Gurmat and Islam : Questioning

From SikhiWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The website www.sikhs2islam.tk has posted a list of questions to Sikhs about so-called “flaws” in the Sikh religion. For believing Sikhs this is of course an absurdity as Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, the word of God, tells us:

"There is only one religion of Dharma; let everyone grasp this truth." SGGS Page 1188


Through this attempt to answer the questions posed, we will show that Gurmat is indeed the perfect and eternal faith. The website has the motto “you can’t hide from the truth forever.” Indeed, the truth is that Gurmat is the only complete path and this truth is one that cannot be denied.


1. Is Guru Nanak a False Prophet?


In the list of questions the writer makes the assertion,

“According to Sikh Scriptures (more of which later), he had “millions” of followers.”


Which Sikh Scriptures claims that he had millions of followers? The absolute absurdity of this article is that the writer is completely unfamiliar with basic Sikh tenets and principles. Sikh scripture is limited to the following: Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, sacred writings and literature written by Guru Gobind Singh jee, Works of Bhai Gurdas and the works of Bhai Nand Lal Singh. Beyond this are non-scriptural texts that are useful for historical study but not permitted to be sung as scripture in the Gurdwara. These non-scriptural sources are only accepted so far as they coincide with Gurbani. These texts include Rehitnamas, Tankhanama, Janamsakhis, and historical texts like Gurbilas, Panth Parkash, Suraj Parkash, etc.


I think the issue here lies with the question of “prophethood”. Guru Nanak Sahib jee was a Satguru. This is MUCH more than a simple prophet. A prophet by default is one who has the ability to reveal prophecies. According to Muslims, Muhammed had the Koran revealed to him through the angel Gabriel. Satguru receives revelations directly from God. Satguru Nanak Sahib jee was called to God’s court and ordered to reveal the divine Naam to the world. It is written clearly in Sri Guru Granth Sahib:

“Vaheguru gave me His Hukam (Order) to sing His Praises day and night. Vaheguru, my Lord and Master summoned me, His minstrel, to the True Mansion of His Presence. (Vaheguru,) the Image of True Praise and Glory, gave me the Siropaao, robe of honour. The spiritual-life giving Name, Amrit Naam, the True Name, which gives eternal spiritual life, has become my food [sustenance].” (Ang 150)


As Satguru, Guru Nanak spoke DIRECT revelations from God and did not use any middle-party like Muhammed. Guru Nanak makes this clear when he says:


"O Lalo! As the Lord’s word comes to me so I deliver it."

(Ang 722)


There are numerous references like this in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee. Another example is:


"I myself know not what to say; all I speak is what the Lord commands."

(Ang 763).


You have supplied a quote attributed to Guru Nanak Sahib jee “There is no Muslim, there is no Hindu.” This is not found ANYWHERE in Sikh scripture. The closest that can be found is “Neither am I Hindu nor Muslim” (Ang 1136).


The article further says,

When a person claims Prophethood, this claim must then be verified. Prophets throughout history have brought miracles to demonstrate to their people (Moses, Abraham, David, and Others, may peace be upon them all). For example Moses spilt the Red Sea, David was able to melt metal in his hands, and Abraham was able to withstand fire. These miracles have been verified both through scriptures and through science.


I would be interested in knowing how these so-called miracles were verified through science? Were there scientific studies carried out on the veracity of these miracles when they were carried out? Spiritual powers, otherwise known as “ridhi sidhis” are very common in the Indic tradition. Anyone who meditates does gain certain power. The Sikh Gurus however told the Sikhs to shun their use. Miracles that take place by the will of God and by his order are however accepted.


“That alone is spirituality, and that alone is miraculous power, which the Lord spontaneously bestows.”

(Ang 633)


There have been countless such miracles attributed to the Sikh Gurus and their proof exists even today in local legend and physical evidence. In Hasan Abdal, Pakistan there exists to this day a massive boulder with the palm print of Guru Nanak Sahib jee. This boulder was rolled down on him by Wali Kandhari and was stopped with one hand. A spring of water also created by Guru Nanak Sahib jee still flows there today. Countless similar miracles attributed to the Gurus are recorded and their evidence still exists all across South Asia.


Even in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee, the coming of Babar (the Mughal invader) and the eventual defeat of the Mughals is prophesied by Guru Nanak Sahib jee and proven to have been absolutely correct.


“Coming in seventy-eight (1521 C.E.), they will depart in ninety-seven (1540 C.E.), and then another brave man will rise up. Nanak speaks the Word of Truth; he proclaims the Truth at this for it is now the time for truth ||2||3||5||”

(Ang 723)


The fact is however Sikhism rejects just miracles as proof of divinity or “prophethood”. Miracles are a cheap way of winning support from people. The true miracle is changing the self-centered mind to become God-centered and invoking the love of God in people. Guru Nanak Sahib jee made murders, cannibals, thugs, and bandits become Godly through piercing their hearts with love and the power of Naam and Baani. Even magicians or tricksters can perform so-called miracles (e.g. David Blain).


2. Are the Sikh Scriptures authentic?


A. the Janamsakhi


The Bala Janamsakhi has never even CLAIMED to be divine revelation by any Sikh. Sikh scholars have rejected it as a creation of the 19th Century. The research you have presented is that which Sikh scholars themselves have tabled. This Janamsakhi isn’t and has never been read in Sikh congregations.


B. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji


Sikhs claim that this book is the “Eleventh” and final Guru, and should be regarded and revered as a Guru. There is even a tale of this book, upon compilation, to be given its own bed whilst a Guru, Guru Arjan slept on the floor!

For this book to be the 11th Guru, the final way to God and scripture in its own right, surely it would have to be a perfect book, free from errors and contradictions? However, we find that this is not the case.

Some errors include:-

· Teaching God to be “Sargun” (Possessing Attributes) and “Nargun” (Possessing no Attributes).

· Claims there is only one way to God, then says many ways

· Reincarnation is taught in one section, yet is rejected elsewhere


How can it be that a Divinely inspired book, a Guru, a way to God, be so full of contradictions?

In addition to this, the Book provides no details of the origins of the Earth or of Man, and provides no answers to “where did we come from” as a result. Surely any divinely inspired text would present Gods answer to these questions?


The so-called “errors” you have pointed out will be addressed point by point.

1) Sargun (with attributes) and Nirgun (without attribute) is not a contradiction. Unlike the Koran’s numerous grammatical and historical contradictions such as those about the creation of man and various Bible stories, this “contradiction” is even at face value no mistake. In the same line in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee it is written, “Sargun, Nirgun, the Formless One is in complete Samadhi” (Ang 290) and also “He is himself is Nirgun and he himself is also Sargun” (Ang 287).


Clearly where these are presented in the same verse, there must be a meaning or message. It has not been done accidentally or through oversight.


A simple answer to the apparent “contradiction” is this: God has existed forever. He is without start. He continues to exist. God is formless and his realm is Sachkhand. But just as the sun resides in one place but its rays are everywhere and felt everywhere, so is the nature of God. When God created Creation, He placed His jot or His light within it. Creation has his light within it and so it is not separated from him. When someone becomes spiritually enlightened through Naam, the light of God is seen from creation as well.


2) Can you give me even ONE reference to where Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee points to more than one way to God? There is only ONE way to God and that is through Naam revealed by Guru Nanak. All other ways including Islam fall short.


3) Reincarnation is taught throughout Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee. It is not rejected anywhere. What reference can you give to support this claim? None! Because it’s a total fabrication, which is a sign of desperation to disprove something, which is infallible.


4) Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee also gives a very detailed explanation on the origin of the Universe. The Sikh explanation of creation is much more detailed and true than the story of Adam and Eve etc. Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee describes what was before creation:

"(Before the creation of the world) for endless eons, there was only utter darkness. There was no earth or sky; there was only the infinite Command of His Hukam. There was no day or night, no moon or sun; Vaheguru sat in primal, (like) in profound undisturbed meditation. ||1||"

(Ang 1035)


The universe did not come into existence by itself. The Creator created it:


“From the True Lord came the air (gases), and from the air came water. From water, He created the three worlds (referring to the sky, earth and sea); in each and every heart He has infused His Light. The Immaculate Lord does not become polluted. Attuned to the Shabad, honor is obtained. ||3||”

(Ang 19)


According to Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee the creation was manifested from the Sunn (void) in which the creator eternally existed:


“In the Primal Void, the Infinite Lord assumed His Power. He Himself is unattached, infinite and incomparable. He Himself exercised His Creative Power, and He gazes upon His creation; from the Primal Void, He formed the Void. ||1|| From this Primal Void, He fashioned air and water. He created the universe, and the king in the fortress of the body. Your Light pervades fire, water and souls; Your Power rests in the Primal Void. ||2||”

(Ang 1037)


There are three distinct functions that Vaheguru continually performs through his creation:


“Vaheguru, the One Divine Mother, emanated three functions. One, the Creator of the World; One, the Sustainer; and One, the Destroyer. He makes creation perform these functions to the Pleasure of His Will. Such is His Celestial Order.”

