THE IMPOSSIBLE GOD

By Abu Adeeba & Abu 'Abdur-Rahman

INTRODUCTION

There is a breed of Sikhs who have committed intellectual hari-kari in a desperate attempt to vindicate
their acceptance of a religion they know to be contradictory.

Their contention is two-fold:

1. God is all-Powerful (Omnipotent); thus, not subject to nor bound by human logic; that is, the
fundamental laws of bi-valued logic. [1]
2. Since God transcends human logic; thus, He can do all things.

Based upon these premises, these Sikhs have no problem in unashamedly acknowledging their
understanding of God to be contradictory as delineated in their scripture – the Guru Granth Sahib.

They further dispute the accusation made by Muslims that the theology-proper of Sikhism is contradictory
and false, as wholly unjustified, contending that Sikhism rejects the argument as errant. Instead, they
conveniently adopt an inexplicably irrational approach to try and justify their indefensible stance.

In this article, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), we will respond to this issue.

A PARADIGM-SHIFT AWAY FROM RATIONALITY

"They [Sikhs] are wholly different from other Indians, and they are bound together by an
objective unknown elsewhere." [2]

These Sikhs postulate that Truth is God, and God transcends rationality; but, since man is bound by
rationality, man is incapable of consciously knowing the Truth (God); and up until man transcends the
conscious (rationality) to become one with God, the Truth will remain elusive.

However, such a postulate is convoluted and self-defeating since we assert that Sikhism is contradictory
not on that which is claimed to be transcendent, but that which is subject to observation: That which is
proposed or stated; that is, the Guru Granth Sahib, which is a book of propositions. Hence, when a
Muslim states that the Nirgun-Sargun concept of God is contradictory, it is not that the Creator is
contradictory, but rather the man-invented theology-proper of Sikhism that is contradictory and false.

To assert that a paradigm-shift be made when one attempts to determine the truth or
falsity of a necessary proposition concerning God, on the basis that the said proposition
transcends rationality, is self-defeating.
Why?
To begin with, any meaningful interpretation of a given proposition can only be made
by the use of one's rationale.
And since the proposition is tangible, it is subject to rational scrutinisation, which
allows one to determine its truth or falsity. Thus, one does not need to become one
with God to determine the truth-value of an alleged divinely revealed proposition.

For example, Sikhism's concept of God is that He is both Nirgun (attributeless, formless, transcendent)
and Sargun (attributed, personal, immanent, diffused in creation, manifest) [3] at the same time, which of
course is contradictory.

Is it possible for one to make a paradigm-shift away from the use of human reasoning to other than
human reasoning to disprove this contradiction?
 • If the answer is yes: the one asserting this will have to make recourse to human reasoning and
rationale in order to prove that a non-rational approach is needed to disprove this contradiction.
Hence, the argument is self-defeating and false.
• If the answer is no, then a paradigm-shift is impossible.
• If the answer is that an answer cannot be given because it transcends rationality, then a claim to
truth cannot be proven since it is impossible to conceive. Therefore, their belief is no truer than
the one who brazenly states that ‘the moon is made out of cheese’!

Hence, to postulate a paradigm-shift away from rationality is self-defeating and impossible.

GOD CAN DO THE IMPOSSIBLE

Since truth is only determinable through the use of rationality, one is bound by this in one's understanding
of God.
Thus, how plausible is the claim that God can do everything?

The stupidity of the claim that God transcends rationality; and thus, can do everything, is again a self-
refuting argument.

When God is said to be able to do everything, the correct interpretation is that he can do everything
possible. The conclusion is, therefore, that God is spoken of as omnipotent in as much as he is able to do
everything which is possible absolutely.

The scholar 'Ali ibn Abil 'Izz (d.792 AH), in his commentary to the great book of Islamic Creed by Imaam
At-Tahaawi (d.321 AH), wrote:

Allaah's saying: "Allaah has power over all things." (Qur'an 59:6)
...As for the followers of the prophetic way, they believe He has power over everything. Thus,
everything that is possible is included in the above statement. As for what is impossible
by itself, such as, a thing both existent and non-existent [contradiction] at the same time, has
no meaning. Their existence cannot be imagined. It cannot be considered as 'a thing'
by anyone endowed with wisdom.[4]

Whatever does not imply a contradiction is, therefore, among those possibilities in virtue of which God is
described as omnipotent; for that which implies contradictions cannot be true, right or correct; since no
intellect can conceive of it.

It is impossible to conceive of that which transcends the rationale; thus, impossible to

argue that God can do anything that transcends the rationale - since it is
incomprehensible; thus, a meaningful interpretation is impossible to forward.
Therefore, as we said above, in the case where God describes Himself, such
descriptions are subject to rational scrutinisation.
Thus, to say that God transcends rationality, and conclude from that that He can do
anything, is impossible and self-refuting.
Hence, it is impossible to conceive of that which is impossible.

CONCLUSION

This so-called 'self-realised' approach by these Sikhs is not only incriminatory, but also indicative of the
highest degree of compounded ignorance[5] and blind-following.[6]

We have proven that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of that which is impossible to
conceive.
We have also shown that a paradigm-shift away from rationality to determine the truth or falsity of a
necessary proposition concerning God, on the basis that the said proposition transcends rationality, is self-
defeating.
These two fundamental factors refute the claim that God can do anything because He transcends
rationality.
But, as for the one who begs the question and doggedly maintains that God transcends logic and rationale
and can thus do impossible things; thereby rejecting the law of non-contradiction, then one must conclude
that the truth or falsity of God's Truth is impossible to determine.

If one were to affirm that God is true, how would one prove this affirmation when God can do impossible
things? Such an affirmation would also be a negation at the same time since God can do the impossible –
truth would be rendered meaningless.

What would it take to shake the foundations of logic? An impossible universe; if the nature of the universe
were such that it could totally change every second, if this is even conceivable, the laws of logic would not
be applicable. Fortunately, we do not live in such a universe; we could not, there would be no 'we'. This
type of universe is not possible and cannot be given meaning precisely because it contradicts reality,
rationale and logic.

"Will they then not use their intellects?" (Qur'an 28:60)

[1]
The Universal Law of Non-Contradiction:
http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/rebut/non_con/non_con1.htm
[2]
"A History of the Sikhs" (1848), Joseph D. Cunningham
[3]
For a complete understanding read: http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/theo/nir_1/nir1.htm
[4]
Sharh al-'Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah
[5]
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen defined compounded ignorance (al-Jahlul Murakkab) as:
comprehension of something in a way contrary to its true reality.
[6]
To further understand the dire consequences of blind-following, please read the following:
http://www.geocities.com/islam_sikhism/theo/nir_1/nir6.htm

THE NIRGUN-SARGUN CONUNDRUM PART 1

By Abu Adeeba & Abu 'Abdur-Rahman

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7

INTRODUCTION

In Islam, the purpose of life is clear. It has been articulated by our Creator concisely in the following verse
informing humankind that:

"I have not created jinn nor humankind except that they worship Me (alone)." (Qur'an)

The purpose as found in Islaam is not only clear, but also consistent for all humans of all times. From the
very first to the very last, their purpose was, is and will always be one and the same.
The great scholar of Islaam - Ibnu Taymiyyah posed a rhetorical question:

If one does not have knowledge of what one is worshipping, then what is one worshipping?

The equally famous Ibn Abul-'Izz summarised the importance of this knowledge:

The need of the servants for this knowledge is greater than every other need; and it is the most
necessary of all things for them, since there is no life for the hearts, nor any delight, nor any
tranquillity, except through knowing their Lord, the One to be worshipped, their Creator - with His
Names, His Attributes and His Actions, and that He - along with all that - is more beloved to the
person than anything else. So man's striving is with regards to everything that will draw him
nearer to Allaah, to the exclusion of the creation.
Hence, knowledge of a worshipped deity is a necessary prerequisite and must be compatible with one's
intellect.

Concerning this purpose, Allaah has ordered Muslims to have knowledge of His Self and His worship
strictly in accordance to what He has revealed:

"Have knowledge of Laa ilaaha illAllaah (First pillar of Islaam and testification of faith - None
has the right to be worshipped in Truth except Allaah) and (then) seek the forgiveness of
Allaah all you believing men and believing women." (Qur'an 47:19)

In the Qur'an Allaah highlights the inseparable relationship between revelation, language and intelligence
when he says:

"The Most Merciful, taught the Qur'an, created humankind, and gave them 'bayaan'."
(Qur'an 55:1-4) [1]

If we begin with the following criteria:

1. Understanding and knowledge of God must come from God. It is not intellectually deducible.
2. Revelation cannot be incompatible with human intellect.

In other words, it would be unjust of God to provide us with intelligence and reveal knowledge of His Self
that is incompatible with this intellect. Surely, the all-Wise, who has established for us this purpose of
worshipping Him, would not make things difficult by instilling within us an intellect insufficient in
comprehending revelatory knowledge of His Divine self.

And yet, the question standing is:

What if revelatory knowledge of His Divine Self is found to be contradictory?

We intend to show here that the Hindu-inherited and slightly altered concept of
God in Sikhi theology is illogical, contradictory and irrational.
From this we contend that if Sikhism intends to believe in contradictions relating to God, which a healthy
and rational mind must by necessity reject, then two conclusions are reached:

• Sikhi theology is irrational and illogical, thus, errant.

• God is unreasonable and unjust if He reveals contradictions and demands that Sikhs accept it
unquestionably.

[1]
Ibn Katheer in his famous exegesis Tafseer ibn Katheer commented that the word 'bayaan' here meant
language.

THE NIRGUN-SARGUN CONUNDRUM PART 1

By Abu Adeeba & Abu 'Abdur-Rahman

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7

EXAMINING THE THEOLOGY-PROPER OF SIKHISM

Similar to Hinduism, but not entirely the same, Sikhi describes God as Nirgun and Sargun.
Etymologically the suffix 'gun' means 'attributes', 'sar' means 'with (all)' and 'nir' means 'none'.
God is, thus, described as Sargun - a deity with attributes (attributed) - and also Nirgun - an attributeless
deity (unattributed).

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib states:

 Nirankaar aakaar aap nirgun sargun ayk.
He Himself is formless and also formed; the One Lord is without attributes and also with
attributes.
(Guru Arjan Dev pg.250)

Aap akaar aap nirankaar

He Himself is formed, and He Himself is formless.
(Guru Arjan Dev, pg.863)

Raaj joban prabh thoon dhhanee, thoon niragun thoon saragunee

O God, You are my power, authority and youth. You are absolute, without attributes, and also
related, with the most sublime attributes.
(Guru Arjan Dev, pg.211)

The above is confirmed and agreed upon by the following authors:

In the Sikh Scripture, the concept of the supreme reality is not only dynamic and reverberating
but many pluralities such as nirguna-saguna and transcendent immanent are subsumed in it. He
is nirguna or without attributes. Yet He is saguna or with attributes, too, because in the
manifested state all attributes are His.

