of Truth; he proclaims the Truth because now is the time for the Truth. ||2||3||5||” (722)
Conclusion
I have respect for the author, my Muslim brother, who is striving so hard to disprove Sikhism. It is an impossible feat because this is the Word of God. Sikhism, when inspected with an unbiased eye is clearly the more comprehensive, rational and just option. More importantly, it is the TRUTH. It is the ONLY way to God and to experience Divine eternal bliss of the soul.
Overcome your programming. Think calmly for a moment. Might you be wrong? Close your eyes and sit in silence and meditate on God and pray to God to show you guidance and the path of true living. What is the price to pay if you are wrong? This human life is very precious. It is your chance to see and feel the light of God. Look within yourself and with God’s grace I believe you will realise that the true path is Gurmat. May God bless you and all of humanity.
Source: Discoversikhi.com
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
This is quite long but worth reading.
Answering Muslims – Part 2
The author claims in response to our article the he has written a reply with “more depth, and at a more complex level”. If only this were true. The author, who claims to be a former-Sikh once again shows UTTER ignorance of Sikh principles and scripture and quite clearly was too afraid to even read our reply fully. How unfortunate.
Although the structure and numbering of the article is convoluted and disordered, we’ll reply in the same order for the sake of ease of reference.
1. Guru Nanak Sahib a Satguru
The author writes: QUOTE
"Simply being written, in a book, the method of Guru Nanak receiving revelation, is not proof if we cannot authenticate, nor verify, that the book is from God. To clarify, if I am to claim that I am speaking on behalf of God, and then one was to ask proof, and I pointed to a book that I myself had written with my own hand, or with that of my scribe, would a neutral observer then accept it? Of course not. They would demand that I prove that the book is revelation.”
To one who refuses to believe, no proof is ever enough. First, the author wants a proof from Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee and when provided he refuses to accept it using the excuse of “it is not authentic”. What is the proof that Quran is authentic or “Word of God” other than it is written in Quran? It is a fact that Quran was written by contemporaries of Mohammad, which according to Muslim scholars was revealed through Angel Gabriel. How can this be proved other than pointing to a book full of errors that Mohammad had his contemporaries write? Can a neutral observer accept the baseless statement that Quran is word of God because it is written in Quran? Certainly not.
Islam claims that the Quran contains such “scientific” facts like the development of the foetus and the water cycle, etc. The fact is that these “facts” were known to philosophers and scientists MUCH before the Quran. The Quran has in fact repeated their incorrect assumptions as well. But this is not the place for a refutation of the “science” of the Quran (which makes foolish claims like mountains keeping the earth stable).
The Quran’s “test” is “Produce a Chapter like it if you doubt this is from God.” and other challenges that no person has ever met in over 1400 years since the Quran was first revealed.
This is not an objective test. There have been many verses produced that are just like the Quran’s (and can be found on answering-Islam websites) but Muslims will simply say, “no…that’s not of the same quality”. It’s a totally subjective test and hence impossible to satisfy for one who refuses to accept.
The author also infers that because Guru Nanak received “direct” revelation, this is somehow of more stature than receiving revelation from an Angel who has been sent to carry Gods word down. All of this of course is preposterous. If it is Gods word, then what does it matter how it is delivered?
How the message was delivered makes a huge difference and serves as the proof of message’s authenticity. Message of God was directly revealed through Guru Nanak Sahib which He penned down. This preserved the message in its original form. The same cannot be said about Quran since it was written by contemporaries who did not have any revelation and divine understanding. Furthermore, there is no way to prove that the alleged message was correctly understood by Gabriel, Mohammad and the contemporaries. Message being verbally passed on to the third person is highly susceptible to errors and misinterpretations. When the message became corrupted, Mohammad, an illiterate person, had no capability whatsoever to correct it. Therefore, any grammatical errors, misinterpretations and contradictory statements were not fixed. All of these reasons confirm that Quran is not an original message of God.
Guru Nanak Sahib jee’s revelation contains the Truth. Truth of the internal world of the soul and mind, and the truth of the external world and the countless universes and galaxies. Truth about the creation of the universe and even a PROVEN prophecy predicting the fall of the Mughal Empire. Furthermore, it contains teachings that when practiced are proven as truth to the adherent. As they say “the proof is in the pudding”.