(Ang 7)


Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee also tells us that the universe is not permanent:


"Night and day, and the stars in the sky shall vanish. The sun and the moon shall vanish. The mountains, the earth, the water and the air shall pass away. Only the Word of the Holy Saint shall endure. ||1||"

(Ang 1204)


"Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the planets, nor the seven continents, nor the oceans, nor food, nor the wind-nothing is permanent. You alone, Lord, You alone. ||4||"

(Ang 144)


Furthermore Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee tells us:


“Many times has the creation been created (the universe been created) and expanded.”

(Ang 276)


One question, which someone may ask, is “Who created the Creator?” To Guru jee tell us:


“Vaheguru alone is fearless, who has no destiny written on His head. God Himself is unseen; He reveals Himself through His wondrous creative power. He Himself is unattached, unborn and self-existent. O Nanak, through the Guru's Teachings, He is found. ||12||”

(Ang 1042)


Fundamentally, one must understand and accept that humans cannot understand the limits of God’s creative power, creation and wonder:


“No one knows Your state and extent. You alone created the expanse of the Universe.”

(Ang 1220)


“O Nanak, the Creator alone knows the workings of His creation. ||2||”

(Ang 275)


Thus it has been shown Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee gives Sikhs an understanding of the creation of the world that is very scientific and matches the views of contemporary scientists. Very unlike humanity being created out of mud and a human rib.


3. How can Re-Incarnation be Accurate?


When dealing with a question of this nature I like to start off with a ‘test case’. Let’s use that of a baby who is born, screams one scream and then dies. What will happen to this infant? Why was it born? To what purpose was its life? If we go with the Muslim understanding, this baby was born, and Islam provides that it will go to heaven. But if it was only to live for an instant (as many babies do) why did God bother sending it? If this baby will go to heaven and share a spot with the greatest of Shahids (martyrs) who had to struggle through life, is this justice? Why was this baby given such a short life (ie. a short test) while the Shahid was given such a difficult test when the result will be the same i.e. heaven? If you say that the Shahid will have a higher level in heaven then I ask where is the justice in that? The baby wasn’t given an opportunity to get to a higher level.


If you take the Sikh approach, the baby was born due to karma (the law of action and reaction). It had the karma to have lived such a short life and now it will be reborn. The cycle of birth and death continues until the soul attains union with God while alive through Naam and devotion. After this, the soul is forever united with God in Sachkhand and reincarnation is finished. This is a system of total justice.


Why are some born with so many problems be they poverty or physical handicap, etc. while others are born with so many advantages? Where is the justice in this? If the reward is the same (Paradise) why is the test different for different people. This is an inherent injustice. If the reward is not the same (different levels of Paradise) then once again it is an injustice as not all have the same opportunity to achieve the higher levels.

Even the concept of Muslim after-life is an affront to spirituality. The Muslim afterlife of Paradise is an enjoyment of worldly pleasures like rivers of milk and wine and beautiful attendants. These are physical pleasures that are even possible on this Earth if someone has the resources to create them or you just have to travel to your local supermarket and buy as much milk and honey as you desire! Sikhism believes in the existence of Heavens and Hells but not as permanent places as in Islam and Christianity. The soul may enjoy these places for a time as a reward but then must be sent back into reincarnation. The ultimate goal is Sach Khand which is far greater than any Heaven. It is a state of UNION WITH GOD in which the soul forever enjoys SPIRITUAL bliss. Not physical pleasures.


Now to address you points as they appeared:


a) Do you have a measuring tool by which you have determined the world is in decline? Practices like human sacrifice, slavery, brutal wars are far less today than in the past. At any rate, karma is not necessarily a positive-reinforcement process. Bad karma will lead to a negative outcome while positive will lead to a positive. Quite simple! The way Sikhism differs from Hinduism however is that the human is NOT A SLAVE TO KARMA. The way to break out of karma and reach God is through Naam meditation.


The source of “evil” is a separation from God. The soul has the light of God but when the individual is not aware of this, he sees himself as a distinct entity. Independent of all others in creation and will do anything to benefit himself even if it is destructive to others. But a spiritual and God-oriented soul will see that light within himself and in others and will not act selfishly.


b) I have already shown you how the real injustice is in the Muslim understanding of birth and death. It is in fact a system that lacks mercy as well because one who makes a mistake is never given a chance to repent or reform. If someone never has heard of Islam or God, how can they be judged? The system is intrinsically unfair to them. However in the Sikh understanding, even if someone does not know about Sikhism or does not realize God, they can have the opportunity in the future. There is compassion and mercy in this system because God is always forgiving and no soul is forever condemned to Hell. There is always a chance for reform where there is the will.

You bring up the fact that past lives are not recalled. This is for the benefit of the individual. We have enough trouble managing just this one life, if we could recall countless past lives, imagine how much more trouble that would be. Instead of a duty to our immediate family we would have duties to so many parents and siblings, etc. At any rate, reincarnation is not a punishment as you have made it out to be so much as it is a continuation of the soul’s journey. Based on past karma, the soul is placed in a certain situation. Perhaps due to past karma the soul is placed in a situation of total poverty. Whatever the soul decides to do in that situation (earn money through hard work or become a thief, etc) is the source of new karma.


So characterizing reincarnation as punishment is incorrect. It is simply the soul proceeding on its journey.


Even your statement that past lives cannot be recalled is incorrect. There have been countless examples of young children who for whatever reason (perhaps as miracles of God to prove the world the truth of reincarnation) can recall pas lives. Through meditation this becomes quite possible. An interesting article on this quite common phenomenon is at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020112/windows/main1.htm


c) There are indeed more HUMANS on this planet than before. That however coincides with the elimination of countless animals and natural habitats, forests, etc. The loss of these other types of life forms can easily be shown to balance the increase in human lives.


4. How can God be Omnipotent and within Evil?


As I mentioned earlier, the light of God is within and can be discovered by meditation on Naam. It is because of this very ignorance caused by ego that there is pain and “evil”.

There is no rival power to God as in Islam like Satan. How can there be any power opposed to God? Sikhi doesn’t believe that Waheguru created some “evil force” (Satan) that misled Adam and Eve to eat an apple and then took over hell. This is pure nonsense as it implies that Satan (created by Waheguru) could not be controlled or destroyed and became so powerful that Waheguru Himself was unable to liberate His creation (hell) from Satan.


What was creation created from? All that existed was God so what is the source of creation? It has to be God. God’s light is in creation and is why it functions. It is God’s power and his presence in creation that is the source of the miracle of the Universe where everything is in such order.


What is pure and what impure? To God nothing is pure and nothing is impure. Animal excreta are used for burning when dried, and as manure it is spread over fields, which is absorbed by the plants whose fruits and crops we eat. Once we eat this, we excrete this back out. So God’s cycle is the nitrogen cycle as you read in science. We breathe nitrogen, excrete nitrogen, and that nitrogen goes into the soil, which goes into the plants and those plants we eat again. So what is excrement and what is impure? If you think excreta are impure then you shouldn’t eat crops, fruits or even drink water, which is full of animals and organisms’ excreta. For a Sikh the source is God and everything merges back in God.


If Allah created earth then did he not create everything that exists in the earth including excreta, tobacco and wine which is considered haram (unlawful) in Islam on earth but this haram is given as a reward in paradise? As explained before, God created a balance and nothing exists without His will.