With this urge, from apparent nothingness, the Formless assumes form, "The unattributed
becomes the Attributed - nirgun te sargunu thia" (GG, 940) and thus this world of a myriad
colours takes shape. [bold ours][1]

And:

God is manifest in its creation and has 2 forms Nirgun (without attributes) and Sargun (with
attributes). Having created this creation, God is manifest within it in all forms and at the same
time is at a distance in its formless form. [bold ours][2]

However, the Nirgun-Sargun duality, respectively, is often rendered and interpreted by various oft-
repeated descriptive terms, such as: transcendent-immanent or absolute-personal or formless-manifest:

As per Gurbani our soul is the part of the Nirgun form of God, while our body is the part of the
Sargun form of God. Clearly, God is both the forms resides within us. Our body is the temple
of Lord. [bold ours][3]

God is described as both nirgun, or absolute, and sargun, or personal There was only the
Formless One Himself; creation was not then-When God became sargun or manifest, he
became what is called the Name, and in order to realize Himself He made nature where in He has
His seat and is diffused everywhere and in all direction in the form of love. [bold ours][4]

God is both Transcendent and Immanent does not mean that these are two phases of God one
following the other. God is One, and He is both nirguna and sarguna. "Nirguna sargunu hari hari
mera, (God, my God is both with and without attributes)," sang Guru Arjan (GG, 98). Guru Amar
Das also had said, "Nirguna sarguna ape soi (He Himself is with as well as without attributes)"
(GG, 128). Transcendence and Immanence are two aspects of the same Supreme Reality.
In the teaching of Sikhism God is conceived as being without form (nirankar/nirakar)-All
existence is God's visible form, but no part of it is a substitute for God. God is also Nirguna
(unattributed) as said earlier.

It was the One and the Only God, the Lord of Universes who was at once transcendent
(nirguna) and immanent (saguna). Although immanent in His Creation He was yet apart from it,
being its Creator.

Sikhism does recognize the traditional categories of transcendent and immanent as also of
nirguna (without attributes) and saguna (with attributes, sarguna in Punjabi), pertaining to God,
but not the Sankarite distinction between higher and lower Brahman. The emphasis here is on
the unicity of Ultimate Reality, the "1 Onkar". The term Parbrahma (Sankara's Para
 Brahman) appears frequently in the Sikh Scripture but Aparbrahma or Apara Brahman never. For
the Sikhs the same Absolute is both nirguna and sarguna (GG, 98, 128, 250, 287, 290,
862). The nirguna Brahman manifests himself as sarguna Brahman, in relation to His attributes.
[bold ours][5]

An emphasis has been given to these terms in order to show a general acceptance of interpretation within
the academic circles that God prior to creation was Nirgun (attributeless, formless, transcendent), but
upon creating became Sargun (attributed, personal, immanent, diffused in creation, manifest) although it
is stressed that He is still ONE (ik onkar); as Nirgun as well as Sargun.

[1]
CONCEPTS IN SIKHISM, Cognitive Psychology-Mind Map Approach To Understanding Sikhism For the
Second Generation Sikh Children
Compiled and Edited by Dr. J. S. Mann, M.D. & Dr. S. S. Sodhi, Ph.D.
[2]
http://www.sikhe.com/gsdno/articles/gurbani/12302001amardeepsingh_veilofillusion.htm
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/doctrines.htm
[5]
CONCEPTS IN SIKHISM, Cognitive Psychology-Mind Map Approach To Understanding Sikhism For the
Second Generation Sikh Children
Compiled and Edited by Dr. J. S. Mann, M.D. & Dr. S. S. Sodhi, Ph.

INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS

"Say: Truth has arrived and falsehood has been vanquished, indeed falsehood by its very
nature is bound to be vanquished." (Qur'an 17:81)

PROBLEM ONE

This Nirgun-Sargun duality can be recognised as nothing except a contradiction in terms.

We recommend those unfamiliar with the Law of non-Contradiction to read the following article refuting
those who ignorantly claim this law not to be self-evident or a priori, or those who assert this law to be
man-invented, thus, deducing that God cannot be limited or restricted to these alleged man-invented
laws:

The Universal Law of non-Contradiction

In the Qur'an Allaah establishes that something and its opposite cannot both be accepted as true at the
same time:

"And such is your Lord in truth. Then what is there after Truth except falsehood. How
have they then turned away?" (Qur'an 10:32)

If something is accepted as true, anything in opposition to that is rendered false.

Hence, from the universal Law of non-Contradiction: (P and not-P) is false, if:

Nirgun (unattributed) is taken to be proposition P, then Sargun (attributed), its opposite and negation, is
not-P.

Since the Sikhi concept of God affirms Him to be both Nirgun and Sargun at the same time and in the
same respect, we must conclude that (P and not-P) is false, a contradiction and must be rejected by the
rational

BELIEF IN THE IMPOSSIBLE

To illustrate the clarity found in Islaam, we will very briefly look into why contradictions and impossibilities
cannot co-exist with true belief. In doing so, the reader will begin to recognise the gulf of difference
between the religion of Truth, and those religions that only have a claim to this, but in reality are upon
falsehood.

Is it firstly possible to equate opposites?

Allaah demonstrates this in no uncertain terms drawing upon opposites to emphasise to the seeker of
Truth the importance of recognising the exclusivity of two opposite things and the impossibility of a sound
intellect accepting both equally.

"The blind and the seeing are not alike;

Nor the darkness and the light;
Nor the shade and the heat;
Neither are the living and the dead alike. Surely Allaah makes whom He pleases hear,
and you cannot make those who are in the graves to hear." (Qur'an 35:19-22)

A rhetorical question asks:

"What! Shall We then treat those who are Muslims (who submit their will to the Will
and commandments of Allaah) as criminals? "What is the matter with you? How do you
judge?" (Qur'an 68:35-36)

"Not equal are the dwellers of the fire and the dwellers of Paradise. It is the dweller of
Paradise that will be successful." (Qur'an 59:20)

"And not alike are the good and the evil." (Qur'an 41:34)

"Is one who is obedient to Allaah, prostrating himself or standing (in prayer) during
the hours of the night, fearing the Hereafter and hoping for the Mercy of his Lord (like
one who disbelieves)? Say: "Are those who know equal to those who know not?" It is
only men of understanding who will remember." (Qur'an 39:9)

"Say: 'Are equal those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are
endued with understanding that receive admonition. Are those who know equal with
those who know not? But only men of understanding will pay heed." (Qur'an 39:9)

"Or do those who earn evil deeds think that We shall hold them equal with those who
believe (in Islaam) and do righteous good deeds, in their present life and after their
death? Worst is the judgement that they make." (Qur'an 45:21)

"And not equal are the blind and those who see, nor are (equal) those who believe (in
Islaam), and do righteous good deeds, and those who do evil. Little do you remember!"
(Qur'an 40:58)

"They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all
become equal (like one another)." (Qur'an 4:89)

We ascertain from these instructions that the equating of opposites, especially when the nature of truth is
involved, is a clear and apparent falsehood. Allaah says:

"And what is there after truth except falsehood?" (Qur'an 10:32)

This shows that contradictory things, especially in regards to Allaah, can never be on level terms.
Hence, anyone seeking to equate opposites and accept contradictions will face the consequences and be
punished.

We say: If a Messenger brought an inherently impossible concept (such as an object existing and not
existing at the same time), then one of two things would occur:
 a) One would end up believing in part of it and disbelieving the rest since both affirmation and
negation of the same thing cannot coexist and be believed in equally.

b) Disbelief in the concept as a whole, i.e. disbelief in the concept that one can affirm two
contradictory things at the same time.

Hence, belief and acceptance in the impossible leads to contradictions, and what greater contradiction can
there be other than affirming one thing and its opposite, or the negation of opposites, at the same time?

"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allaah, they would
surely have found therein much discrepancy." (Qur'an 4:82)

ALLAAH DOES NOT REVEAL CONTRADICTIONS

This is interrelated with the previous argument. Allaah tells us in the Qur'an:

"Had it been from other than Allaah, they would most certainly have found in it many
Ikhtilaaf (contradictions/ discrepancies/ inconsistencies)." (Qur'an 4:82)

He also says:

"Allaah has revealed (from time to time) the most beautiful message in the form of a
Book consistent with itself." (Qur'an 39:23)

Reflect for a moment over this saying of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
said:

"A disbeliever will be asked: suppose you had as much gold as to fill the earth. Would you offer it
to ransom yourself (from the Hell-Fire)? He will reply, "Yes." Then it will be said to him, "You
were asked for something easier than that (to join none in worship with Allaah by accepting
Islaam, but you refused.)"

Humankind will be asked something easy not something overly difficult, let alone impossible! Collecting all
the gold in the world is not essentially impossible although it may be practically so. However, demanding
the affirmation, with certainty, of an impossible concept is mental oppression and it is, unlike collecting all
the gold in the world, essentially impossible. Imagine God demanded of His creation that they pray to Him
in a non-human language; to breathe without breathing; to stand without standing; to stand and sit at the
same time without standing or sitting; to believe that God is unattributed (Nirgun) and attributed
(Sargun). All of this is impossible to do and, thus, unreasonable to ask.

In the Islamic worldview, this is considered: "burdening a soul with more than it is capable of enduring"
let alone burdening it with that which is impossible to endure. Allaah from His infinite Mercy says:

"No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can bear." (Qur'an 2:233)

An alternative translation of the meaning (from Pickthall) is "no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but
to the extent of its capacity":

"We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability." (Qur'an 6:152)

"No burden do We place on any soul, but that which it can bear." (Qur'an 7:142)

"On no soul do We place a burden greater than it can bear: before Us is a record which
clearly shows the truth: they will never be wronged." (Qur'an 23:62)

Allaah does not burden a soul with more than it can bear in a practical and physical sense. We ask: what
about in a spiritual or mental sense? Or is it that oppression is only restricted to the physical realms? The
Prophet related from his Lord that Allaah said:
 "O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden
amongst you, so do not oppress one another." [1]

With Allaah further saying in the Qur'an:

"Allah does not desire injustice for (His) servants" (Qur'an 40:31)

"Verily, Allaah enjoins Al-'Adl (i.e. justice and worshipping none but Allaah Alone) and
Al-Ihsaan [2], and giving (help) to kith and kin and [Allaah] forbids Al-Fahsha' [3], and
Al-Munkar [4], and Al-Baghy (i.e. all kinds of oppression), He admonishes you, that you
may take heed." (Qur'an 16:90)

[1]
This is a 'hadith qudsi'; speech attributed to Allaah in the words of the Prophet, thus, is deemed
different from the Qur'an in that respect.
[2]
To be patient in performing your duties to Allaah, totally for Allaah's sake and in accordance with the
Sunnah.
[3]
All evil deeds, e.g. illegal sexual acts, disobedience of parents, polytheism, lying, giving false witness,
taking the life without just cause, etc.
[4]
All that is prohibited by Islaamic law: polytheism of every kind, disbelief and every kind of evil deed,
etc.