The author then asserts that Sikh sources say Guru Nanak Sahib jee said “there is no Hindu and no Muslim” and expresses shock that we have said these words don’t exist. What’s so shocking? There are many things I can find in Islamic books, which are incorrect, so is something by default correct because it is published? This quote is not found ANYWHERE in Sri Guru Granth Sahib and so it cannot be accepted.
Moving on to the issue of miracles, the author says, “I would ask, in theology, what other type of miracle is there, except one which is willed by God? Miracles can ONLY be from God.”
Sadly he once again shows his ignorance of spirituality and the Indic traditions in particular. Meditation yields “miraculous” powers. These powers can be misused for egotistical purposes and to impress others. These “miracles” are not acceptable. Only that miracle is accepted which is done by the order of God and for HIS purposes. A yogi levitating or living under the ground without air for days is not a miracle for God’s purposes.
In the earlier article, the author asserted that in the Quran, “these miracles have been verified both through scriptures and through science.” Now he has changed his mind and declared, “the real proof these miracles described in the Quran is the Quran itself. If no-one can prove that the Quran is not from God, then we must accept all that is contained within it”. So the science angle when challenged was immediately discarded. How convenient!
The author asserts, “The Gurus miracles have not been independently verified, in the same way that no-one can verify that Moses parted the Red Sea. However, the incident of the Red Sea is mentioned in the Quran, a miraculous book based upon the fact that none can replicate or reproduce even so much as a chapter.”
I’m surprised by the low-level intellectual engagement of this article that was supposed to be “more in-depth”. I invite the author to engage in his very own independent verification of Guru Nanak Sahib jee’s miracles by travelling to Hassan Abdal, Pakistan and seeing the spring he caused to burst from the ground (which still flows today) and also the rock that still bears his hand-print. There are many other places like Lake Gurudongmar and Gurdwara Pathar Sahib in Sikkim where miracles and their proof exist even today and are verified by non-Sikh locals.
Which miracle of the Quran am I to verify? When Satan sent the “Satanic Verses”, were they not just like the Quran, so much so that they even fooled Mohammad? The test fails in itself.
One of the most eminent of Muslim scholars of the 20th century, Fazlur Rahman, found no difficulty in accepting the truth of the "Satanic verses" incident in the light of the Qur'an's repeated assertion that Messengers were only human, and hence fallible.
But whatever fears or thoughts - or even gestures - of compromise the Prophet might make, they were soon "abrogated" or "erased" by God, as verse 22:52 makes clear. The well-known story that after mentioning the pagan goddesses once (53:19-20), the Prophet described them as "exalted swans whose intercession [with God] is to be hoped for"... only to abrogate these words in 53:21-23, is perfectly intelligible, for this incident occurred at a time of great trial and persecution of his followers, whom he had ordered to emigrate temporarily to Abyssinia. There are other indications that certain verses were replaced by others: 2:106, 13:39, 16:101... For the Quran, it is neither strange nor out of tune nor blameworthy for a prophet that he is not always consistent as a human. It is nevertheless as a human that he becomes an example for mankind, for his average level of conduct is still so high that is is a worthy model for mankind... there is abundant evidence in the Quran that while the Prophet did at times wish that developments would take a certain turn, God's Revelation went a different way: "Do not move your tongue with [i.e., ahead of] the Revelation, hastily anticipating it. It is upon Us to bring it together and to recite it - so that when We recite it, let you follow its recitation." (75:16-19) (Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes in the Quran, pages 88-90).
Why have conservative Muslims largely refused to discuss al-Tabari's account of the "Satanic verses"? The simple reason seems to be that it presents a messy picture of the Prophet as fallible, and a Quran capable of being temporarily distorted by his human inclinations to win over his tribe. More importantly, the immense body of Islamic Law is based upon the reports (Hadith) of the Prophet's life and teachings. However, if even the Quran, which is held to be pure divine revelation, was subject to the fallibility of the Prophet, then the Hadith are even more so, since they are explicitly his words and not God's.
The miracle of Gurbani is that the grammar and numbering system developed (independent of the Punjabi language) is so complex and detailed that the EXACT meaning of each verse is clear by the use of grammatical devices like Siharis and aunkarhs. This grammar system is not replicated anywhere and was created by the Gurus. Such a scientific grammar cannot be anything but divine. The numbering system for each and every stanza, verse and chapter are so uniquely implemented that it acts as a central locking system preventing any adulteration or addition to the Divine Revealed Word.
2. Are the Sikh Scriptures authentic?
QUOTE
“It is clear that a lot of what Sikhs believe to be Guru Nanaks life and subsequent Gurus lives, have been extrapolated from these and are considered as fact.”