5. How can Sikhs claim to have a complete way of Life?


A: Sikhism is given a clear "Theo-democratic" system of law. Guru Gobind Singh jee, the Tenth Master, in his farsightedness knew that not all crimes are the same and thus no one punishment can be given for them at all: does the thief who steals bread due to hunger receive same punishment as one who steals a car due to greed? No! Thus Guru jee said:


"The Khalsa is my true form, I abide within the Khalsa"


Guru jee gave power to decide these things to the Khalsa in the form of the Panj Piaaray (5 initiated selected Sikhs). The Panj Piaaray look at each case and then give a case-by-case decision. There are no blanket amputations for everyone as some religions may prescribe. There are rehitnaamas and tankhaahnaamas (edicts and codes of conduct) dictated by Guru Gobind Singh jee that clearly outline what is right and what is wrong. For example, adultery is a 'bujjar kurehat', a cardinal sin, for which a Sikh is excommunicated from the Panth (community) and if they wish to become a member of the Panth again, they must then present themselves before the Panj Piaaray to be re-initiated and given corrective measures.


Even beyond the rehitnaamas and tankhaahnamas, there is the concept of Miri-Piri: temporal and spiritual aspects to Gurmat, i.e. a theo-political system. Guru Hargobind Sahib jee gave us the Sikh parliament of Sri Akaal Takhat. The Sarbat Khalsa (entire Khalsa) is the parliament and the motions passed are called "Gurmattas". A system of passing gurmattas is carried out by consulting Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee and then voting on each motion. The Five Takhats are the Centres of Sikh power with the main headquarter being Sri Akaal Takhat. The Five Jathehdars (representatives) are the "cabinet" of the Panth and organise the Panth's movement. The Jathehdaar of Sri Akaal Takhat (Amritsar) has power as spokesperson of the Panth. Akaalee Baba Phoola Singh, for example, was Jathehdaar during Maharaja Ranjeet Singh's time and gave him punishment of a fine and a caning due to his adultery.


Thus it is clear that Sikhism does have a law in Rehitnaamas and tankhaahnaamas along with the Rehit (code of discipline), which is given during Amrit Sanchaar (initiation ceremonies). Local decisions are to be taken by Panj Piaaray, which can be appealed to the Takhats, and Sri Akaal Takhat takes final decisions. The collective Sikh parliament is Sarbat Khalsa and motions are called Gurmattas.


   * How much tax should I pay in a Sikh State, as a Non-Sikh?

Sikhs do not believe in a Jaiziya system like the Muslims where non-Sikhs must pay to ensure their protection. This question therefore is moot. The taxation system in a Sikh state is the same for non-Sikhs and Sikhs.


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding testimony in a court?

A Sikh is to always speak the truth. Unlike in Islam (where the testimony of one man is equal to a testimony of four women), a man’s testimony is equal to a woman’s testimony


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding the sentence for stealing? 

Depends on the nature of the crime and how it was committed and why. The answer is given by the Panj Pyaaray based on each case. This is a stark contrast to default amputations of limbs like the Musllims.


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding the age of maturity?

Each person matures at a different rate. If there is a need to determine this, the question is brought to the Panj Pyaaray.


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding my relations with my neighbour?

Sikhism teaches to treat all humans with kindness and compassion be they your neighbour or anyone else.


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding how I should treat an animal?

Guru Granth Sahib teaches, “Show kindness and mercy to all life and realize that the Lord is pervading everywhere; this is the way of life of the enlightened soul, the supreme swan. ||7||” (Ang 508)


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding lawful earnings?

Sikhs are taught to earn their living through honesty without infringing on the rights of anyone else. One of the fundamental principles of Sikhism is “kirat karo” or to earn an honest living. Eating food earned through cheating is equal to eating the carcass of a dead animal (Ang 15). Furthermore, earnings should be shared with others and the Sikh system of Dasvandh or 10% of all income being donated is mandatory on all believers. “Through hard work make your earnings and eat, and also give something to others from your hand. Such a person has found the true path” (Ang 1245).


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding killing a non-Sikh and the punishment for that?

Each case is presented before the Panj Pyaaray and based on the merits of the case a ruling is given.


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism regarding riding a horse?

What need would there be for a “ruling” on such a trivial issue? Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is concerned with the salvation of the soul and light of God. God has blessed humans with common sense and intellect. Riding horses etc. are mundane issues that simple human intellect can resolve.


   * What is the ruling in Sikhism if I use a nuclear weapon?

What is the Islamic ruling? This is a plainly foolish question.


As you can see, Sikhism is a complete and rational way of life. Each situation is judged on its merits as opposed to blanket amputations for crimes like theft (as the Muslims would have it).


6. What is a Just War in Sikhism?


The writer asks, “When we see this in practice however, we can see that very rarely has a Sikh War been any different to any other war fought on behalf of misguided religions: For Land, Nation and Resources. “


This is an interesting comment coming from a Muslim. Have Muslim wars been for anything different? Muslim conflicts today in Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq are all based on nothing but land, nation and resources.


You have given a list of examples, which frankly are non-sensical. As mentioned before, Sikh struggles are governed by the Sri Akal Takhat Sahib through the institutions of Gurmata passed by the Sarbat Khalsa. This has been the system in the past. Demanding that Panjab’s resources be controlled by Panjab and the elimination of those who are killing innocent civilians does not seem unjust. You are correct however that bombing of civilian targets is condemned by Sikhs. On the other hand Muslims in the name of Allah of infamous for committing suicide bombings and killing innocent men, women and children for the Islamic cause. If people professing the Sikh faith do such things they are wrong and to be held accountable. The Guru has taught a Sikh to use violence at the last resort when all other means have failed and even that situation the rights and life of the weak, oppressed and innocent should be guarded at all costs regardless of gender or faith. A Sikh defends himself, his nation and the weak – A Sikh never instigates attack as in Islam in pursuit for wealth, women slaves (who are sexually exploited) and spreading Islam by the sword.


But once again it seems very strange for a Muslim to be commenting on the unjust nature of bombings when Muslims are known for bombing civilian targets around the world. We need not look any further than the London 7/7 bombings or suicide bombings in Iraq and Palestine. The number of innocent civilians unintentionally killed by those professing the Sikh faith is almost nothing in comparison to the lives intentionally lost to Muslim terrorists.


7. How can God Create himself?


Gurbaani is the infallible word of God, within which there are no contradictions. Humans can make mistakes when interpreting, translating or understanding Gurbaani, however the Guru and God are Perfect.


“Everyone makes mistakes; only the Guru and the Creator are infallible.”

(Ang 61)


The Mool Mantar, the first verse of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee describes God. It states God is “ajoonee” (unborn) and “saibhuN” (self-existent). The Mool Mantr is the yardstick of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee and is the foundation of Sikhi.


One should be careful when reading translations and understand that some words are difficult to translate to another language and sometimes the exact word is difficult to find. Therefore, it is best if one reads the original script in Gurmukhi.


The Shabad (hymn) on Ang 463 says:


“Pauree: The Almighty Himself fashioned the world and Himself assumed His Name. Secondly, He fashioned the creation; seated within the creation, He beholds it with delight. You Yourself are the Giver and the Creator; by Your Pleasure, You bestow Your Mercy. You are the Knower of all; You give life, and take it away again with a word. Seated within the creation, You behold it with delight. ||1||”

(Ang 463)


According to Gurbani God has always existed and uncreated:


“He cannot be established, He cannot be created.”

(Ang 2)


When in Gurbaani it refers to “creating Himself” or “fashioning Himself” it means that God Himself manifested Himself from His Nirgun (invisible) form, whichever forever existed, to his Sargun (visible) form.


8. Why can Sikh women not Divorce?


Sikhism still does not give the right of divorce to its adherents except in extreme circumstances, and even then since it is not legislated within Sikhism this is decided by Western or Hindu Courts.


This is mentioned in many sources, and some quotes from Sikhs are as follows:-

“In the case of broken marriage, divorce is not possible according to the Sikh religious tradition. The couple can, however, obtain a divorce under the Civil law of the land.”


Of more concern is how Sikhs refuse to even consider divorce, leaving the spouse trapped in a loveless marriage. Take this example from the Sikh Spectrum Magazine:-

When two souls become one, there is no duality between the way a husband and a wife think. Whatever they do, they do it together. A divorce, in such a case, is inconceivable.


It is incredulous that anything calling itself “the modern religion” still does not emancipate women and give them independence.


Divorce in Sikhism is considered a very grave matter. When the marriage takes place the husband and wife agree in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee to stay with each other and love and honour each other for life. If marital discord takes place, the community intervenes. Panj Pyaaray can be asked to help resolve the situation.