BLIND-FOLLOWING

Unfortunately, many confronted with these simple, yet irrefutable evidences, are often thrown into a state
of panic knowing that their life-long faith in something has been shattered and proven false.

Two reactions follow on from this and we wish to address both reassuring those who have found
themselves in this state that all is not lost. On the contrary, this recognition is only the first step towards
recognising the Truth and changing one's life for the better.

The two reactions are:

1. Extreme distress after confronting this revelation, followed by concern for the future, followed by
denial, which leads one towards blind-following of a religion upon the recognition, though not
willing to acknowledge openly, its falsity.
2. Surprised and worried after confronting this revelation, followed by introspectively acknowledging
the reality, leading towards an inevitable change through the accommodation and assimilation of
this Truth, which replaces the initial shock-and-horror with contentment, tranquillity and
happiness in having accepted the Truth from their Lord and submitted to His Will.

The first type we will examine in detail and we want the reader to pay special attention to these
characteristics and ask: Is this how I have reacted after being confronted with the stark reality that the
religion of my forefathers is contradictory and false:

IGNORANCE

This is of two types: simple and complex.

The simple kind of ignorance - those who rejected the truth so as to follow their chiefs and leaders.
These are the ones when the punishment or death comes upon them, they cry out: "Our Lord! Truly we
obeyed our chiefs and elders, and they caused us to stray from the Path!" (Qur'an 33:67)

The complex kind of ignorance - those who choose to remain upon the religion of their tribe or the
religion of their forefathers, along with those they were raised with. When faced with the Truth, they
refuse to look into it, and if they do, with only a cursory glance in order to remain pleased with the religion
of their forefathers and remaining loyal to their tribe. Allaah says about these people: "And similarly, we
never sent a warner to any village before you, except that its extravagant ones said: 'Truly we
found our forefathers upon this way and truly we are following their footsteps.'" (Qur'an 43:23)

And His says of those who took them as guides at the expense of the Truth: "Truly they took the devils
as caretakers instead of Allaah, thinking them to be possessors of guidance." (Qur'an 7:30)

JEALOUSY

This is similar to those people of the past who recognised the truth presented by Allaah's true Prophets;
but, out of jealousy, they chose to conceal and ignore it. Allaah says of these people: "And verily a
group of them did conceal the Truth even though they had knowledge (of it)." (Qur'an 2:146)

This disease of jealousy sprouts from arrogance.

ARROGANCE/ EGOTISM

This is the biggest obstacle that prevents people from accepting the Truth. Allaah says: "I will turn those
away from My Verses, those who behave arrogantly on earth without any right" (7:146), which is
to reject the Truth and to look down upon the people.

The Prophet Muhammad said: "Arrogance/Egotism is rejection of the Truth and being scornful towards the
people."

And again Allaah says: "They disbelieved in it, out of oppression and arrogance, while they were
convinced (of the truth) within themselves. So then look at the end result of the affairs of
those who cause corruption." (Qur'an 27:14)

TURNING AWAY FROM SOUND TEXTUAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROOFS

How sad it would be for some to be from this category, those who refused to accept the sound evidences
after understanding them. Allaah says about them: "So when they turned away, Allaah caused their
hearts to turn away" (Qur'an 61:5), since they deserved to be turned further away after consciously
choosing to reject the irrefutable evidences.

Allaah gives a glimpse of the thoughts and sayings of the regretful ones on the Day of Judgment who,
after being resurrected and confronted with the reality that Islaam and its proofs were indeed true, will
say in grief when the all-Just passes sentence against them: "And they will say: If only we had
listened and used our intellects, then we would not (today) be among the denizens of the
blazing (Hell) Fire!" (Qur'an 43:36-37)

We pray and hope that the seeker of God makes only the truth from Allaah a judge between acceptance
and rejection, without being influenced by anything else:

"But they deny the truth when it comes to them. So they are in a confused state.”
(Qur'an 50:5)

"And who is more astray than the one who follows his own whims and desires devoid
of revelation?" (Qur'an 28:50)

"And do not follow the hawah (vain desires, corrupted minds) of people who went
astray in times gone by, and who misled many, and strayed from the correct path."
(Qur'an 5:77)

"Have you seen him who has taken his own hawah (vain desires, corrupted mind) as
his own god." (Qur'an 45:23)

Let us be from those who sincerely seek Him - the truth - and submit to the clear revelatory evidences
when it blesses their life. Let us be from these people:
 "And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, you will see their
eyes overflowing with tears when they recognize the truth. They pray: 'Our Lord! We
believe; so write us down among the witnesses.
'What cause can we have not to believe in Allaah and the truth which has come to us
seeing that we long for our Lord to admit us in the company of the righteous?'
And for this prayer, Allaah rewarded them with gardens under which rivers flow-their
eternal home. Such is the reward of those who do good." (Qur'an 5:83-85)

CONCLUSION

"Have you any knowledge (proof) that you can produce before us? Verily, you follow
nothing but guess work and you do nothing but lie.'..."With Allaah is the perfect proof
and argument..." (Qur'an 6:148-9)

Contradictions are false.

Would Allaah command His creation to accept false beliefs?
Would this demand not be a call to hypocrisy (intellectual, spiritual, and actual)?

Allaah is al-Haqq (The Truth), it would be impossible for us to affirm this of Him and at the same time
affirm that He commands us to accept falsehood.

"For those who do not believe in the Hereafter is an EVIL DESCRIPTION and to Allaah
belongs the HIGHEST DESCRIPTION." (Qur'an 16:60)

Allaah is contradictory; contradictions are false; Allaah is false - this is an evil description. But to our
Creator belongs the highest description.

The great commentator of the Qur'an Ibn Katheer gave an explanation of the term 'highest description',
which every theist would affirm and agree with: "It means absolute perfection from every possible
angle."

Is the absolute perfection of Allaah upheld when He is described by the Hindu contrived notion of Nirgun-
Sargun?

We affirm that belief in the impossible is impossible in and of itself.

This being the case, the term 'believer' can not be ascribed to anyone who professes such a belief because
although verbal claim may be forwarded, it is impossible to prove it, thus, impossible for it to settle in
one's heart:

"Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: 'We believe'
with their mouths but their hearts have no faith." (Qur'an 5:41)

It is impossible to think that Allaah, Most High, would send down a Book, or that His Messenger would say
things, intending for this Book or this speech to be guidance for the Creation, which they are in dire need
of, and meanwhile except that it is something which cannot be understood, like some jumbled letters of
the alphabet that do not convey any understandable meanings. This is impossible since it is foolishness
that the Wisdom of Allaah could not coincide with. Allaah, Most High, said in His Book:

"A Book, its verses have been perfected and explained by One (who is) all-Wise, Well-
Informed." (Qur'an 11:1)

"A book We have sent down, full of blessings, that men may ponder over its messages;
and those who possess understanding may take them to heart." (Qur'an 38:29)

The scholar Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:

"...it is known that Allaah orders us to reflect [ponder/ contemplate] over the Qur'an and
encourages us to understand it and use our intellect, so then how can it be possible that we
 are expected to turn away from its understanding, to turn away from knowing anything
about it...that which Allaah described Himself with in the Qur'an, or much of that which Allaah
described Himself with, their meanings were not even known to the Prophets, rather they just
conveyed words that they did not understand the meanings of."

How can a concept, impossible for the mind to accept, be understood? Hence, we further say: it is
impossible to have knowledge of belief in the impossible.

Muhammad's (Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) companion Ibn 'Abbaas was questioned, "How
did you attain knowledge?” He replied: "With a tongue that questions much and a heart that
comprehends well."

Allaah says about those upon the truth with correct belief:

"The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allaah and His messenger and
afterwards doubt not..." (Qur'an 49:15)

Similarly, the Messenger of Allaah said:

"No one meets Allaah with the testimony that there is none worthy of worship but Allaah and I
am the Messenger of Allaah, and he has no doubt about that statement, except that he will enter
Paradise." (Recorded by Muslim)

We conclude that the Hindu-invented and Sikhi-adopted concept of Nirgun-Sargun is contradictory,

impossible for the mind to accept, cannot be understood or settle in the heart, will lead to doubts and
uncertainty, and is therefore false.

Concerning the ones upon falsehood, deceit and lies, Allaah describes so powerfully their spiritual state
when faced with the reality of the truth:

"...whose hearts feel doubt, so in their doubt they waver." (Qur'an 9:45)

"Nay, but they have denied the truth when it has come to them, so they are in a
confused state (unable to differentiate between right and wrong)." (Qur'an 50:5)

However, those wanting to worship Allaah upon the clarity of truth, and correct belief, then know that
this leads to certainty of faith:

"Those who believe and whose hearts are made tranquil by the remembrance of Allaah.
Verily, by the remembrance of Allaah are the hearts made tranquil." (Qur'an 13:28)

We ask finally:

How can the heart be tranquil and content upon what it knows to be false?

We end this discussion with a related story of some people who had fallen into speculative reasoning
devoid of revelatory proofs and evidences. They visited a scholar and asked him:

"O Shaykh, we have heard that you know with certainty."

He replied: "Yes"

They said: "How is that possible, when from the beginning of the day until now we have been disputing
with each other and not one of us has been able to cite a decisive proof."

He replied: "I do not know what you are saying, but as for me I know with certainty."
So they said: "Describe to us certain knowledge."

What followed was a beautiful answer the simplicity and truthfulness of which all souls recognise and
agree to:

"According to us, certain knowledge is those thoughts that flow to the soul and which
the soul is unable to refute."

The questioner and his companions then began to repeat: "The thoughts that flow to the soul and
which the soul is unable to refute", being impressed with the answer.

WOMEN

This section will examine the role of women in both Islaam and Sikhism. Such an examination is necessary
since it is contended that Sikhism's treatment of women is more just and humane as compared to Islaam.
The idea of equality is often used by the ardent Sikh follower as a springboard to assert that Islaam not
only leads to the "oppression" of women, but also denies them "rights of equality". This misunderstanding
is often a result of two major factors: hearsay and ignorance. Hence, this undertaking, by the Will of
Allaah, will aim to show two things:

• It was Islaam that elevated women to a position unparalleled and unsurpassed in the history of
humankind providing them with rights consistent with their role in life and society.
• The claims and assertions of Sikhism is like the large hollow drum - empty, yet producing the
loudest noise.

This will be done, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), by showing how varied and precise the rights afforded to
Muslim women are in Islaam and challenging Sikhism to provide similar clear proofs from their scripture -
Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

It will be apparent that any rights delineated therein are far and few between, and that a claim to silence,
i.e. an absence of rights, is just as blameworthy as those who seek to violate the rights of our women-
folk.