Just as there are errors in Muslim historical sources (which includes countless Hadiths), there are errors in Sikh ones as well which have been heavily adulterated by anti-Sikh forces over the years. The author doesn’t answer our question regarding where he read that Sikhs consider the Bala Janamsakhi to be divinely revealed? There are many other Janamsakhis like Meharban Janamsakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi, etc. These are all historical sources from which the life of Guru Nanak Sahib jee is learned.
Sargun/Nirgun
The author asks (unrelated) “why does the SGGS contain articles from Sufi Fakhirs, who were adherents of Islam, if there is only one way to God?”
Would you care to name these “Fakhirs”? In your ignorance I suppose you are referring to Sheikh Farid. Sheikh Farid in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is a contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib jee. Sheikh Farid Sani was in the line of the original 12th Century Farid and upon meeting Guru Nanak Sahib jee became his disciple. The fact that these verses are from this contemporary Sheikh Farid Sani is admitted even by Prof. Khalil Nizami, the present descendant of Sheikh Farid.
All the Bhagats in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee were contemporary to Guru Nanak Sahib jee and his disciples.
The author then cites verses in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee that talk of heaven/hell such as “Even so, if they have not embraced love for the Supreme Lord God, then they shall surely go to hell.” – Page 70, Line 16
Once again, sadly his ignorance of the Sikh faith shines through. For a Sikh heaven is living a life in remembrance and loving devotion to God and hell is separation from his remembrance and devotion and as consequence separation from his Grace and blessings attained through Naam. Sikhism accepts the existence of countless heavens and hells. These places however are not permanent. The soul spends time in these places (there are more than one heaven and more than one hell) and after receiving reward for his karma, is sent into reincarnation. This goes back to the point that was made earlier that reincarnation is not a system of punishment but the continuation of the soul’s journey.
As Guru Granth Sahib says, “The world is under the influence of the three qualities.
The mortal goes to heaven and hell [based on actions] and is reincarnated over and over. ||3|| (389)
Heaven and Hell are both places which a Sikh seeks to avoid and does not have the desires for Heaven or the fear for Hell. “Kabeer, I have been spared from heaven and hell, by the Grace of the True Guru.” (1370).
A Sikh aims only for Sackhand which far greater than any lowly heaven or materialistic fulfilment of desires.
Contradiction, in fact, exists in Quran. On one hand, Muslims after death have to wait in the graves until the judgement day and on the other hand Quran talks about rewards of 72 virgins and rivers of milk and wine. Non-believers go straight to hell. This is a direct contradiction because a Muslim cannot be in the grave and enjoying the reward in heaven at the same time. Why do non-believers go to hell and not wait for judgement day? If believers as well as non-believers stay in their graves then are heaven and hell empty? What are 72 virgins and rivers of wine for? Are Allah and Mohammad enjoying them? The author has ignored the main question purposely: If wine is considered haram (unlawful) on earth then why is it served in heaven? Allah of Quran is self-contradictory indeed as is the Quran. In Sikhism the Word and Hukam (Command) of God is Eternally True from the beginning, now and beyond. “True in the beginning, True before the beginning of Time. True now, and Nanak says True forever” (1)
3. More About Reincarnation
The author tries to justify the illogical approach of the Quran to human life. He not only fails completely unfortunately but also contradicts his statements and rejects the teachings of Quran. He states that “Allah(swt) will judge a soul according to its deeds and actions, and we cannot possibly judge the souls ourselves” which is a false statement according to Quran because no one is judged by actions or deeds in Islam but on the simple basis of whether one is a “believer” (Muslim) or an “infidel” (non-believer). Quran is clear on this stance:
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fire. They swear by God that they said nothing. Yet they uttered the word of unbelief and renounced Islam after embracing it. They sought to do what they could not attain. Yet they had no reason to be spiteful except perhaps because God and His apostle had enriched them through His bounty. If they repent, it will indeed be better for them, but if they give no heed, God will sternly punish them, both in this world and in the world to come. They shall have none on this earth to protect or help them." (Sura 9:73-74 )
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Then how did the author come to the conclusion that Allah of Islam will judge every soul based on its actions? This fair justice is part of Sikhi not of Islam. Islam is a “contract” religion whereby a person, if he declares himself a Muslim and obeys the stipulations of the agreement with Allah (observes 5 pillars of Islam), he will go to heaven. Sikhism by contrast declares that a person may call himself whatever he likes, it will be his conduct that is judged. If a person walks on the path of Dharam with the instruction of the Guru, he will meet God. But simply calling yourself a Sikh or obeying some regulations is not enough. One must actively strive to meet God.