In the extreme and very rare case where one side simply refuses to reconcile one party may ask the permission of the Sangat or Panj Pyaaray to divorce and re-marry.


Marriage is not however considered something that can be formed and broken at will. It is a commitment made in front of God and to be relieved of that commitment to the other person some very extenuating circumstances must be present.


Sikhi teaches us how to become rational thinker moral beings. Guru Sahib has taught His Sikhs how to think in a moral way. This shows how much free thinking Guru Sahib has given to His Sikhs. It is a fact that divorce is not a simple thing as it involves lives of two human beings. There can be many different situations and circumstances related to divorce. Stating every different situation is ridiculous because a divorce can involve a simple reason to many complex reasons. There can be numerous possible solutions to one case. Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee is not a rule book. Gurbani teaches us how to think and how to tackle every problem and find the best solution. This is why Guru Sahib gave the power to Sikhs to make decisions that are best for everyone. Gurbani gives freedom of free thinking whereas archaic and inflexible rules would not.


In Sikhism marriage is highly regarded and both man and woman must respect one another as they join together to share their spiritual path and goal in life. Unlike in Islam where you have “muttah marriages” which are temporary marriage to sanctify immediate sexual gratification of lecherous men who can annul the marriage by saying “Divorce” three times in the presence of another Muslim. Very convenient for men who have little or no morals and who see woman as nothing more than cattle who they can sexually exploit. Furthermore, the Quran sanctifies and provides justification for Masters to take sexual advantage and sexually exploit their slaves without marrying them as the slave girls are the Master’s property.


Buying and selling of women as sex slaves is fully permitted in Islam. It is a perfectly a legitimate way to acquire as many sex-slaves as possible. Sky is not the limit, though. The only limitation is the affordability. One may say that this type of flesh trading is no more practiced today. This is true. However, nothing can prevent the Islamists from re-introducing the slave markets as per Qur’an and Sunnah when their ‘Jihad’ against the infidels is successful. Sexual slavery is absolutely legitimate in Islam. If Islam conquered the world, slavery could have never been eradicated, because Islamic laws are written on granite stone and are absolutely unchangeable.


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)

Furthermore, Muhammed also encouraged the rape of captured women in front of their husbands:

“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”

Muhammad himself had a Coptic slave that was presented to him by the ruler of Alexandria in Egypt. When the delegate from Muhammad visited this Coptic head of Egypt (Muaqaqis) with an invitation for him to convert to Islam he politely refused to do so, but knowing the taste of Muhammad, he presented Muhammad with two beautiful slave-girls who were sisters. Muhammad took for himself Mariya, the most beautiful one and gave her sister, Sirin, to his poet friend, Hassan ibn Thabit for him to enjoy her. Please note that neither Muhammad nor Hasan b. Thabit married these slave-girls. Mariya gave birth to Ibrahim, Muhammad’s last child who died in infancy. Sirin bore a son named Abdul Rahman to Hassan, the poet (ref. 10, p. 498-499). All these historical records are absolute proof that enjoying a female slave is totally ‘halal’ in Islam. You can read more about immoral sex and sexuality in Islam on http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.shtml and http://www.answering-islam.de/Main///Silas/mo_sex.htm


This is a stark contrast to Satguru Nanak’s example. When the King of Sangladeep sent dancing girls to entertain and seduce Guru Nanak, Guru Sahib said,


O princess, my daughter, run away from this place! Chant the True Name, and embellish your days. Serve your Beloved Lord God, and lean on the Support of His Love. Through the Word of the Guru's Shabad, abandon your thirst for corruption and poison. ||7||


The concept of slavery or sexual relations outside of marriage is absolutely forbidden in Sikhism, unlike in Islam.


In Islam 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 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.


1) A divorced woman has to wait three months and then she gets the right to remarry.

2) 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.


9. How can Sikhs Claim that there are “many paths to God”, then he Punishes those whom do not adhere to Sikhism?


It is a ‘totally false’ argument that Sikhi believes all paths lead to the same goal and thus all religions are equal. From its very inception, Gurmat (the Guru’s Path) has been declared a unique and distinct path. Bhai Gurdaas jee writes:


“In the world, Guru Nanak Sahib jee established the authority (of his doctrines) and started a Path (of religion), devoid of any impurity.”

(Vaar 1, Pauree 45 – Bhai Gurdaas jee)


The claim that all paths lead to the same goal is covered in Bhai Sahib Randheer Singh jee’s book ‘Anhad Shabad Dasam Duar - Open discussion of unstruck ethereal music at tenth door of abode-divine’, pages 46-47:


"The Liberation-state of Gurmat is unique and different in concept from other religious faiths. Liberation is not the mere ending-up of the human body or just an escapement of the soul from its bodily cage. Some envisage liberation as riddance from afflictions associated with the human body. They believe liberation is unattainable as so long as the soul is caged within the human body. Others identify liberation as the fulfillment of their desires to abide in a heavenly abode. However, this kind of liberation falls very short compared to the Gurmat concept of liberation. Liberation is not the banishment of imagined pain and sorrow, nor can it be described as the disassociation of the soul-being from materialism. Yogic faith conceives liberation as empty consciousness through meditational practices that bear no semblance to the Gurmat concept. Vedantic faith believes in the removal of duality to arrive at oneness with The Absolute, in order to be liberated. Buddhism believes liberation to be a state of total renunciation of desire and negative thought - Nirvaana. Jainism considers that non-violence and non-killing leads to liberation. Mere escape from transmigration is not the essence of True Liberation....

Gurmat considers the above listed forms of liberation as halfway and incomplete. The swan-bird Gurmukhs who are blessed with Divine Enlightenment reject all these forms. They merge with The Divine Immaculate Light whilst living; they envision The Glorious Lord in full Divine Splendour.


Gurmukhs are sustained by the nourishment of Naam-Divine, while they behold The Lord at all times. They find True Liberation within this Love-Divine...Their Liberation lies in the sole occupation of Naam-Devotion, in accordance with Gurmat. This supreme state is reached through complete dedication, when one takes refuge within The Guru...what is not sought is a form of liberation devoid of God-Realisation."


If we use this viewpoint to analyse some mainstream schools of thought, we may reach the following conclusions:


In Hindu or Vedantic traditions, Liberation = various states according to different schools i.e. freedom from transmigration, realisation of self as God (Sohang) etc.


In Buddhism, Liberation = escape from desires / realisation of the nature of self / Nirvaana.

In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Liberation = heavenly abode


In Sikhi, Liberation = absorption into Vaheguru/Naam, the destruction of self/ego, the merging of Aatma (soul) into ParAatma (Universal Soul) - all of which can only be achieved through complete dedication to The Guru's Teachings.


The concept of equality exemplified by Sikhi is not the result of a debate concerning religions. The Sikhi concept of equality is an inward and outward acceptance of all and seeing everyone as a soul with the same divine father, rather than religious labels, which results directly from the practice of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee's teachings.


When it comes to true enlightenment, or liberation, Guru jee is very clear about its unique nature and definition within Gurmat; and in doing so we are taught who and what really is The True Teacher.


Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee over and over stresses the importance of "Gurmat Naam". Without Gurmat Naam no one can merge in Vaheguru or reach ‘Sach Khand’ (the spiritual Realm of Truth). In the House of Guru Nanak only Naam is found, the only tool to experience and merge into God.


“God has given this gift. Nanak’s home is filled with only Naam, the Name of Vaheguru. ||4||4||”

(Ang 1136)


Without Naam, no one can be liberated and merge with God. GurbaaNee is clear about this fact:


“Those enshrined the True Name within their heart, those within is the flowing current of Naam, and those whose consciousness is attached to the vibrations of the Guru's Baani obtain all comforts and liberation from Maya (the illusionary world). O Nanak! Without the Naam, no one is saved; You too swim across to the other side this true way in which there no chance of drowning. ||9||7||”

(Ang 1013)


Sikhi is unique by the fact that it does not condemn others to Hell or say if you are not Sikh you are eternally damned like in Islam. Rather a Sikh prays at least twice daily for "Sarbat Da Bhallaa", meaning the good and prosperity of all Humanity regardless of religion, belief or faith.


"May the Divine-Name preached by Nanak be exalted. May all prosper and be blessed within Your Will."