This will show that Sikhism cannot be true divine revelation from an all-Compassionate and all-Merciful
Creator wanting guidance and clarity for humankind. On the contrary, it must be viewed as a way of life
that has many shortcomings and very little solutions for this period of Kalyug we live in - a period of
intense decadence, nihilism, anarchy, hedonism coupled with a breakdown of morality and civility around
the world.

THE HORROR OF HIRSUTISM

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

INTRODUCTION

Hirsutism (in Latin hirsutus, meaning: shaggy,

hairy): A symptom that sees excessive and
increased hair growth in women in locations
where it would normally be minimal or absent.

Often one will 'hair' (pun intended) Sikhs make utopistic

boasts of how advanced their religion is over others by
drawing comparisons between their theology and the
post-modern socio-cultural theories of the western
world. This is often touted by drawing alleged parallels
under the umbrella of 'equality' (what should more
appropriately and accurately be termed 'blind equality').
The argument is that Sikhism is a religion of "equality"; and since the secular-liberal west's idea of
"equality" is achieved through the relativisation of identity and knowledge, Sikhism declares itself to be
the religion of the future. Informed Sikhs who accept the instantiation of absolute divine truth will refuse
to jump on this doomed bandwagon; and we have already provided examples of why the above argument
of "equality" fails to stand up.
Hence, let us examine Sikhism's "modern" stance on hirsutism and compare it to Islaam to determine the
truth in this matter.

According to the Student BMJ, a subsidiary of the British Medical Association:

Hirsutism in women is the presence of unwanted coarse body hair in a male distribution. It
affects 5-15% of women,[1] and it can have profound psychological sequelae [an after effect
of disease, condition, or injury]. It undermines the woman's confidence and self esteem,
and its effect on quality of life should not be underestimated. Some women live apparently
normal lives but may spend two or three hours a day using cosmetic or camouflage methods.
Other women may become reclusive and only venture out after dark. In teenagers,
hirsutism can be a cause of bullying, social isolation, and poor educational
performance. By the time they seek medical advice, many women will have reached a
point of desperation.[2]

Only a woman can truly appreciate the psychological impact an abnormality such as hirsutism could have
on her... and of course Allaah.

'WILL YOU MARRY A GIRL WITH A BEARD?'

An interesting question was posted on the Sikh Philosophy forum where someone inquired: "Will you
marry a girl with a beard?" The question was a serious one as the questioner admitted he had no
answer, and yet the replies varied from the embarrassingly comical to the harrowingly absurd.
The questioner went on to ask: "Girls of other religions get rid of them by threading, shaving or some
cosmetic surgery, but in sikh [sic] religion removing hair from any part of the body is prohibited. So in
such a situation what would a sikh [sic] girl do?
Why do then sikh boys don't accept them as wives? [sic]"

The critical part to this question is the admission that in Sikhism's modern worldview, removing any hair
from any part of the body is prohibited - that includes the female of the species.
According to the orthodox and generally accepted view, Sikhs consider the removal of any hair from the
male or female body as strictly prohibited and categorise it amongst the four cardinal sins (bujjar kurahit).

Kurahit: One of the four cardinal infringements of the Rahit [the Sikh code of belief and
conduct]. These being: cutting ones hair, consuming meat, extra-marital intercourse and
smoking.[1]

The enactor of this prohibition is the final Guru, Gobind Singh:

Sarbat sangat Kabul Guru rakhe ga

To the entire sangat at Kabul, the Guru will protect the Sangat
Tusa ute asaadee bahut khusi hai
I am pleased with you all
Tusi Khande da Amrit Panja to lena
You should take baptism by the sword, from the Five Beloveds
Kes rakhne...ih asadee mohur hair
Keep your hair uncut for this is a seal of the Guru
Kachh, Kirpan da visah nahee karna
Accept the use of shorts and a sword
Sarb Loh da kara hath rakhna
Always wear iron bangle on your wrist
Dono vakat kesa dee palna karma
Keep your hair clean and comb it twice a day
Sarbat sangat abhakhia da kutha
Do not eat Halaal meat
 Khave naheen, Tamakoo na vartana
Do not use tobacco in any form
Bhadni tatha kanya-maran-vale so mel na rakhe
Have no connection with those who kill their daughters or permit the cutting of their children's
hair
Meene, Massandei, Ramraiye ki sangat na baiso
Do not associate with Meenas, Massands and Ram-raiyas (anti-Sikh cults)
Gurbani parhni...Waheguru, Waheguru japna
Recite the Guru's hymns; meditate on "The Name of our Wonderful Lord"
Guru kee rahat rakhnee
Follow the Sikh code of discipline
Sarbat sangat oopar meri khushi hai
I give the entire sangat my blessing

Patshahi Dasvi
Jeth 26, Samat 1756

Signature of 10th Guru

Jeth 26, 1756 Bikrami 23rd May 1699 CE [2]

There are some Sikh's, however, who have contended that the prohibition of removing/ cutting/ trimming
hair is only restricted to the hair on the head and not the whole body. However, we have shown that this is
not an absolute rule. On the contrary, there seems to be a difference of opinion in this regard with many
prominent Sikh scholars holding that the removal/ cutting/ trimming of hair includes all hair of the body.[3]

In answering the question of why Sikhs do not cut their hair, the Khalsa Council answered:

There are many reasons why Sikhs don't cut their hair. First, hair is a gift from our Guru. When
the 10th Master Guru Gobind Singh gave us our identity, he told us to keep all our body hair
unshorn. Keeping "kesh," as hair is called in the Punjabi language, is one of the "5 Ks" of the
Rehit, or code of conduct given by the 10th Master. For many observant Sikhs, observing this part
of the code is all the reason they need to keep their hair uncut.[4]

According to Sikhism, this prohibition has been justified with incredulous explanations that border on the
absurd.

SAMENESS OF APPEARANCE

One justification given for the commandment of women to keep any and all hair follicles is due to the
importance given to their "bana". Bana or 'form' is:

The personal appearance of a Sikh, [and] is one of the foremost ways that a Sikh maintains his
or her consciousness as the Guru intended. The Guru has given his Sikh specific instructions to
keep his or her natural form as created by God. Thus, all hair is maintained, uncut, and
untrimmed.[5]

The sameness of appearance is an important feature for Sikhs and one will find many Sikh philosophers
and apologists constantly emphasising this. This obsession with sameness of appearance stems from Blind
Equality[6] where Sikh's attempt to equalise the sexes both in terms of their gender roles as well as their
appearance, which has led them to accept the extreme position of hirsutism. This incredulous
obsessiveness towards the sameness of appearance is summed up alarmingly as follows:

The Gurmat or the Sikh way is one which accepts no dichotomy between man and nature as is
enjoined upon Sikhs by Guru Nanak in Bara Maha and Guru Gobind Singh in Akal Ustat and both
these Banis serve as the foundation of the Sikh oral and orational practices. 'Hair Power' is the
out come of the first attitude and as such is ever charged energizing battery for the human
machine.[7]

It does not stop there since the justifications for this rule become ever more bizarre and nonsensical with
the notion of "The Sacred Hair".
THE SACRED HAIR

For all Sikhs, hair is sanctified and apparently regarded as the "highest importance in the Sikh religion",
and cutting it is "dishonouring one's hair".

A Sikh doesn't disfigure their hair from head to toe because Guru jee told us to keep the sanctity
of the Kesh (hair). Nothing else matters. A Sikh does what their Guru told them to do,
subduing their own ego and self-willed thoughts.[1]

This is a clear form of extremism in life and we will further delve into this subject in the next chapter
insha'Allaah (God-Willing). However, for the moment, let us further explore what Sikh's mean by the
Sacred Kesh by turning to the Khalsa Council, which elaborates:

One of the tenets of the Sikh faith is that the body is a temple created by God, and therefore, it
is perfect as it is... There are also, however, a number of practical, scientific reasons for keeping
hair uncut... There are a number of yogic reasons for keeping body hair.[2]

The ideology becomes ever more intriguing! But why has "nature (Wahe Guru) put every hair on your
body for a reason", apart from its obvious functions such as its important role in regulating body
temperature? Sikh's apologists have forwarded a remarkable number of strange pseudo-scientific reasons
in their defence, which not only further opens this Pandora's Box, but along with it a huge can of worms:

The Kesh act as the identity for a Sikh as well being a spiritual and practical tool that helps
the body... The practical functions of human body hair are for example... Facial hair absorb ether
energy... When one meditates the hair on our body vibrate energy/ Naam.
The hair is sacred due to the fact that Naam abides within each and every pore of hair on the
body. The Kesh are like electrical wires, which preserve, carry and vibrate energy. When
one does Naam Japnaa (meditation on the Lord) the hair acts as a spiritual tool, vibrating and
absorbing Naam. Gurbaani (the Divine Word) says: "On each and every hair, the Lord abides."
(344)
"The Gurmukh meditates on the Lord with every hair of his body." (941) [3]

While the Khalsa Council inexplicably asserts:

The hair of the legs regulates the glandular system and stabilizes a person's
electromagnetic field. The hair under the armpits protects the very sensitive area where the
parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems come together; this affects the brain and
your energy level. Eyebrows protect the eyes from sun and sweat. Facial hair on men covers
the moon center on the chin and protects them from excessive moon energy... Hair is your
antenna to receive a picture of the subtle world around you, to tell when people are lying, to feel
things before they happen, etc.. [sic]
... It has been proven scientifically that people who have long hair tend to be less tired,
more energetic and less likely to become depressed. People who have long hair also
conserve energy and don't feel the cold of winter the same as people with short hair. A person
who has shorn hair wastes his body's energy. A person who cuts his hair over his lifetime forces
the body to grow 22 meters of replacement hair. A person who keeps his hair only produces 1.5
meters of hair over his lifetime.
Think of the story of Samson and Delilah in the Bible! He lost his strength when she cut his
hair!
... In addition, plucking the eyebrow hairs interferes with a woman's ability to have a full
and deep orgasm.[4]

Of course, any one endowed with sound common sense will perceive two problems here: Firstly,
unscientific reasons presented in the garb of science; and secondly, the mixing of categories through the
cunning attempt of overlapping science with pseudo-science in a desperate attempt to justify their absurd
acceptance of hirsutism for Sikh women.