The Quran has different levels of heaven for different souls. Martyrs and Prophets reside in Firdaws, the highest level of Paradise. But if a baby dies in the womb or after one scream, they were not given any opportunity to reach this level. Why? What was the purpose of its life? Why does God not give us ALL the opportunity to reach the highest level? Why the unfairness? A mentally handicapped person too will not have the ability to reach the highest levels. Why are they being discriminated against? Why did God create them with such serious problems?
No answers from Islam. In frustration perhaps the author asserts, “With regards the authors discussion of “Tests”, how can we possibly interpret Allah’s wisdom and logic for our own ends? How can we, a creation, possibly believe that we can understand the Creators reasoning and rationale?”
If you cannot discern the Creator’s rationale, then clearly Islam can’t claim to be a “rational” religion! The Islamic system doesn’t make any sense! It is unjust! The Sikh system, revealed to Guru Nanak Sahib jee however makes perfect sense and operates in perfect justice and mercy.
The author asks, QUOTE
“Am I going to hell for rejecting the Gurus, or am I currently in a “bad karma” phase?”
Only God knows where you are going. No one is condemned to Hell simply for having incorrect belief I think. It is our actions, which are judged. A Sikh, who has meditated on Naam will break through this prison of action/reaction or Karma and enter Sachkhand. You unfortunately clearly do not yet have the good karma of meeting Satguru and receiving Naam and so in that sense you do have “bad karma”.
The author then makes the curious statement, QUOTE
“If the answers were in Sikhism, you would not find Sikhs leaving Islam in droves.”
Sikhs are leaving Islam in droves? I suppose that can’t be a bad thing. Though I didn’t think there were droves in Islam to begin with…
In response to our question regarding what gauge the author uses to determine the world is in “decline” he replies, “The gap between rich and poor is greater all the time, more people die through war and hunger every century. There have been wars in Africa and Laos going on for 50 – 60 years. To suggest that the world is not in decline is an incredulous statement.”
Were there more wars in the past or less? MORE! Practices like slavery and human sacrifice were common in the past. The number of wars and conflicts was also greater in the past. Measuring “decline” is not an objective process. The point is that such a statement is your opinion and nothing more.
Furthermore, in the UK the culture of binge drinking is increasingly inclining and the government is worried about the future health of young people. The UK has the most underage pregnancies and young teenagers in Europe and America and across the globe are engaging more intimate relationships before and outside marriage and as a result Aids and HIV have risen. For one to argue that drinking alcohol must be right because all my school class drinks alcohol and I don’t or that having a one-night stand is acceptable because the majority of society finds it is acceptable or practice it would be ludicrous. What makes someone leave a normal happy family life to become a terrorist? If I was to use your logic to apply to this statement then you would be justifying terrorism because someone has left the former which they are unsettled with to join the former, which must be appealing. However, I am sure we both know this is nonsense.
The author then says that it is impossible that there are those who have never heard of God:
QUOTE
““And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allâh (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Tâghût[] (all false deities, etc. i.e. do not worship Tâghût besides Allâh)." Then of them were some whom Allâh guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth).” Surah 16, Verse 36, The Holy Qu’ran
Therefore, to claim that no-one has heard of islam, or of the message of One God, throughout time, is false. If anyone does not believe this, then they must prove the Qu’ran wrong.”
I suggest to the author that he’s starting from the wrong premise. He must prove the Quran RIGHT, not the other way around. Can he explain what happened to those countless Inuit and Natives and Aborigines and African Tribalists who did not have a concept of a single God as in Islam? History itself proves this verse wrong.
Islam would condemn these people to Hell for worshipping many gods. Sikhism answers that it was not in their karma to know of God and depending on their actions they may be rewarded with human life again and the opportunity to know God. They are by no means condemned for having wrong belief. Condemnation is for those who commit wrong action.
4. “Gods Omnipotence” (sic)
In this section the author once again contradicted himself.
QUOTE
Instead, the devil is allowed to lead us all astray until the day of judgement, after which, iblis will be punished like all the humans and jinn that disobeyed God. The reason why Iblis is allowed to do this is known only to God. So, God has not created a monster that he cannot destroy, as the author claims. Instead, Allah(SWT) can create all and destroy all, if he so wills.