(Daily Sikh Ardaas)


Unless someone receives Gurmat Naam from Guru Nanak, there is no liberation. They will be rewarded for their good karma, but not liberated. They don't want liberation! Christians are content with heaven, and they will receive it. But then they will enter the cycle of births and deaths again, hopefully in a life, which will bring them closer to liberation. Gurmat Panth's respect of all religions goes as far as saying that they are not sent to eternal hell, they will get what they work for. Like Harmandir Saahib: God is open and available to all directions and all people of the world, but the path to God is ONE: Gurmat.


About other faiths:


”Some are Jains, wasting their time in the wilderness; by their pre-ordained destiny, they are ruined.”

(Ang 1285)


”The Hindu is (spiritually) blind; the Muslim has only one eye.”

(Ang 875)


“Prabhaatee: (O Hindu and Muslim brothers!) call the religions of the Vedas and Semitic books & Quran etc false. Those who do not realise this are false.”

(Ang 1350)


All faiths will get what they work towards. Guru Nanak Sahib jee is the only True Guru who has preached Naam, and given Gurmat-Naam. Only Gurmat has a concept such as Sach Khand and God-Realisation in such a clear way. Thus, Gurmat is the only path to Sach Khand, i.e. merging with God.


You ask:,

“In Sikhs claims that there are “no chosen people”, why must people adhere to Sikhism to be saved? Why must they take the Khalsa?”


“No chosen people” means that no one is created higher than the other. Sikhi clearly says that only those will be accepted in the court of Waheguru who live true way of life as taught by Guru Granth Sahib Ji. This opportunity is only offered by becoming a Sikh. Khalsa is protector of justice and honor, fights injustice and oppression and always stands on the truth. In that sense, those who become Khalsa are indeed “chosen” to walk the path of spirituality and reunite with the Creator. Becoming a Khalsa is an honor and Muslims should consider themselves lucky to have such a beautiful path offered to them. It is for their own benefit to give up the incomplete and imperfect religion of Islam and adopt the Sikh way of life.


10. Why is Sikhism Not Evangelical?


Sikhism is the TRUTH. Therefore, Sikhs do not frighten others to convert to the religion as in Islam and Christianity with fear of eternal damnation, discrimination, inferiority, oppression and torture. Sikhs do not have to lure people to become Sikhs through greed and appealing to their lower desires as in Islam and Christianity. There are countless examples from Sikh history and world history where Muslims have offered rewards of land, money, women as sexual slaves, and exemption of Jaiziyah (tax on non-Muslims). Sikhism is the Truth and so rejects evangelical methods practiced by Muslims and Christians with appeals to one’s lust, anger, greed, attachment or ego. Inducing others to convert for the purpose of seeking physical rewards in heaven is not the Sikh way.


A Sikh is an evangelical. However the definition of an “evangelical” is redefined. A Sikh INSPIRES others. A Sikh lives the message, lives the Truth and lives the spiritual lifestyle, which radiates to those who come across him or her. A Sikh merely does not preach the message of Truth that benefits the world and everyone around however furthermore lives the message. Hypocrisy as displayed by Muslim preachers and Christian evangelicals is condemned! First practice what you preach!


Sikhism was meant to be shared with the world and as the Truth is for everyone. Unfortunately Sikhs have not lived up to this. Unlike in Islam and Christianity where they impose their religion on others to earn brownie points and for personal gain to get to Paradise or Heaven, the aim of a Sikh is for the betterment of humanity and not for self-gain. This is highlighted through the daily prayer of a Sikh, which one does morning and night asking for the good of all humanity through the Will of God.


“Servant (of God) Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself repeats Naam, and inspires others to repeat it. ||2||”

(Ang 306)


And also:


“Repeat Naam yourself, and inspire others to repeat it as well.”

(Ang 290)


So as you can see it is a duty of Sikhs to preach the message of Naam and Gurmat.


We close this rebuttal with: Come to Sikhi, Muslim brothers! As it is the only path to salvation. Without adhering to the message of Guru Nanak Sahib jee no one has been saved and no one ever will be. Sikhi is a unique Path, unlike any other! It is not based on fear, greed, lust, anger, hatred or ego – Sikhi is solely based on the Truth. A Sikh lives the Truth and inspires others with the Truth. Everyone has been blessed with life, however Guru Nanak Sahib jee alone is the one who puts the “style” in life. The true and perfect lifestyle, which brings total happiness, bliss and spiritual achievement, has been lived, exemplified and preached by Satguru Nanak Sahib jee!

Part II

he 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: “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?


“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, “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, “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:


““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.


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 judgment 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: “ 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, “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,


“They believe only Sikhs achieve the status of WaheGuru, yet they don’t make any effort for non-sikhs to embrace their path.

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.

PART III

Clearly there is not much value in repeating the facts presented by so many other websites, which expose Islam as a farce and barbarity. The number of errors in the Quran is huge. Muslims have tried to justify them and explain them away but to any neutral observer they are clearly foolish. The Quran claims that the sun and the moon “swim along”. We all know that the sun does not do this. Muslims have tried to explain this by referring to the Sun’s revolutions but it just doesn’t work. The comparison is with the moon, which is clearly revolving. At any rate, there is no point in continuing because all this is covered by other websites.


"If you cannot prove the SGGS is from God, then admit it sincerely, rather than taking us round and round in circles."


You cannot even prove the existence of God and you wish me to prove that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is divine? Like I said, if someone has faith and is a believer, they can be convinced. A sceptic never can be. The message of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is proof in itself of divinity with message of tolerance and love. These things are both missing from the Quran.


The author says:

“As to the preservation of Guru Nanaks message, what proof do you have that it was preserved? Where are your testimonies from Sikhs and Non-Sikhs as to the method it was preserved, and how it was verified that it was Guru Nanaks own teachings? In addition to this, wasn’t the original SGGS destroyed, and another one written by Guru Gobind Singh. Therefore, you cannot claim the SGGS is the same one that Guru Nanak penned.”


What a foolish and ignorant statement. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is the most authentic scripture known to man. The original Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee wasn’t “destroyed” and written by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee as the author asserts. This statement exposes his total lack of research. The works of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee and the subsequent Gurus are still found in Pothis (small books) preserved with families like the Kartarpur Sodhis and also pothis like the Goindval Pothis. The first copy of Guru Granth Sahib was compiled by Guru Arjan Dev I which still exists today. Furthermore, there are still numerous volumes of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee with the signatures of the Gurus on them. These Granths all match with each other. Sikhs are perhaps the only faith today that has the actual handwritten scriptures from their faith’s founders.


Despite the explanation of how the Quran was compiled, it remains a fact that it was written decades after Mohammed died. That’s a long time to create, edit and record whatever the Arabs wanted. Even the historical record shows many different versions of the Quran that don’t match each other. Any search on the Internet reveals mounds of information on the topic.


The author repeats his “Sura like it” point over and over, blind to the fact that there are countless rebuttals to it. Once again, a simple search of the Internet reveals so many answers. At any rate, I won’t waste my time pasting the arguments here.


With regards the claims of Gurbani being a miracle, this is false. The dialect used throughout Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee was in existence far before it was created. In terms of the script, to invent a way of writing is no miracle. Otherwise, modern French, Italian and English are also miracles! I also believe the author is clutching at straws when they claim that a sequential numbering system, no more advanced than a local library, is a miracle.


Once again, it can be quite frustrating debating with someone with absolutely NO knowledge of Sikhi. The grammar system I refer to, is not the numbering system but the system of use of aunkarhs, siharis, etc. which are grammatical tools used to show exact meaning of every verse. It is not the numbering system.


“I would however be interested to hear the author indicate how philosophy and science predicted the romans being victorious over the Persians ( In Surah Romans)”


I’d like to ask how the author could explain how Guru Nanak Sahib Jee not only predicted the fall of the Mughal Empire but also gave the dates.


“Did you know that I built the suez canal? Or that I created gravity? If you don’t believe me, go and check. Travel to Egypt, see it for yourself. Try and jump up, you will fall down. They are my miracles! I take it you now see how ridiculous the authors claims are?”


If I went to Egypt and asked if the author were the creator of the Canal, surely no one would even know whom this person was. However if you travel to Hassan Abdal and ask who created the spring, everyone would answer “Guru Nanak”. Big difference.



2. Are the Sikh Scriptures authentic?


The author makes ignorant statements about the Janamsakhis, which he began by calling “divinely inspired” (according to Sikhs) and now is blindly moving along continuing with the random statements. The Janamsakhis mention many of the same stories and facts, along with even non-Sikh sources. Just like any historic personality is discovered by examining different works and putting together the life story, so it is with the life of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. I’m not sure what is so difficult about understanding it.