Overall, the point here is not the functionality of hair and its role in maintaining and regulating the body's
correct working order, nor the irrelevant debate concerning the difference between hair and nails or
whether hair is lifeless or not, but rather the rationale behind the complete prohibition of removing
extraneous hair?
HAIR RAISING PROBLEMS FOR THE KAURS

Allaah has told humankind that "the male is not like the female" (Qur'an 3:36), and nothing is more
discernable of this fact than the following general rule: there exists defined and distinguishable external
physical attributes for both sexes which clearly demarcate the male of the species from the female.
Furthermore, it should be noted that although qualities appropriate to or usually associated with either
sex, namely masculinity and femininity, differ in degree amongst members of the same sex, this does not
violate the aforementioned general rule. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. In regards to these
exceptions, Allaah may test some of His servants by way of their physical attributes. However, Allaah, the
Most Merciful, has provided, under the umbrella of "removing difficulties" (takalluf - overburdening), the
means by which these exceptions can be remedied, provided He has made the remedy available.[1] In the
case of hirsutism - a physical test for women - the remedy has always been available since the inception
of Islaam, and with the progression of technology and science, this has been made easier (although not
necessarily easy) to administer.
Despite this, Sikhism's take on this subject is at best bemusing and at worst extremism.

Indeed, among the goals of the divine laws of Islaam is the "removal of difficulties" to facilitate
humankind's natural proclivity (fitrah) in correctly worshipping their Creator in order to grow spiritually.
The importance of this principle is oft-repeated in the Qur'an:

"Allaah wishes for you ease and He does not wish for you difficulty." (Qur'an 2:185)

"Allaah does not burden a soul with more than it can bear." (Qur'an 2:286)

"Allaah wishes to lighten the burden for you, for man was created weak." (Qur'an 4:28)

"He did not make any difficulty for you in the religion." (Qur'an 22:78)

The companion of Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah), Anas ibn Maalik,
said:

"We have been prohibited from takalluf." (Saheeh al-Bukhari)

The Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) himself was naturally disposed in choosing the
easier of two paths, as long as it was not sinful. And this is what he taught and inculcated in his followers;
for example, before the dispatchment of the Prophet's governor to Yemen, he instructed him:

"Make things easy (for the people) and do not make it difficult for them, and make them calm
(with glad tidings) and do not repulse (them)." (Saheeh al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Islamic legal scholars unanimously consider this concept an indisputable fundamental principle followed by
God in the enactment of laws.

It was mentioned in the Introduction above that hirsutism will most likely have a profoundly negative
psychological impact on women. It should be noted, however, that "unwanted coarse body hair in a male
distribution"[2] is a subjective and relative term and women will invariably differ over what this comprises.
As has been demonstrated above, this relativisation has been taken advantage of by some Sikh apologists
who have attempted to try and justify and defend the 'modern' Sikh position on hirsutism.
But, there is a line to be drawn between that which is reasonable and moderate, and that which is
unreasonable and extreme.
As previously stated, Allaah has facilitated ease by removing difficulties that could potentially be
unnecessary obstacles in humankind's most important pursuit of all: the true and correct worship of their
Lord. Hence, although both Islam and Sikhism agree that the law on hirsutism is divinely legislated, their
respective conclusions are irreconcilable.
It is impermissible for a Sikh woman to cut/ trim/ remove any hair from her body. The Khalsa Council
emphatically responded to the question, "Is it OK for women to remove their leg and armpit hair, or to
pluck their eyebrows?" by declaring:
 Hair is hair. It's all there for a reason. For Sikh women who are committed to observing the Rehit
(code of conduct) cutting or removing any body hair is prohibited because the Gurus, who were
Yogis themselves, understood this... We do not cut or remove the hair anywhere on our body.[3]

While Panthic Weekly Columnist, Yashpal Kaur, observed:

Many Sikh women do not realize the consequences of hair removal from the body... A person who
surrenders themselves completely to the Guru should obey every hukam (command) to the best
of his or her ability. Only a person with such understanding realizes the consequences of stepping
back and following the orders of self-willed Manmukhs.[4]

Although this call to strict observance is admirable, the more pertinent question is: Is this not taking
things to an extreme?

There are certain things that Allaah tests His servants by for which a remedy is already available; it is
[1]

only a case of knowing where to look. However, part of the test may also involve the temporary
unavailability of a remedy in order to determine the amount of patience a servant has or to assist the
servant further develop this praiseworthy attribute. The condition for its availability will be the amount of
patience the servant will have to exercise before the Most Merciful makes the remedy available as a
reward in this life. However, if Allaah chooses to withhold a remedy indefinitely, then this is the Creators
prerogative; but, He has instructed His servants to remain patient in the face of any adversity or hardship
encountered and has guaranteed for the patient ones abundant reward.

ISLAM'S SENSIBILITIES TOWARDS WOMEN

The Shari'ah (divine legislation of Allaah) recognises the dangers of relativising this issue. In today's
society, one will find many women shaping their eyebrows, and cutting their hair in all sorts of peculiar
and often distasteful styles. Hence, unlike the extreme views of Sikhism, Islaam has permitted the cutting
of women's hair, including the option of shaving legs, threading arms, plucking of the eyebrows, and other
safe methods (this is unlike the mandatory removal of pubic and armpit hair, the purpose of which is to
maintain cleanliness), but has laid down strict conditions in certain areas of hair removal so as to cut off
the possibility of going to extremes.[1] This is in keeping with the Shar'iah's all-encompassing ethos that
caters for all necessary aspects of human life:

"And We have revealed to you a Book that is an explanation of all (necessary) things: it
is a guidance, a mercy and glad-tidings for those who have submitted themselves."
(Qur'an 16:89)

The Shari'ah was, thus, revealed as a clear guidance towards maintaining a balanced way of life and
avoiding extremes:

"Thus We have appointed you as a middle nation ('wasat', means: just; of high
standing; middle in rank or location)." (Qur'an 2:143)

"Do not go to extremes in your religion." (Qur'an 4:171)

Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) said:

"Religion (Islaam) is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to
continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and
receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by offering the prayers in
the mornings, afternoons and during the last hours of the nights." (Saheeh al-Bukhari)

The scholar Muhammad ibn Salih al-'Uthaymeen demonstrated this ease as follows:

With regard to hair which is abnormal, because it grows in places where hair does not usually
grow, such as a woman having a moustache or hair growing on her cheeks, there is nothing
 wrong with removing this, because it is abnormal and is disfiguring to the woman.
The Standing Committee was asked about women removing facial hair, and they replied as
follows: "It is allowed for a woman to remove hair on the upper lip, thighs, calves and arms. This
is not the same as plucking (eyebrows), which is forbidden." [2]

Hence, Islaam, for example, has prohibited al-namas - the removal of eyebrows, as the Prophet (upon
whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) said:

"Allaah has cursed the woman who does tattoos and the one who has them done, the woman
who plucks eyebrows (al-naamisah) and the one who has it done (al-mutanammisah), and the
one who files her teeth for the purpose of beauty, altering the creation of Allaah." (Saheeh al-
Bukhari and Muslim)

Imam an-Nawawi further elaborated:

The naamisah is the woman who removes hair from the face and the mutanammisah is the one
who asks to have that done. This action is haram (Islamically forbidden), unless a woman
develops a beard or moustache, in which case it is not haram to remove it, on the contrary it is
mustahabb (highly recommended) in our view.[3]

The stern warning in this context is against what is defined as the eyebrow, and it is in order to stop
women from going to extremes. Hence, anything that is not considered the eyebrow, such as hair that
grows across the brow; then some scholars have declared it permissible to remove. Shaykh Ibn
'Uthaymeen said:

What I think is that you should not remove anything from the eyebrows at all, unless there is
hair outside of the line of the eyebrows, such as if there is a mole from which a hair is
growing. This may be removed because in this case it is removing a kind of fault or
deformity, not in order to look beautiful. And Allaah knows best.[4]

How far away is the balance of Islaam in this context from what Yashpal Kaur states?

A Sikh who bends to the pressures of society will also experience a downfall in their spirituality
which can eventually lead to severe depression and a sense of confusion.[5]

A woman does not choose to suffer hirsutism. The growth of hair, as is the case with all things created by
Allaah, is under His Will and Power. One could quite easily sympathise for a woman who "experience[s] a
downfall in her spirituality" for having to accept an absurd edict that forces her to resemble and look like a
man. And any pressure from society in this regard would thankfully not only indicate that that society is
not Sikh, but it would also show the presence of sound minds that reject such an absurd proposition.
Yashpal Kaur then attempts to muddy the waters:

Although many men who aspire to be Sikhs face discrimination by keeping a full beard, it is just
as equally challenging for women today.[6]

This hilarious remark misses the point. Is she implying that it is just as equally challenging for today's
women to keep a full beard? We give her benefit of the doubt; and yet, the angle of her approach is still
incredibly worrying.
The general rule for men is that they grow beards and the exception to the rule is that a small minority of
men cannot. The opposite is true for women, although the exception to the rule in this case is so much
smaller. It would, therefore, be completely understandable for people to view a woman with coarse facial
hair strangely because it goes against the natural pattern established by Allaah.
With her lopsided take on this matter, it is unsurprising for Yashpal Kaur to then contemptuously question
the common sense of those parents who are struggling to find a suitor for their 'bearded' daughter:

Parents who fear they will not find a suitable match for their daughter if she has facial
hair need to ask themselves a few common sense questions. Firstly, realize that by
removing hair we prove to ourselves that we do not have full faith in our Guru. How will we ever
know if our son-in-laws are truly Sikhs at heart if we never give them the opportunity to see our
daughters with their God-given natural face?[7]
What is so natural about a woman who refuses to remedy a curable symptom that isolates her from
normality because her religion instructs her that this is unnatural? If a facially disfigured woman born into
a Sikh family considers a cure through a simple skin grafting procedure, would Sikhism consider her a
"self-willed Manmukh" who "do[es] not have full faith in our Guru" because she has rejected her "God-
given natural face"?
Moreover, how many men with a correct grasp of reality firmly treading the path of moderation would ever
find a woman with facial hair attractive? Certainly not many, unless of course they find bearded people
attractive; which, in turn, would lead to questions over their sexuality!
So let us repeat the all important question: "Will you marry a girl with a beard?"

More importantly, however, and in light of all of the above, let us ask the final question:

Which religion is closer to a balanced way of life? Sikhism, which states that any and all hair,
including abnormal growth, is sacred and must not be cut. Or Islaam, which states that women
are allowed to cut and remove certain hair types but within the boundaries set by their
benevolent Creator?