The above quote raises many questions. First of all, was Satan created by the will of God? If yes, then is the Satan leading astray human being by the same will? If yes then those human beings should not be punished as it was will of God for them to commit sins and there is no need for a judgement day. If no then how can the creation go against the will of God? Can something take place against the will of God? If yes then clearly there is a rival power against God.
The author addresses the question of “devils” in Sikhism. To be clear, Sikhism does not have the concept of a single entity called the “devil” which single-handedly deceives humans. Sikhs believe that the five vices (lust, ego, greed, anger, attachment) as a result of the perversion of the mind deceive us and cause us to separate ourselves from God and the rest of creation.
The problem the author faces is that he relies exclusively in often incorrect translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee in which the true meaning of the term is not reflected clearly. God has created many “gods” and “devils” but not as rival powers. The mind is often referred to as “shaitan” because it misdirects us.
The author then comments on purity. He seems to have missed the entire point of the argument, perhaps due to haste in reading. God has created all of creation. For us, there are of course clean and unclean things. But for God, all creation is his. He is not disgusted by any of it, because he created it! On another level, the only truly “pure” thing is Naam and Shabad which are “pure” because they are “true” in the sense that they are eternal and link us to the ONE real truth: God. The author seems to think that God would be disgusted by his own creation and things such as excrement and dirt. The point is clear: God is not disgusted by anything. That doesn’t lead to the author’s nonsensical conclusion that there is nothing clean/unclean however.
5. Sikh laws
The Sikh system of governance was CLEARLY outlined in the earlier response. Unfortunately the author refuses to read it (out of fear it seems).
Islam has been given a static system of law, frozen in time at 600 AD. Sikhism on the other hand has been given PRINCIPLES that are applied according to the situation and like any GOOD system of law can adapt to meet change. The principles however governing the law, as found in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, are eternal and cannot change.
Sikhs believe in a clear theo-democratic legal system. The law is administered (as mentioned earlier) by the Panj Pyaaray, and ultimately Sri Akal Takhat Sahib and the Sarbat Khalsa.
The author also doesn’t understand that Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is a spiritual guide setting out PRINCIPLES that are applied by the Sikh and is a guide to experiencing God. It does not cover mundane issues like cutting off hands and how to beat wives, etc. Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, unlike the Quran and the Semitic Books, talks the individual’s SOUL and MIND rather than to talk to MEN and WOMEN. Therefore, code of conduct and discipline is recorded in the Sikh Rehit Maryada booklet instead. The Quran talks to males and the Bible talks to males. This is evident when one reads it.
Things like tax rates are once again frozen in Arabia circa. 600AD. Does that make sense? Should tax be frozen? Tax even as a government policy tool has to be flexible to meet the needs of the people and the times. God does not need to set petty issues like “tax”. He can guide however how to tax justly.
Taxes like the Jizya are clearly expressed as unjust in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Taxing someone for their beliefs is wrong: The Primal Lord God is called Allah. The Shaykh's turn has now come.
The temples of the gods are subject to taxes; this is what it has come to. ||5||
(1191)
In Sikhism, there is no punishment for holding honest belief. There is truly in Sikhism no compulsion in religion: There is no tax on non-believers, nor any fines or taxes at death. (430)
Testimony: The self-willed manmukhs read and study, but they do not know the way.
They do not understand the Naam, the Name of the Lord; they wander, deluded by doubt.
They take bribes, and give false testimony; the noose of evil-mindedness is around their necks. ||3|| (1032)
The author then returns to the mundane issues of “sentence for stealing, age of consent, riding a horse, nuclear weapons”.
Any rational person can tell you that a text written in 600AD should not govern these issues. Sentencing for stealing cannot be set in stone. In any JUST system of law, the sentence depends on motivation, past conduct of the accused, what was stolen, and why? All these questions must be answered. Punishment must be given with an idea to reform and help.
Let’s take the crime of theft. Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is clear No one will take responsibility for a thief.
How can a thief's actions be good? ||1|| (662)
There are many other verses condemning moral vices like theft, adultery, looting, etc. The principles are established but it would be foolish to cement punishments without examining the individual cases.
Islam unfortunately doesn’t have this concept. Shariah is quite clear: if there is theft of something of value, there are 2 witnesses: off with their hands! If someone commits adultery: stone and kill them! Even more distressing is to highlight the Shariah law in regards to rape. If a woman cannot produce four witnesses to claim she was raped then she is stoned in accordance to Islamic Law and charged with adultery. Is this pure dark age mentality or do they really believe this is justice? If a woman is raped in a field by a man, where will she find four witnesses? How can the Qazis and Mullahs turn their back to the honour, dignity and respect of their mothers, sisters and daughters. A disgrace!