”The author then claims that the only works in SGGS are those of Guru Nanak and his disciples. What a ridiculous claim. For example: -


“Macualiffe states that hymns ascribed to Farid are compositions by the latter, whereas others ascribe them to Farid Shakarganj. There are others who believe that the hymns were composed by different Sufis of the Pak Pattan centre, all using the poetic name Farid. As a result, no account would be complete without details of both of the Farid’s lives””


Macauliffe is ONE author and the first to start this theory that the Bhagats were not contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. I have already told you that Sheikh Farid Jee’s present descendant even confirms who’s Bani is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. The Puratan Janamsakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi, GNDU Valait Vali Janamsakhi and the Meharban Janamsakhi all record the meeting with Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. The vocabulary of the hymns is not from the 12th C and use words that no Muslim would use such as “Gur”, “Sadh” and “Prabh”.


Next you mention Jaidev: Jaidev Jee was a contemporary of Bhagat Namdev Jee and Bhagat Ravidas Jee who were both contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. Bhagat Namdev Jee based on ancient Marathi Granths such as Namdev Jeevan Charitar (biography of Bhagat Namdev Jee), Namdev Charitar and Bhagat Rasaimat Sindhu all say that he met “Mahaprabhu bhagat Nanak Swami” at Kumar Teerath. This is of course all supported by Sikh sources like Panth Parkash and Meharban Janamsakhi which records their meeting along with the other bhagats at Ayodhya where a monument to this meeting still exists.


The author complains about “cut/paste” on our part when it comes to Islam and claims to have researched Sikhi. Perhaps some more research is in order before making such claims?


Sargun/Nirgun

The author tries to press his point about heaven/hell with the word “consign” and then so considerately provides the American Heritage Dictionary definition for us. This is all well and good but he seems to forget that the original is in GURMUKHI and he is relying on translations. The word “chaalia” in the original Gurmukhi simply means, “to send”.


3. More About Reincarnation


“Now the author is being contradictory. In the previous response, they said that Sikhi is the ONLY way to God. Now they are presenting Sikhism as judging only your conduct! I suggest the author makes up his mind before continuing this debate.”


I’m glad the author has brought this up. Unlike in Islam, non-Sikhs are not cast into Hell. They cannot reach God for certain but they are judged on the basis of their actions. There is no judging simply on the lines of “Sikh/non-Sikh”.


When confronted with ULTIMATE injustice in Islam, the author resorts to:

“How can any of us understand Gods thinking or rationale?”


This answer would apply to any religion. The Hindus who believe in caste could say, “How can we question this system? It’s God’s!” Islam prides itself on being rational and sensible but cannot explain this dilemma as to why a baby is born and dies and where it will go?


“Why must I prove the Quran right? In any test, mathematical, scientific, or any other one involving ration and logic, a hypothesis is presented, and thereby when the hypothesis is proved incorrect, then a new hypothesis is sought. The Quran is the hypothesis, that is proven to be true, and there are no “Surahs like it” nor “contradictions” to prove otherwise. When the author produces a surah, or finds a contradiction, only then will a new hypothesis be required. Guru Nanak created his new hypothesis without disproving the old one!”


Why does the author continue to live in a dream world where Islam hasn’t been disproved? So many errors can be found and Muslims cannot answer them. For example, the Quran teaches reverse evolution. It says men were turned into apes because they broke the Sabbath. This was a popular legend in Muhammad's day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).


This article is once again about “errors” in Sikhi and so we will not go into Islamic fallacies with any depth. It’s been done already. But open your eyes. A simple Internet search gives you more material to refute than can be done in a lifetime.


When asked why wine is forbidden in life but flows like rivers in the afterlife, the author simply replies, “We are asked to follow a guidebook, the Quran, the reward of which will be whatever we desire in paradise. The reasoning? Only Allah (SWT) knows.”


A total cop-out answer! Of course Allah knows, but it makes no sense. If something is wrong, then a faith doesn’t just forbid it and make the adherent force himself to comply, a true faith eliminates the desire to commit the wrong. Sikhs don’t want wine in the after-life and aren’t to drink in this one. Wine is an intoxicant that deprives a person of senses and this is not a desirable thing. Islam simply forces the Muslim to suppress his desire with the promise that soon enough in the afterlife he can drink all he wants. Is this what Allah would want? Sikhi frees oneself from Maya (the illusionary world) and the Panj Chor (the five thieves) of Kaam (desires/lust), Krodh (anger), Lobh (greed), Moh (attachment/possessiveness) and Hankaar (ego/self-centeredness); on the other hand Islam polishes ones ego, desires, sexual lust, ghastly habits, attachment and possessiveness. How does one expect to reach God when instead he or she is entangled in worldly intoxicants, desires, lusts and pleasures?


4. “Gods Omnipotence”


The author has ignored the main question raised in this section. In Quran only “believers” will be rewarded and “non-believers” will be punished. Why? Because “non-believers” did not follow Islam. If author admits that everything is will of God then is non-Muslims not following Islam also a will of God? If yes, then why should they be punished? Everything happens according to the will of God and by the same will some follow Islam and some don’t. Therefore, non-Muslims should not be punished as it was will of God for them to not follow Islam.


“Where do the five vices originate? From God also?”


They originate from the separation from God, and the soul feeling independent and separate. Not from Satan. The five vices originate from Maya, which is an illusion. For example in water one can swim or one can drown. Water is not intrinsically evil; however it has the potential of both. Similarly the world has the potential of being seen as God’s Light and Glory manifest or can been seen as ocean of fire of desires. This depends on one’s consciousness and spiritual state. The more one meditates on Naam and gets closer to God the more he or she realises that all that exists is God and everything else is an illusion.


The author fails to, after repeated attempts, understand that God created all of creation and if all that existed was God, what is creation made of? Muslims believe man is made of mud and woman from man’s rib. Is this sensible? God is present in creation. His light is within it and he runs it. Everything had God’s light in it.


What is dirty and what is clean? We have set our standards but are they objective or subjective? Dirt is by default “dirty” but can Muslims use it for Wudhu? Blood is the most precious thing for human life and we would die without it, but why is it “unclean” for Muslims? Why would God put something unclean in you? Dung is of course dirty but countless people through the ages have used it as fuel to cook food. They have even used it to plaster walls. Camel urine is by no means “clean” so why did Mohammed tell his followers to drink it?


God is in His creation and His creation is within Him. His light is within all of it and He created all of it. His place is Sachkhand (as mentioned before) but His light shines brightly and can be seen by those who meditate on Naam.



5. Sikh laws


“Leaving governance in almost all respects to a government which does not refer to God for how it judges between the people?”


This is perhaps the height of blindness. The Gurus created Sri Akal Takhat, which is the Sikh supreme political body. They created institutions like the Panj Pyaaray and Gurmatas. What is more enlightened: creating laws specific to the 6th Century CE or institutions based on spirituality and truth to govern? Everyone recognises institution building is the superior way.


It is universally recognised as foolish to have punishments set in stone regardless of circumstances. It leads to injustice. It overrules rationality and compassion in favour of blind “justice” which often in reality is injustice.


The author then goes back to: “I ask the author whether he is now capable of deciding what is right and wrong for mankind? Obviously not.”


When something doesn’t make ANY sense he goes back to “Because I think God says so!” This is not a logical or rational answer to any question. You cannot explain why God would freeze time and give law set for Arabs in the 6th Century CE.


I find it frightening that the author views social, economic and judicial issues as mundane, issues that have defined the world and have led to countless wars and inequalities.


They are mundane from a spiritual point of view. It is best to give principles to handle these kinds of issues as opposed to set laws.


Then the author quotes the Hadith:


"It is reported by Wa'il Ibn Hujr that a woman went out in the time of the Prophet to go to prayer, and a man who met her attacked her and got his desire of her. She shouted and he went off, and when a company of the _Muhajirun_ came by, she said: "That man did such-and-such to me." They seized him and brought him to Allah's messenger, who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allah has forgiven you," but of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said, "Stone him to death."


How disgusting! What was the woman “forgiven” for? What was her error? To forgive means that some error was committed. She was raped! Once again the barbaric attitude towards women is highlighted.


The author then says, “With regards adultery, theft, etc, or any societal crime, Allah(swt) will forgive the person for that crime if they take the punishment for it in this life, and repent sincerely.”