[1]
For example, Islaam has permitted that women cut there hair in appropriate ways, i.e. as long as it
does not resemble the hairstyle of males due to the prohibition where: "The Messenger of Allaah cursed
men who imitate women and women who imitate men." (Saheeh al-Bukhari)
Similarly, Islaam allows women to cut their hair short since Abu Salamah ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan said: "The
wives of the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) used to cut their hair until it came just
below their ears." (Saheeh Muslim). In regards to this Imam an-Nawawi said: "This indicates that it is
permissible for women to cut their hair short." However, the condition is that it not resemble the popular
hairstyles of disbelieving women due to the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah)
emphasising the importance of Muslims maintaining their own distinct Islamic appearance when he said:
"Whoever imitates a people is one of them." (Reported by Imam Ahmad)
Islaam has also not permitted the shaving of the head except in cases of necessity because of the
following Prophetic tradition in which, according to 'Ali, the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of
Allaah) forbade women to shave their heads. Al-Khallaal reported from Qutadah from 'Ikrimah who said:
"The Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) forbade women to shave their heads." Al-
Hasan said: "This is mutilation." Al-Athram said: "I heard Abu 'Abdullaah asking about a woman who was
unable to take care of her hair properly and whether she should remove her hair according to the hadeeth
of Maymoonah. He asked, 'Why does she want to remove it?' He replied, 'She cannot put oil on it or
anything else that will make it look better, and she has a bad infestation of lice.' He said, 'If it is the
matter of necessity, I hope that there is nothing wrong with doing so.'" (Sunan at-Tirmidhi and an-Nisaa'i)

BLIND EQUALITY

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

INTRODUCTION

Much has been said by the surreptitious Sikh proselytisers about the status of women in Islaam in
comparison to Sikhism. The basic contention revolves around the premise that 'gender equality' in all
affairs of life is the measure by which fairness and justice is determined for the treatment of women in a
given religion. Hence, the postulate is that exact fairness and justice can only be reached when this equal
opportunity's policy is implemented in all spheres of life.

We will endeavour to show in this article, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), that such a proposition is unrealistic,
untenable and impossible to uphold or defend. We shall further demonstrate not only the absurdity of this
fanciful claim and how far removed it is from the real world, but also how unjust this call for equality is.

"And among humankind is he who disputes about Allaah without knowledge, without
guidance and without a Book of Enlightenment." (Qur'an 22:8)
BLIND EQUALITY

In Islaam, Allaah from His absolute perfect Wisdom has defined Gender Roles for men and women that
specifically compliment each sex's distinct mental and physical makeup. The female constitution possesses
unique characteristics and abilities that are fine-tuned to make her best-suited in fulfilling a particular role
or type of work that the male would be incapable of achieving, at least to the same degree of standard,
due to the absence of these qualities.

Allaah therefore facilitates the strategic use of distinct knowledge and skills possessed by women and men
to fulfil complimentary gender roles.

Hence, what is known as Gender Analysis leads to men and women having different experiences, talents,
knowledge and needs which have been instilled by their Creator.

The Scientific American ran an article in May 2002 entitled: Sex Differences in the Brain, which suggested:
[1]

Men and women differ not only in their physical attributes and reproductive function but also in
many other characteristics, including the way they solve intellectual problems. For the past few
decades, it has been ideologically fashionable to insist that these behavioral differences are
minimal and are the consequence of variations in experience during development before and
after adolescence. Evidence accumulated more recently, however, suggests that the effects of sex
hormones on brain organization occur so early in life that from the start the environment is acting
on differently wired brains in boys and girls. Such effects make evaluating the role of experience,
independent of physiological predisposition, a difficult if not dubious task.

The fact that "the male is not like the female" (Qur'an 3:36) is a self-evident truth that requires no
further elaboration or proof.

Is there any doubt that the male is different from the female in many ways? Islaam understands that
women are like men in some aspects, but differ from them in others. Most of the rulings of Islaam
apply to men and women equally. However, in cases where a distinction is to be made between the
sexes, by necessity of the mental and physical differences, the Muslim will regard that as a mercy from
Allaah and a sign of knowledge of His creation, whilst the non-Muslim, due to heedlessness, sees it as
oppression, inequality and injustice; stubbornly insisting that men and women must be equal.

Unfortunately, many Sikhs, similar to others who have no guidance from an all-Wise Creator, have fallen
into this mistake, the degree of which varies between the numerous sects of Sikhism. Some Sikhs have
opted to accept this ideology by jumping on the bandwagon of the liberalists (who have placed God in the
back seat and formulated their own man-invented standards of freedom, democracy, gender equality,
etc.) and have attempted to justify it by making recourse to their holy text - the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
Others simply accept the idea upon ignorance without ever having thought about the dire ramifications.

We refer to this assertion, which rejects the aforementioned self-evident truth - "the male is not like
the female" (Qur'an 3:36) - replacing it with the call to absolute equality, as 'Blind Equality'. The
protagonists of such a worldview demand Functional Equality between the two genders. However the
question we ask is:

How feasible is this demand for functional equality?

There is a reason why the all-Wise created us different. If He intended both genders to be equal in its
functionality, He would have made us all females or all males. However, the fact that He created us
differently is recognised by Muslims as part of the universal "balance" (al-Meezaan), part of which is that
each sex compliments the other by fulfilling a designated role. Furthermore, Allaah has revealed laws that
sustain this different but complimentary functionality, which maintains this "balance", by not allowing one
to mix with the other.

"And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their husbands) over
them." (Qur'an 2:228)
This is from the justice of Allaah.

The Muslim writer Saaleh al-Munnajid said:

This word "equality", which many thinkers in both the east and the west advocate in various
fields of life, is a word based on deviation and a lack of understanding, especially when the
speaker attributes this idea of equality to the Qur'an and to Islaam.

One of the things that people misunderstand is that when they say "Islam is the religion of
equality", what they should say is that Islam is the religion of justice.

The great scholar Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen elaborated upon the understanding of justice in this respect:

Here we should note that there are some people who speak of equality instead of justice, and this
is a mistake. We should not say equality since equality implies no differentiation between the
two. Because of this unjust call for equality, they started to ask: 'What is the difference between
male and female?' So they made males and females the same, and then the communists said:
'What difference is there between ruler and subject? No one has any authority over anyone else,
not even fathers and sons; the father has no authority over his son,' and so on.

But if we say justice, which means giving each one that to which he or she is entitled, this
misunderstanding no longer applies, and the word used is correct. Hence, it does not say in the
Qur'an that Allaah enjoins equality; rather it states:

"Verily, Allaah enjoins Al- 'Adl (perfect justice)." (Qur'an 16:90)

"And that when you judge between men, you judge with justice." (Qur'an 4:58)

Those who say that Islam is the religion of equality are lying against Islaam. Rather Islaam is the
religion of justice which means treating equally those who are equal and differentiating
between those who are different.

No one who knows the religion of Islaam would say that it is the religion of equality. Rather what
shows you that this principle is false is the fact that most of what is mentioned in the Qur'an
denies equality, as in the following verses:

"Say: Are those who know equal to those who know not?" (Qur'an 39:9)

"Say: Is the blind equal to the one who sees? Or darkness equal to light?" (Qur'an 13:16)

"Not equal among you are those who spent and fought before the conquering (of
Makkah, with those among you who did so later)." (Qur'an 57:10)

"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled
(by injury or are blind or lame), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of
Allaah with their wealth and their lives." (Qur'an 4:95)

Not one single letter in the Qur'an enjoins equality, rather it enjoins justice. You will also find that
the word justice is acceptable to people, for I feel that if I am better than this man in terms of
knowledge, or wealth, or piety, or in doing good, I would not like for him to be equal to me.

Every person knows that he would find it unacceptable if we say that the male is equal to the
female.[2]

Based on this, Islaam does not regard men and women as equal in matters where such equality would
result in injustice since an inappropriate recognition of equality would be a severe form of injustice.
[1]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID
[2]
Sharh al-'Aqeedah al-Waasitah, 1/180-181

LET JUSTICE PREVAIL

As we stated before:

Most of the rulings of Islaam apply to men and women equally. However, in cases where a
distinction is to be made between the sexes, by necessity of the mental and physical differences,
the Muslim will regard that as a mercy from Allaah and a sign of knowledge of His creation, whilst
the non-Muslim, due to heedlessness, sees it as oppression, inequality and injustice; stubbornly
insisting that men and women must be equal.

The first sentence is extremely important for us to elaborate upon in order to answer the polemic of some
Sikhs who assert that salvation favours the Muslim male.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, Allaah has said in no uncertain terms in a beautiful verse
from His Book:

"Truly, the Muslim men and women; the believing men and women; the men and the
women who are obedient (to Allaah); the men and women who are truthful (in their
speech and conduct); the men and the women who are patient (in performing all the
duties which Allaah has ordered and in abstaining from all that Allaah has forbidden;
the men and the women who are humble (before Allaah); the men and the women who
give charity; the men and the women who observe fasting; the men and the women
who guard their chastity, and the men and the women who remember Allaah much
with their hearts and tongues - Allaah has prepared for them forgiveness and a great
reward (Paradise)." (Qur'an 33:35)

He also says:

"So, their Lord accepted of them (their supplication and answered them saying) 'Never
will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be you male or female. You are
(members) one to another. So those who emigrated and were driven out from their
homes, and suffered harm in My Cause, and who fought, and were killed (in My Cause),
truly, I will expiate from them their evil deeds and admit them into Gardens under
which rivers flow (in Paradise); a reward from Allaah, and with Allaah is the best of
rewards.'" (Qur'an 3:195)

"Whoever works righteousness - whether male or female - while he (or she) is a true
believer, truly, to him We will give a good life (in this world with respect, contentment
and lawful provision), and We shall pay them certainly a reward in proportion to the
best of what they used to do (Paradise in the Hereafter)." (Qur'an 16:97)

The above are self-explanatory. From the apparent meaning of these emphatic verses, it is determinable
that any Muslim, irrespective of gender, will be rewarded. Allaah assures the believers that He will not
"allow to be lost the work of any of you, be you male or female". The vast majority of the Holy
Islamic Laws (Shari'ah) are established upon equity and justice. However, a difference between the two
sexes and the respective roles allocated to each one necessitates a differentiation of laws.

There are many cases in point that a sincere seeker of truth would only dispute at his/ her peril. For
example, motherhood which in Islaam is subject to particular laws that of course are only prescribed upon
women. There are conditions for birth, after-birth, purification rights, breastfeeding, etc. all of which a
Muslim mother must know. Likewise, the father's role is subject to particular laws and conditions. For
example, he is considered the breadwinner of the family unit having been given the important (and often
arduous) responsibility of working in permissible (halaal) ways to maintain the family, as well as being the
head of the household. All these separate yet complimentary roles carry different rulings that are
mandatory upon the appropriate sex who in turn will be subject to accountability.
BLIND EQUALITY GONE MAD

"Verily, you follow nothing but conjecture and you do nothing but lie." (Qur'an 6:148)

"And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail
against the truth. Surely, Allaah is All-Knower of what they do." (Qur'an 10:36)

"They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture." (Qur'an 4:157)

As a result of Sikhs adopting and favouring this unjust notion of equality, a definite form of perversion has
occurred resulting in a violation of that balanced way in life which Allaah intended humankind to be upon.
Hence, they have fallen, to their detriment, towards an extreme in their behaviour and outlook on life.