These are BARBARIC punishments. Can an adulterer or a thief not be reformed? Can they not become good humans? Guru Nanak Sahib jee has shown us that they indeed can. Where Islam kills them, Guru Nanak Sahib jee reforms them and makes them useful and productive members of society like Sajjan the robber or later like Bhai Bidhi Chand.
Any rational reader can understand which the better system is: Panj Pyaaray governing on principles established by Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee or concrete punishments established by an ancient book for Arabs. Maybe that’s why we hear so many stories of innocent rape victims being whipped and stoned in Muslim countries. Islamic “justice” at its finest
6. Just War
The concept of Just War has been explained to before. Sikhism is clear that offensive attacks are forbidden. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib jee has said clearly in the Zafarnama: “When all other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword."
All the wars fought by the Sikh Gurus were defensive in nature.
The author asks about Air India: QUOTE
“ I am still intrigued as to whether this is justified according to the religion?”
The answer is clear: NO. Killing of civilians is not justified in Sikh Just War Doctrine.
The author still hasn’t explained how and why Islam has spawned more terrorist organizations and movements that kill innocent civilians than any other group if Islam’s war doctrine is so developed? Terrorist movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq, and many other countries all kill civilians in the name of Islam. How is this possible unless Islam itself inspires violence and such inhumane and cold-blooded atrocities?
Muslims often reply, “well Hitler was a Christian and he killed more humans than anyone”. He may have been a mass murderer but he never did so in the NAME of Christianity. The Muslim murderers consider it their duty to kill non-Muslims. Why is this?
7. God Creating Himself
Once again, perhaps due to lack of reading the author makes uniformed statements. As explained before, in the nirgun/sargun section, God “creating himself” is a reference to creation. Creation is the sargun form of God as he exists within it. God has always existed but creation has not. This is a fairly easy concept to grasp.
God is one, but until we have meditated on Naam and see His light everywhere and expedience and reach Sachkhand, the only part of God we can “see” is His creation. God is unitary and not split by this doctrine and I fail to understand your confusion or relating it to the Catholic faith.
8. Sikhism and Women
I find it incredulous that a Muslim of all people would challenge the role of women in Sikhism. Sikh women have always been given leading roles in the Sikh community. Guru Amar Das Sahib jee appointed women missionaries and Sikh women have always been free to lead congregations. Sikh women cannot be restricted from entering any Sikh shrine (unlike restrictions on Muslim women from entering many mosques). All rights are equal for men and for women. All religious obligations are also identical. Panj Kakaars (5Ks Sikh external uniform) are shared by both for example.
The author is focused on the absence of instructions for divorce in Sikh scripture. We repeat: Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee does not cover the intricacies of such mundane non-spiritual matters. But how is this discriminatory to women if there is no written system for divorce that affects both men and women equally?
At any rate, the system of divorce has already been outlined previously and all are free to re-read the pertinent section. However, questions asked previously were intentionally ignored by the author, which are presented again:
If a man says “Talaq” three times to his wife, they have to get divorced. This cannot be reversed which makes it clear that any Muslim under the influence of frustration or anger can simply destroy the relationship and the lives of his children. A woman on the other hand has no right or say in this. If Islam was really all about equality then the woman would also have the right to say the same word three times to get a divorce. But this is not the case. Man has more rights and final say. There is little to no room for thinking and communication. Once the word “Talaq” has been said it brings the hell process only for women. Divorced woman cannot remarry her previous husband. She first has to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and get divorce in the same manner and only then she can remarry her previous husband.
This practice of inequality makes women suffer so much. Assume a man says “Talaq” three times in anger and gets a divorce. Now, he wants to remarry his wife and the woman wants the same as they both love each other very much. But this cannot happen. The woman has to marry someone else and consummate the marriage. If she gets a divorce from her newlywed husband only then she can remarry love of her life. If her new husband refuses to give divorce, her whole life is ruined and she is forced to spend her life with someone she doesn’t love. This is what traps a woman in a loveless marriage because the husband has no such punishment. Even if the woman gets a divorce the very next day, she still has to undergo humiliation as she will have to spend a night with someone she doesn’t consider her life partner. It is a woman who gets trapped, punishment and is forced to go through humiliating and barbaric process. Where is the so-called equality? It exists no where in Islam.