So the rapist is actually being done a favour by stoning them so they can now not have to face the consequences in the after-life? So rapists are actually in the Islamic Paradise? Very interesting. I suggest a system of reforming people when alive makes more sense but of course rationality is taboo since the reply will be “God says so!”


6. Just War


It was made clear in the last responses that killing of innocent people is prohibited in Sikhi. Only defensive war is to be fought. It could be for a country, religion or property. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee has said clearly in the Zafarnama: “When all other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword." Defensive war simply means defending yourself, your freedom, country, and honor. Killing of innocent people (civilians) of the other side is prohibited and so is dishonouring women and taking them in as slaves. All women with the exception of one’s wife are forbidden to a Sikh.


a. In Sikhism, how do you define a civilian?

b. In Sikhism, what do you mean by defensive? To protect the homeland, or to protect the religion?


Civilian is clearly not defined in the Muslim way, which considers all citizens of “enemy” nations to be combatants and thus justify suicide bombings on public buses, schools and markets. The questions being posed are questions that can be decided by any intelligent and rational person. What is an attack? How can this attack be defended? Islam seems to promote the absence of though. If a problem arises, immediately check what was said in 600 CE and there’s the answer. Sikhi gives adherents principles and institutions to apply them and allows for people to choose the correct course of action.


On the other hand, Mohammad declared war against “non-believers”.


“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)

“Fight those who believe not the Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)


I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (8:12)


7. God Creating Himself


The author says “There is no point in continuing this discussion if the author will not acknowledge their mistakes. It quite clearly states in the SGGS that God created himself!”


In the Mool Mantar (opening verse of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee) it is clear that God is “Self-Existent”. Gurbani is clear that no one can create God.


Even if we take your incorrect and narrow interpretation of the verse, if God created God, what does that mean? It’s a circular statement that can only mean God is primordial and fundamental. The “mool” or origin is only God.


8. Sikhi and Women


The author once again ignored the points and did not provide any answer. Although men and women are equally capable of getting to heaven but the reward in paradise is not the same. Women do not get 72 virgin men and slave boys and do not get served wine. In previous discussion verses from Quran were provided to make this point clear.


Divorce issue in Sikhi has been covered in previous answers. The author failed to provide any reference to prove that divorce is not permissible in Sikhi. It was stated clearly that in such case the couple can present themselves to Panj Pyare and based on the situation, decision will be made. The author failed to answer our questions regarding treatment of women in divorce process.


“It seems the author is ignoring my comments. I have already stated that women can enter mosques unrestricted, and this is a cultural barrier that forbids it, not an Islamic one.”


It was your namesake Umar who did not want women coming to the Mosques. “A history is reflective of people’s beliefs, principles and religion.” One could argue till death that women are allowed x, y or z in Islam, however history is witness to the fact that Muslims and the Quran believe and treat women to be impure and polluted and have been denied the same rights as males.


A woman is closest to God’s face, if she is found in the core of her house. And the prayer of the woman in the house is better than her prayer in the mosque’ (Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p.65. Reported by Tirmizi as a true and good Ahadith)


B. Believing Women to be second-class citizens


The true test of the attitude towards women can come through how they have been treated. Religious Muslims clearly hold women as inferior and don’t even allow them into many mosques. They don’t have the right to vote and their testimony is equal to ½ that of a man’s. Contrasting that to Sikhi where women have always been treated and considered as equals. They have always lead congregations and shared equal rights and responsibilities. No Sikh scholar has ever argued that women are less than men in any way. If Islam held the same belief, why has it NEVER been the reality?


The author quotes again,


“Those impure men are engrossed in sexual desire; they consult their women and walk accordingly. One who walks as the True Guru tells him to, is the true man, the best of the best.” – SGGS, Page 304, Lines 12 – 15


Despite the author’s every attempt to twist and turn the verse, it’s clear it refers to a man who is acting according to the wishes of his wife due to lust. The author failed to understand the implied meanings. The Shabad quoted has a theme. It talks about a spiritual journey of a human being to God. It talks about two kind of human beings: Gurmukh (those who live according to the teaching of Guru) and Manmukh (those who are engrossed in Maya and worldly pleasures). Characters and way of life of both are described. Theme of the Shabad is something like this: A human being (Gurmukh or Manmukh) is like a farmer who plants the seed of his actions in the field (his life). Gurmukh obtains seed of Naam and forgiveness by planting which he obtains salvation but Manmukh on the other hand follows his own path of lust, anger and greed. A manmukh for lustful pleasures gives up his own thinking and surrenders to a woman who decides what is best for him. 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. Only the Guru knows the spiritual path and every human should seek the guidance of the Guru to attain salvation which is clear from the last lines.


I am astonished by the accusation of the author who belongs to a religion, Islam, which considers women “deficient in intelligence” so much so that two female witnesses are required in place of one male.


“In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, O Nanak, the demons have taken birth. The son is a demon, and the daughter is a demon; the wife is the chief of the demons.” – SGGS Page 556, Lines 7- 8.


How is this objectionable? The verse is referring to those who have not obtained Naam and instead of following the path of morality and ethics engage in immoral and unethical behavior. Therefore, people without any moral principles and ethics are called “demons”. This in no way is insulting to women as it refers to a son as a demon and the daughter as a demon. Where is the discrimination? This is a verse in reference to perverted families in an age of evil. It refers to both the males and females in negative tones. What is so shocking?


“O bride, decorate yourself, after you surrender and accept your Husband Lord.” – SGGS, Page 788, Line 7


Back to that complicated concept we call “context”. It is a common practice in India for a wife to wear jewelry and makeup to please her husband. The verse above is a metaphor in which the wife is the human soul and husband is God. The translation itself makes it crystal clear “your husband Lord” which means that the husband is God not a physical human being. In the following lines it is clearly stated that flowers and ornaments are of no use which implies that it is not physical beauty which appeases God but spiritual beauty. Therefore, the human soul should put jewelry of submission (following the Hukam of God), love of God and Naam and only then will the husband (God) be pleased. Usually when there is a reference to “husband” and “bride” it is a reference to the soul meeting with God. The fact that (religious) Sikh brides don’t wear jewellery and don’t use things like betel is fact enough that this is a metaphor for the soul and God.

The same metaphor is used throughout Gurbani in which God is taken to be a husband and a soul is the bride.

In this world, there is one Husband Lord; all other beings are His brides. (591)


Then the author makes reference to:


“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.” – SGGS Page 788, Line 11.


This separate verse is perhaps specifically for people like him who try to misconstrue the metaphor of the expectant bride and husband-Lord to apply equally to human situations. This separate verse makes it clear that the husband and wife are to be respected equal. This verse has been used by the Sikh community to refer to ideal of human husband/wife relations. By application the Sikh community considers husbands and wives as equal. Words “two bodies” refers to two human beings. God has no body and is not a human being.

Even if we take it that this verse too applies to the soul and God, there are so many other verses exalting women in the Sikh scripture that the author has conveniently ignored and refused to address.


“At birth a Sikh girl is immediately "our darling" to her mother and father. Later, she becomes admired by her brothers and sisters and favoured by her relatives. On attaining to "the bloom of youth" she is wedded with costly gifts and presents. Now, respected by her husbands family and deemed lucky in her new household, she regarded as the equal of her spouse in both virtue and wisdom. She becomes as a doorway to salvation. Such is the verbal portrait of a Guru-inspired And blessed, faithful Sikh woman.”

- Vaar (5.16), Bhai Gurdaas jee


“From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married. Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come. When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound. So why call her bad? From her, kings are born. From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.” (473).


Every Sikh authority holds Sikh women to be equal to Sikh men. There is equality in worship and in every other way. If Islam holds men and women to be equal, why are they not treated that way anywhere in the world? Why are there no female Imams (priests)? Why are there no female rulers of Islamic states? Why are women not allowed to touch or read the Quran during the time of month they are menstruating? Despite his every attempt the author fails at trying to show that Sikh women are considered less than men.


The author has presented numerous meanings of the original Arabic word but he is ignoring the fact that when Quran was translated the meaning wasn’t just randomly chosen but the one that fit best according to the context. The abusive verse of Al Nisa is taken directly from the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali which is accepted by numerous other translators some of which are Pickthal, Shakir, Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan, Muhammad Sarwar and Rashad Khalifah. Would the author reject all of the translations? It just shows how the author is trying to twist the meanings of Quran even after it is clear that beating wives is permissible and accepted translation by the Muslim scholars.