One such example is the manner in which Sikhs dress. It is sad to see this perverted acceptance of blind
equality take such a strong hold that one will now find Sikh men and women dressed in almost identical
attire, including the dastar (turban).[1]

"Say (to them): 'Do you know better or does Allaah?'" (Qur'an 2:140)

"They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, even though
there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord." (Qur'an 53:23)

However, Islaam commands women to wear clothes that are different from those worn by men due to the
obvious difference in the way each sex is tempted by the other. What is known as Gender Sensitivity is
understood and appreciated by Muslims who are cognisant of the fact that the appropriate allocation of
different roles necessitates recognition of different needs. Hence, the instructions for the dress-code of a
woman is related to the disposition of each gender and how they relate to each other. The sexual
temptation posed by each towards the other is markedly different, and from the wisdom of Allaah, He has
prescribed a distinct and purpose-made dress code that sustains the balance in life and protects from
immorality and extremism. It would make no sense to tell women to expose those parts of their body that
men are allowed to expose because of the differences in the temptation posed by one towards the other.

It is precisely for this reason that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) strictly
cautioned his followers from making any attempt at imitating the opposite sex warning them of God's
punishment if men began to imitate women and vice-versa. He said:

'Abdullaah ibn 'Abbaas said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) cursed men who imitate women and women who imitate men." (Bukhari 5546)

The great scholar al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (d.852H) commented:

For men to imitate women and women to imitate men, deliberately and by choice, is strictly
forbidden (haraam) according to scholarly consensus.

In fact, the strict observance of gender sensitivity and maintaining the unique outward distinction of both
sexes was so strict that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) even forbade the
hermaphrodites to enter upon women and ordered that they be banned from living among people so as to
guard against their perversion and evil and to deter them from such behaviour.

Imam al-Bukhari in his famous collection, Saheeh al-Bukhari, included this hadeeth in two chapters, under
the heading:

(1) "It is forbidden for men who resemble women to enter upon women"

(2) "Expelling men who resemble women from people's houses."

However, due to the absence of correct and beneficial knowledge from the all-Wise, Sikhs are either
unaware or unwilling to accept this reality and as such promulgate the notion that women imitate men, or
vice-versa, under the guise of blind equality. If only they realised that women copying men is an exercise
that leads to womanhood having no intrinsic value.

"The male is not like the female" (Qur'an 3:36)

Another example, which is related to the above, is the conduct of interaction amongst the Sikhs in their
Gurdwara (we put aside for the moment the manner of conduct outside their places of worship, such as in
the house or at weddings and parties).

It is generally the case in Gurdwaras that men and women share the same open space, but on separate
sides of the room; both at an equal distance from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, which is installed on a higher
level than those seated in front of it.

This of course is in stark contrast to the traditional mosque that also houses separate seating areas, but
makes sure a visual division or barrier is setup between the two sexes. Usually, arrangements are made
for separate entrances for the male and female ensuring that no free-mixing occurs. The wisdom behind
this, as explained above, is the recognition of sexual temptation posed by each gender towards the other.
Hence, not only is there a prescribed purpose-made dress code, but an additional safety precaution is
established by cordoning off the two sexes to ensure that all potential avenues of temptation are cut off;
thus, allowing for complete and undisturbed attention to be paid towards the purpose of attending the
mosque - to worship the Creator.

However, in their naivety, Sikhs often forward the excuse that it is impossible for temptation to arise in a
place of worship, or during worship, and in front of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The need of an outward
show of equality, i.e. men and women sitting in the same room equal-distant from their Holy Book,
supersedes the need to protect the natural temptation that will inevitably arise between men and women
situated in the same locale.

Women usually attend the Gurdwara wearing their most beautiful garments, bathed in perfume, looking
their most attractive, and often with a flimsy transparent cloth (chuni) draped over their head, which
leaves exposed both the neck and parts of the chest. It is inconceivable to imagine under such
circumstances that no man would take advantage of the opportunity of flicking a quick glance over at a
woman who is barely meters away across the room, especially if the room is full of women.

In matters of worship, how is it possible for men and women situated in the same room; separated by no
barriers, to sustain their concentration upon worship without any of them being distracted by the opposite
sex?

If this is the case in their places of worship, we can only imagine the horrifying consequences that result
from the mixing of sexes at home, school, during festive occasions such as wedding parties and religious
congregations and melas, etc. all under the umbrella of blind equality.

Islaam does not teach nor does it hold to such dangerously naïve, untenable and impossible scenarios,
rather it deals with reality.

"Should not He Who created know? And He is the Most Kind and Courteous (to His
slaves), All-Aware (of everything)." (Qur'an 67:14)

Some quote the following verse from the SGGS to:

[1]

"naapaak paak kar, hadoor hadeesaa; saabat soorat dastaar siraa

Purify what is impure, and let the Lord's Presence be your religious tradition. Let your total awareness be
the turban on your head." (Ang 1084, SGGS)
Where it is said that "Sabat Soorat Dastar Sira" means that a Sikh is instructed to wear a Dastar making
no exception to women.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that this blind call to equality in all spheres of life is both untenable and impossible due to
the clear and apparent physiological differences of men and women.
Since Allaah has facilitated the strategic use of distinct knowledge and skills possessed by women and
men to fulfil complimentary gender roles, it would be impossible for one to assert that both man and
woman are equal without ignoring this a priori difference.

Any wise person, who has sat down and reflected without jumping on the pseudo-bandwagon of equality,
will come to the inevitable conclusion that the restrictions and regulations set for two different people of
different backgrounds, cultures and age group must differ. It would be unreasonable to establish equal
rules for a six-year-old child and a seventeen-year-old since both differ in their mental and physical
maturity.

After recognising, acknowledging and implementing this amongst ourselves, how is it possible, therefore,
for us to discard this understanding for the One whom we accept as being the all-Wise and all-
Knowledgeable?

How is it possible for someone to affirm that God created each sex upon a completely different physiology
and yet established laws, regulations, allowances and restrictions equally for both?

The phrase: "Men are from Mars and women are from Venus" holds true!

In Islaam, woman has been given a role to fulfil, determinable from the specifically tailored physical
makeup created by Allaah, which differs from her counterpart. Hence, we have shown that He, from His
perfect Wisdom, has set laws and conditions for each complimentary role as part of Islaam's gender
sensitivity.

"The male is not like the female" (Qur'an 3:36)

However, in Islaam these differences are few and far between since most of the rulings of Islaam apply to
men and women equally.

Hence, it is unfair and ignorant to assert that women in Islaam have "greater roles to fulfil, but less
rights". Such a proposition is simply untrue.

May Allaah guide us towards the Truth and away from the whims and desires of man-invented
philosophies, which on the face of it may sound good, but when deconstructed and examined, fall flat on
its face simply because:

"What is there after Truth, except falsehood? How then have you turned away?" (Qur'an 10:32)

INTRODUCTION

TRUE MESSENGERS OF GOD

REHAT MARYADA

Much has been said by surreptitious Sikh proselytisers about the status of women in Islaam in comparison
to Sikhism. Accusations and allusions of unfair and unjust treatment of women in Islaam is rife with many
Sikh websites, forums and discussions making bold statements that only Sikhism affords women true
rights.

The aim of this section is to therefore examine this postulate and determine its veracity.

It is important to note that one will not be able to do justice to this subject by resorting to speculative
hypotheses and innuendos. This is especially true when bearing in mind that Islam and Sikhism have a
divine source reference from the One both affirm to be all-Knowledgeable and all-Wise.
Thus, it stands to reason that all proofs forwarded to support an argument should be derived from a
source deemed to be inerrant as opposed to errant.
As Allaah states to the Jews and Christians: "Then produce your evidences if you speak the truth."
(Qur'an 2:111)
It would be illogical for premises of an argument to be deduced from an imperfect errant source if a
perfect inerrant source is available. As such, it is impossible to claim that a more sound argument will be
produced from the limited/ errant reasoning as opposed to the unlimited/ inerrant reasoning.

Hence, we say that not only should people "look back to the original doctrine and see what has been said
about them", but that it is a must for us to make direct recourse to the original doctrine when forwarding
arguments as we endeavour to solve this altercation between Islam and Sikhism.

In light of this, we will show, insha'Allaah (God Willing), that what is championed by as the revolutionary
rights of women in Sikhism are in fact exaggerations, empty boasts and half-truths when critically
examined and dissected. On the contrary, rather than affording women revolutionary rights, Sikhism is
silent on many key issues integral in liberating women from oppression, discrimination and injustice.

"And among humankind is he who disputes about Allaah without knowledge, without
guidance and without a Book of Enlightenment." (Qur'an 22:8)

We ask that you read through the material presented in this section with an unbiased open-mind;
sincerely seeking only the truth from your Lord, and leave the rest to your Lord who has assured clarity
and guidance for the sincere seeker of truth.

"And whomsoever Allaah wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islaam; and
whomsoever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast closed and constricted, as if
he is climbing up to the sky. Thus Allaah puts the wrath on those who believe not.
And this is the path of your Lord (Islaam) leading straight. We have detailed Our
Revelations for a people who take heed.
For them will be the home of peace (Paradise) with their Lord. And He will be their
Protector because of what they used to do." (Qur'an 6:125-127)

TRUE MESSENGERS OF GOD

Our contention is that true "holy men"; messengers; prophets; leaders; role-models; emissaries of God,
were sent in order guide humankind towards the light of correct worship and humane conduct, not to stay
silent in the midst of the darkness of evil, man-invented, socio-cultural mental and physical debilitating
practices. Silence in the midst of evil and corruption is tantamount to injustice and in and of itself is a
crime; this is not the characteristics of the people of God chosen to lead us from the "darkness into the
light".

Indeed Allaah says about Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in the Qur'an:

"(This is) a Book, the Verses of which are perfected (in every sphere of knowledge),
and then explained in detail from the One Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted.
(Saying): "Worship none but Allaah. Truly, I (Muhammad) am from Him to you a
warner and a bringer of glad tidings." (Qur'an 11:1-2)

He also says:

"And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition of everything -
a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who believe (as Muslims).
Truly, Allaah enjoins Al-'Adl (complete justice) and Al-Ihsaan (all righteous deeds),
and giving (help) to kith and kin. And He has forbidden Al-Fahshaa' (all evil deeds),
and Al-Munkar (all prohibited matters), and Al-Baghy (all kinds of oppression). He
admonishes you, that you may take heed." (Qur'an 16:89-90)

"Certainly, We have brought to them a Book (the Qur'ân) which We have explained in
detail with knowledge, – a guidance and a mercy to a people who believe." (Qur'an
7:52)

"(This is) a Book which We have revealed to you (O Muhammad) in order that you
might lead mankind out of darkness into the light by their Lord's Permission to the
path of the All-Mighty, the Owner of all praise." (Qur'an 14:1)
Hence, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was one who came with a
complete comprehensive guidance as a "mercy" to humankind delineating glad-tidings of "truth living" and
warnings, part of which of course was to forbid al-Fahshaa', al-Munkar, and al-Baghy.