B. Believing Women to be second-class citizens
This section is a new one and is based on translations of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The so-called “attacks” on women are hardly attacks at all. They criticise those men who under the influence of lust become subservient to their female partners and do as the woman partner says. This is clearly a foolish thing to do and the cause of trouble.
Let’s analyse the verses supplied by the author:
“Those men who act according to the orders of women are impure, filthy and foolish.” – SGGS Page 304, Line 13
By quoting only one line it does not show the context of the verse. The verse applies to those men who due to lust try to appease and woo women become subservient to them and act according to their orders. The very next verse in this shabad says “The impure man is taken by lust and does all action after asking the woman”. To lose one’s own decision-making power due to lust is wrong and the verse makes it quite clear. Nowhere does it say that women are unequal or their opinions should not be considered.
“The fool loves Gold and Women” – SGGS Page 416, Line 3
Referring to those engrossed in worldly pleasures, how does this demean women? It is a fact that people lost in love for maya (materialism) seek out wealth and women. How does this demean women? Isn’t yearning for 72 virgins and wealth in paradise foolish when what one is only doing is becoming enslaved to their sexual desire (Kaam) and greed (Moh) and losing their opportunity to actually experience and have union with God Himself.
“They wander from house to house, with impure minds, like wicked, forsaken women.” – SGGS Page 651, Line 15
This is a reference to the woman who has been abandoned by her husband, which was a phenomenon seen in those days and even now. These women were rendered homeless and indeed had to go from house to house. It is a comparison between the person who does not accept the order of God and is lost in the world to a woman who has been abandoned by her husband. How does it say women are bad?
“Women have become advisors, and men have become hunters, Humility, self-control and purity have run away; people eat the uneatable, forbidden food. Modesty has left her home, and honor has gone away with her.” - SGGS Page 1243, Line 1
Look at the context. It refers to men who under the influence of lust obey orders of women to appease and woo them.
“For the sake of pleasure, you have become subservient to your woman, and now your feet are bound.” - SGGS Page 1352, Line 13
At the risk of sounding repetitive, this again refers to the man who for the purpose of lust obeys women to woo them.
When referring to husband/wife relations Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is clear that not only should the husband “consult” with his wife, but “They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together. They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies. ||3||”
“Woman is one half the complete personality of man, and is entitled to share secular and spiritual knowledge equally.” (Bhai Gurdas Ji, Var 5, Pauri 16:59)
Unlike the Quran, which clearly says: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Quran 4:34)
Muslim translators have struggled with this passage and have sought ways to water down its clear meaning by adding words like “if necessary” and "lightly", which do not occur in the original Arabic. Even after the addition of such word, the verse still allows husbands to beat their wives.
Furthermore, women are considered not only “impure” due to their menstrual cycle, but also have mind deficiency according to Sura 2:182 and Hadith of Bukhari. Women are not given the same reward as men and the only place in the paradise they can enjoy is to wait for “believers” to “visit them and enjoy them” (Ibid, Number 4879). According to Ibid, Number 1462 majority of the women are in hell due to their “deficiency in intelligence”. I could quote at length from the Hadiths with examples of wife beating and other injustices but the readers can refer to the countless sites on this issue.
The author then comments on slavery in Islam. He says, QUOTE
“It should also be pointed out that slavery was the defacto standard all over the world at that time, from Arabia to Rome. It should also be pointed out that the idea of Freeing slaves was radical at that time. The countries now, that like to point to Islam as a medieval and backward religion, only gave the right of freedom to slaves in the 19th Century, over 1200 years after Islam.”
If Islam was “true” and slavery is clearly wrong, Islam would have forbidden it outright. There were many things prevalent in the world but the job and duty of a messenger of God is to reveal the truth. Slavery is wrong and must be stopped. But Islam sidesteps and allows it which gives Masters permission to have sexual relations with them (which implies raping them) but puts some conditions on it. If something is wrong, it is wrong.
Take the example of the Sikh Gurus and Caste. Where the Caste system was an ancient belief in India, the Gurus didn’t try the gradual approach to remove it. They didn’t try to recast it with new rules. They said it was wrong and took steps to actively reject it. The concept of langar where all sit and eat together broke caste lines. The concept of all castes drinking from the same vessel during initiation absolutely smashed any semblance of caste. The Sikh Gurus were unequivocal when demanding equality for all humans. This is once again a contrast to Islam.