In the last response it was proven beyond the doubt that even if women are allowed to go to heaven their reward is nothing more than serving as a sexual object for the “believers”. Instead of addressing those verses the author chose to ignore them and presented another verse which serves his purpose. The verse has no reference of Hadith or Quran. If the verse is from an acceptable Islamic source then surely it proves how self-contradictory they are.

Here are some verses which prove that Mohammad considered women to be “deficient in intelligence” and “lack common sense”.

[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense. (Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 142)

The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Dr. Muhammad Matraji, Number 2658)


Menstrual cycle is a natural way of life but Islam considers it to be an illness which makes women “pollution”.

They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say it is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. (2:222, Pickthall)

They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses and do not approach them until they are clean. (2:222, Yusufali)

How more humiliating and shameful could it get? What kind of divine message is this? Are all mothers, sisters and wives suffering from a permanent illness? When a woman reaches menopause does she become “ill free”? If the blood of menstrual cycle is considered “impure” in Islam then what about the body in which the blood flows through? Blood being “impure” implies that women are impure since it is the same blood that flows in their bodies and therefore, they cannot “purify” themselves.

Let’s examine the status of Muslim women in hell and heaven. It has been shown above that in Islam women “lack common sense”. Majority of the women are dwellers of hell because they are not “grateful to their husbands”.

The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "I saw paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women." The people asked: "O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?" The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Because of their ungratefulness." It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds." (Ibid, Number 1052)

[Muhammad said], "O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women." The women asked, "O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He said: "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray." (Ibid, Number 1462)

Even if women were to stop cursing, start thanking their husbands and being obedient, their prospects for the afterlife would still leave much to be desired. According to Muhammad, Muslim women can look forward to an eternity of standing in corners, waiting for men to come and have sex with them:

Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.” (Ibid, Number 4879)

This proves that the only reward for an obedient woman who is loyal to her husband in paradise is to have the opportunity to continue their sexual service to their husbands in "Paradise." If Islam was a religion of equality then why don’t the women have the same reward? Why don’t they get 72 virgin men and rivers of wine? Why don’t they get sex slaves as promised to Muslim men? Equality is nowhere in Islam.


Comparison by the author between a gardener and a slave is a foolish one. A gardener is not a slave or a property of anyone and does not work for just one person and does not consider him/her to be his master. The author very cleverly defends slavery on the basis that mistreatment is prohibited. Nonetheless, slavery itself is a wrong thing as no human is property of another human being. It was proven in the last response that owning of slave women is very much permissible according to 23:1-6 and 33:50. Not every slave has the right to be free. There are conditions applied. Even if setting off slaves free is obligatory then why is it permissible to take captives of jihad as slaves? This is a direct contradiction. On one hand, owning slaves is allowed and on the other hand setting them free is also obligatory? Why allow slavery to take place to begin with?

As mentioned earlier, if Mohammed were a real prophet of God, he wouldn’t have tried to slowly modify a wrong and evil belief like slavery he would have plainly condemned it. This is precisely what the Sikh Gurus did in reaction to the caste system.

"The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures. (Abu Dawud)

The quote above leaves no doubt that only “pleasing slaves” should be set free and others should be sold.

The author pathetically says,

“Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed… (Also forbidden are women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women."

This is the wording collected by AT-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 , p. 422 ). This would seem to be the correct meaning, as muslims are prohibited to expose their private parts to any other person except their wives and slave girls.”

How noble of the Muslims that they don’t expose themselves to random people. Another wonder of Islam. But sadly the explanation given is further example of twisted Islamic thought. These poor captive women, whose husbands are still alive and well were used for sex by the Muslims and the author finds nothing wrong at all with this. He says they couldn't’ have been raped because Islam forbids it. Pray tell, would a captive woman with her husband also being held prisoner willingly give herself up to her captor? Would she happily enjoy sex with him? Disgusting. Absolutely depraved and barbaric. There are no words to condemn this kind of monstrous behaviour. Guru Gobind Singh instructed his Sikhs not to even dream of another woman beside their wives and here Mohammed is encouraging his followers to sexually abuse their captives. ‘Deen’ closest to God indeed!

Furthermore, the verse 4:24 “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hand possess” clearly refers to women taken as slaves during war. Hence slavery is very much permissible. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. Such slave women have no right or voice. Muslim owners are free to have sex with them as they become the property. Immoral acts such as slavery and sex outside of marriage is forbidden in Sikhi unlike in Islam.

The article regarding Aish is regarded as an apologist farce by Muslims themselves. It’s painfully evident that she was 9 when he had sex with her. Even if we accept the LIE that she was 15, is that all that much better? It still leaves Mohammed as a paedophile. What business does a 50+ year old man have, in having intercourse with a 15 year old? It’s sick. The excuse that “Oh, age of consent was 12 in the UK many years ago” is foolish. On one hand you have the UK which is not by any means divine and on the other you have the so-called final prophet of God. Why did he not know better?

Regarding the age of A’isha, here are some proofs from hadiths.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310)


Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)


Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65).


Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Sahih Bukhari 5.236)


It is clear beyond the doubt that A’isha was six years old at the time of marriage. Refutation of the article provided by the author is here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha_age.htm.

9. Many Paths to God


“So, if there is only one path to god, again I ask why are non-Sikh scriptures in the Guru Granth Sahib?”

Which non-Sikh scripture is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee? Care to name it?

Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works. This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229; Jomier, The Bible and the Quran -- Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13).


One of the most documented and damaging facts about the Quran is that Muhammad used heretical "Christian" Gnostic gospels and their fables for material in the Quran. Encyclopedia Britannica comments: "The gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources" (15:648). This has been demonstrated many times by various scholars (Richard Bell, Introduction to the Quran, pp. 163ff. See also: Bell, The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment, pp. 110ff, 139ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 216ff. See also Tisdall and Pfander).


Muhammad derived some of his ideas from Eastern religions such as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. All of these things were in existence long before Muhammad was born. The Quran records the following things that are ascribed to Muhammad but in reality were previously known stories now attributed to him for the first time (Sell, Studies, pp. 219ff.). For example:

   * The story of a flying trip through seven heavens.
   * The Houries of paradise.
   * Azazil and other spirits coming up from Hades.
   * The "light" of Muhammad.
   * The bridge of Sirat.
   * Paradise with its wine, women, and song (from the Persians).
   * The king of death.
   * The peacock story.


Furthermore, many of the so-called “revealed” practices such as fasting, hajj and even the name “Allah” had existed long before Mohammad was born and were common among the pagans.


10. Why is Sikhi Not Evangelical?


No real point to address in this section.


Conclusion How unfortunate that the invitation to “work with the Muslims to make the world a better place and for your soul to attain true tranquillity and peace in following Gods commands” is so empty.


According to the literal Arabic translation of Sura 3:106-107, on Judgment Day, only people with white faces will be saved and people with black faces will be damned. How unjust and racist is this. How God hate the creation He created? How can God favour one over another because of the colour of the skin he or she was born with and has no control over. This is one of many examples, which illustrates the tones of intolerance, irrationality and racism of the Quran that is evidently portrayed and exemplified by fanatical Muslims where they go and preach. “If you do not see God in all, you cannot see God at all.” Those who have hatred, detest, and intolerance for God’s Creation waste their lives separated from the Truth and divine love of God.


Objectively speaking, have Muslims made the world better? Wherever Muslim communities exist, there is conflict and bloodshed. Is this the “better place” the author speaks of?


Judging by the comments his fellow Muslims have made about him on other message boards, perhaps the author should work more on finding his own place in the Muslim world rather than inviting others to it:


“ Not only that he appears to have copied stories form other sites and not only did he not have manners to ask permmision form the site owners but he didnt even add a url link to were he got the story from and made it apear as his own.  think better to learn adab before starting dawah. ?”

and also,

“I suspected it was a Zionist site posing as Sikhs. They have a habit of joining one faith and destroy the other in the name of the faith they temporarily joined and create conflict between the two or more faiths. Once the damage is done, they leave them to fight it out amongst themselves.”

Such love for you in the Muslim community! I can see why you’d want others to join.

True tranquillity can only be achieved by following the Guru’s path: Gurmat. This is not fiction but fact, which is evident in societies where Sikhs have lived and contributed to.