If Islam rejected Slavery and sexual exploitation then how can the author explain the following verses?
The Believers must (Eventually) win through—Those who humble themselves In their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds Of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined To them in the marriage bond, Or (the captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (in their case) they are Free from blame. (23:1-6)
O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; (33:50)
You can have sexual intercourse with two slave girls at a time without ghusl (bath) but can’t do like this with free women…(Malik’s Muwatta 2.23.90)
Terms “right hand possesses” refer to captives in Jihad. Thus it is established that in Islam it is not only permissible to have slave girls but also use them for sexual intercourse. Can Muslims on any moral ground defend this barbaric and old age thinking?
The author still has not explained why sex with slaves, as clearly mentioned in the following passage, is anything less than savage:
“Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, send down the Qur'anic verse: "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand possess."[Surah 4:24] ...Sunan Abu Dawud, Book V, Chapter 711, Number 2150”
These poor women who had been taken prisoner were authorized to be raped by Mohammad in FRONT of their still living HUSBANDS! How is this just? How is this even human?
The example of Saffiyah is also shocking. This Jewish woman who’s father had just been killed by the Muslims and husband had just been TORTURED to death was taken by Mohammad as his wife. Would she have happily married him? Could this have been a marriage free from fear and compulsion? What kind of Woman could see her husband tortured to death and then happily marry the torturer?
Or explain why Mohammad married a 6 year old while in his 50s and then had sex with her at the age of 9? According to all modern law he’d be a paedophile. The Muslims argue that Ayesha had entered puberty. but it is extremely rare that someone has completed puberty by that age. But Even if a 9 year old’s body is matured the mind is still that of a child. How was this justified? Was this the actions of a just and holy man let alone messenger of God?
9. Many Paths to God
Yes, there is only one path to God: Gurmat . Now you know and as they say, “knowing is half the battle”.
10. Why is Sikhism Not Evangelical?
The author says,
QUOTE
“They believe only Sikhs achieve the status of WaheGuru, yet they don’t make any effort for non-sikhs to embrace their path.
QUOTE
How ironic that Guru Nanak spoke against Pride and Ego, and yet their ego and pride is stopping them from converting others. If it is the truth, then why would you not want humanity to follow it and be saved also?”
I agree with the author that Sikhs have failed in spreading the mission of Sikhism to the world. I think it is a wake up call for all of us. I don’t hate Muslims. I respect them in many ways. I terribly disagree with a lot of Islamic beliefs and the missionary tactics of fear, greed and the sword. However, I am impressed by the passion and enthusiasm to share their faith. Sikhism is the truth and when offered the truth, people will eventually accept it. It is the truth that smoking tobacco will kill you and will harm those around you. However, despite knowing this, and regardless of that fact that on the cigarette pack itself it says “This will Kill you and harm those around you” a large number of mothers, fathers and so call responsible people who have capability of choosing from right and wrong continue to smoke and damage their health and society’s health. Why don’t they respond to the truth? The answer is that those who are fortunate enough wake up to the truth, the others are yet intoxicated and attached so deeply to Maya (the illusionary world) that they don’t recognise the truth.
As has been seen in the West, many Westerners have adopted Sikhism without any concerted missionary movement. The one Sikh missionary in the west, Harbhajan Singh Yogi converted thousands single-handedly. Imagine what more than one could accomplish?
At the same time, Sikhs are always weary of hurting the sentiments of others. A Sikh lives, speaks and acts with dignity, grace and honour. At the same time Guru Nanak Sahib jee said, the time is for truth and truth must be proclaimed: “Nanak speaks the Bani (Word) of Truth; he proclaims the Truth because now is the time for the Truth. ||2||3||5||” (722)
Conclusion
I have respect for the author, my Muslim brother, who is striving so hard to disprove Sikhism. It is an impossible feat because this is the Word of God. Sikhism, when inspected with an unbiased eye is clearly the more comprehensive, rational and just option. More importantly, it is the TRUTH. It is the ONLY way to God and to experience Divine eternal bliss of the soul.
Overcome your programming. Think calmly for a moment. Might you be wrong? Close your eyes and sit in silence and meditate on God and pray to God to show you guidance and the path of true living. What is the price to pay if you are wrong? This human life is very precious. It is your chance to see and feel the light of God. Look within yourself and with God’s grace I believe you will realise that the true path is Gurmat. May God bless you and all of humanity.
Source: Discoversikhi.com
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