Indeed the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"Whoever sees an evil, he must prevent it with his hand, and if he has no power for this
action, then he should prevent it with his tongue, and if he cannot do this, then he
should at least consider it a vice in his heart, and this is a very low level of one's faith."
(Saheeh Muslim)

Moreover, Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) Creator encouraged him to see
through the mission of completely disseminating the message to humankind:

"O Messenger! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your
Lord. And if you do not, then you will not have conveyed His Message." (Qur'an 5:67)

The Most Merciful has intended ease for us and loves that we be guided; it is for this reason that he sent
messengers and prophets with the truth in order to guide us towards the best way in life.

Furthermore, a very important understanding in this regard is how our Creator warned against remaining
silent when evil is committed:

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allaah as just witnesses; and let not the
enmity and hatred of others make you avoid establishing justice. Be just: that is nearer
to piety; and fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Well-Acquainted with what you do." (Qur'an
5:8)

He drew a parallel over the Children of Israel in this regard saying:

"Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue of
David and Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and were ever
transgressing beyond bounds.
They never used to forbid one another from Al-Munkar (all prohibited matters) which
they committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do." (Qur'an 5:78-79)

As well the People of the Book (Jews and Christians):

"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Why do you mix truth with falsehood
and conceal the truth while you know?" (Qur'an 3:71)

And he warned in the harshest way what the consequences would be:

"Truly, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have
sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book; they are the ones
cursed by Allaah and cursed by the cursers.
Except those who repent and do righteous deeds, and openly declare (the truth which
they concealed). These, I will accept their repentance. And I am the One Who accepts
repentance, the Most Merciful.
Truly, those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom will
be the combined Curse of Allaah, the angels and humankind.
They will abide therein (under the curse in Hell), their punishment will neither be
lightened, nor will they be reprieved." (Qur'an 2.159-162)

The Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allaah be upon him), likewise, said:

"He who is asked something he knows and conceals it will have a bridle of fire put on
him on the Day of Resurrection." [1]
The reason for this is that these people claimed to be recipients of the complete Truth; claimed to be
enlightened ones from Allaah to guide humankind from the darkness into the light, but their actions spoke
otherwise and were a proof against their erroneous boast.

Hence, what benefit is it for the astray ignorant masses, in desperate need of guidance and
enlightenment, if these so-called messengers remained silent over issues that by necessity demanded
condemnation.

The Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allaah be upon him) said so eloquently:

"A single scholar of religion is more formidable against Satan than a thousand devout
people." [2]

The reason of course is because these scholars have knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, and as
such elucidate to the people the correct path in life, making it clear and distinct from the man-invented
errant paths.

If the ten Gurus truly were guidance for the people of Hindustan and beyond, why did they not speak out
against certain evil practices, which were openly being practiced by the people, and lay down clear cut
prohibitions to curtail the spread of immorality?

There can only be one answer:

"And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allaah, or says: 'Revelation
has come to me' whereas no revelation has come to him in anything; and who says: 'I
will reveal the like of what Allaah has revealed.' And if you could but see when the evil-
doers are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands
(saying): 'Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of
degradation because of what you used to utter against Allaah other than the truth. And
you used to reject His proofs with disrespect!'" (Qur'an 6:93)

"But if they answer you not, then know that they only follow their own lusts. And who
is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, without guidance from Allaah?
Verily, Allaah guides not the people who are evil-doers." (Qur'an 28:50)

REHAT MARYADA

Due to the absence of clear guidance and edicts concerning what is permissible and impermissible in
Sikhism's Holy Scripture, the Sikh world was forced to render and formulate a customised 'code of
conduct' providing guidelines for all Sikhs to follow.

"Exceed not the limits in your religion (by believing in something) other than the truth,
and do not follow the vain desires of people who went astray before and who misled
many, and strayed from the Right Path.'" (Qur'an 5:77)

Yet these Rehat Maryada are nothing more than the opinions of simple minded people, limited in their
outlook of life. It is for this reason that Sikhism as a world view is a nonviable solution due to the presence
of shortcomings and errors committed by imperfect limited minds.

"And We send down the Qur'an; in it is a cure and a mercy for those who believe; but
as for the evil-doers, it increases them in nothing but loss/ruin." (Qur'an 17:82)

We further contend that this is not revelatory guidance from the all-Wise Creator, but rather a man-
invented way of life that holds no solutions. Hence, we shall endeavour to show, insha'Allaah (God-
Willing), that the claims made by Sikhs of affording women perfect rights are nothing but empty boasts
and deluded exaggerations.

"Say: Have you any knowledge (proof) that you can produce before us? Verily, you
follow nothing but conjecture and you do nothing but lie." (Qur'an 6:148)
[1]
Sunan Abu Dawood, 3/3650
[2]
Sunan at-Tirmidhee 217 and Sunan Ibn Majah

THE EXPENDABLE WIFE

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

INTRODUCTION

From the completeness and absolute all-encompassing ethos of the Islamic way of life is, amongst other
things, the fulfilment of rights between the husband and the wife as established by the all-Wise Creator.
The Muslim spouse understands that in order to live a wholesome, satisfying, tranquil, fully balanced and
workable relationship these respective rights must be implemented.

"And they (women) have rights (over their husbands) similar (to those of their
husbands) over them..." (Qur'an 2:228) [1]

The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) delivered an epoch-making final
sermon to over 100,000 of his followers before the great setting of the Prophetic Seal, cessation of
revelation, and his subsequent departure from this earth. During the sermon he reminded his people of
the following:

O People, it is true that you have certain rights over your women, but they also have rights
over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allaah's trust and
with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and
clothed in kindness. Treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and
committed helpers.[2]

These rights have been given to safeguard the honour and dignity of women, a part of which is the right
to physical and financial maintenance and protection.

In this article, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), we will provide the perspicuous Islamic edicts to show the type
of role-model Prophet Muhammad was (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). In doing so, we will
forward what the ideal character and correct behaviour and conduct of a husband should be like.

We will then compare this to an example set by Guru Nanak during his married life; based upon this
examination, we will ask some very serious questions related to the inculcation of these questionable
religious values and examples.

[1]
The great companion Ibn 'Abbaas stood in front of a looking glass to straighten his appearance and
arrange his ornamentation. When he was asked about it, he said, "I adorn myself for my wife as she does
for me." Then he recited the noble verse: "And they (women) have rights (over their husbands)
similar (to those of their husbands) over them..." (Qur'an 2:228)
[2]
Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon. Date delivered: 632 CE. This sermon was delivered on the Ninth
day of Dhul al Hijjah 10 A.H. in the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat.

YEARS OF NEGLECT

For Sikhs, Guru Nanak was Satguru - the true guru; the one who provides the truth; who was imbued with
the alleged divine light of God. Hence, Nanak was, it is claimed, totally one with God; the embodiment of
truth, where Satguru and God are apparently inseparable.
Be that as it may, the point is that Guru Nanak is the role-model for a Gursikh - a Sikh devoted to the
Guru, who dispels the darkness of ignorance ('gu'), and proclaims enlightenment ('ru').

According to the biographies of Nanak, agreement exists amongst Sikhs that Guru Nanak during his life
set out on long proselytising journeys (udhasis). According to Patwant Singh, these journeys were
necessary in order for Nanak to "crystallize his own ideas and give sharper definition to the contours" of
his self-developing religion:

"A restlessness was building up in Nanak, an urge to discover the nature of the world he lived in,
to meet and understand different people and their beliefs, to find out what they looked for in
their faith. He knew he had to travel far to get the answers. Hard as it was to leave those whose
love had sustained him, he had to go if his mission in life was to succeed." [1]

The hardship of separation from those who depended upon him and those whom he loved was of course
not enough:

"...And so in the summer of 1496 Nanak's travels began. The first phase took him eastward to
Hardwar, Benares, Kamrup (Assam) and Jagannath (Orissa), and to southern India and Ceylon,
and the second to Tibet, Kabul, Mecca and Baghdad, no small feat considering the times and
distances involved. But the saintly Nanak had an iron will, and he knew what he wanted from his
exchanges with the scholars, thinkers and mystics he met at each of these great centres of
religious learning. The encounters helped crystallize his own ideas and give sharper definition to
the contours of the faith he was developing." [2]

No small feet indeed, and the question we must ask is:

How much time would have been expended to cover these distances?

But, before we answer this important question, let us firstly understand the circumstances of his life, i.e.
his marital status, before he decided to venture forth on this 'grande voyage'.

Prior to this decision, it should be appreciated that Nanak was not a man with no responsibilities. On the
contrary, he was married to Sulakhni and was the father of two sons - Srichand and Lakhmidas. Hence,
his decision to set forth on these long journeys would have been at the expense of his duty as a father
and husband. This would not be significant if the separation between a man and his family was only for a
short duration of time, e.g. a few months, which would be completely understandable especially out of
sheer necessity. However, it would be absolutely criminal if Nanak neglected his duties, including the rights
of his wife and children over him, if this time period stretched over not months, but years.

Guru Nanak on his first stint of travels spent twelve long years in the wilderness:

"Guru Nanak returned home after a little more than twelve years because Mardana had started
missing his family." [3]

Incredibly, it was not Nanak who missed his family, but his companion Mardana, which prompted Nanak to
return.

A second journey was also carried out to bring in those greater number of converts:

"On his journey towards the South, Guru Nanak was accompanied by Saido and Gheho. Mardana
ultimately stayed behind with his family." [4]

And a third:

"The third time Guru Nanak left home, he trekked towards the North. Penetrating the Himalayas,
he went up to Tibet. He was accompanied by Mardana." [5]

All in all:
 "Nanak's travels lasted twenty-eight years, until he finally settled down at a peaceful spot
on the Ravi above Lahore for the remaining fifteen years." [6]

In other words, his family and especially his wife were without his physical and emotional assistance for,
one would imagine, a large portion of those long and lonesome 28-years.

[1]
The Sikhs, Patwant Singh, p.22-23
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
The Sikh Gurus, K. S. Duggal http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/ksd/gnd02.htm
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
The Sikhs, Patwant Singh, p.24-25

ISLAAM'S SOLUTION

Allaah has given answers to all of the necessary aspects of living a truthful, content and God-conscious
life:

"And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition of everything -
a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who believe (as Muslims).
Truly, Allaah enjoins Al-'Adl (complete justice) and Al-Ihsaan (all righteous deeds),
and giving (help) to kith and kin. And He has forbidden Al-Fahshaa' (all evil deeds),
and Al-Munkar (all prohibited matters), and Al-Baghy (all kinds of oppression). He
admonishes you, that you may take heed." (Qur'an 16:89-90)

"(This is) a Book which We have revealed to you (O Muhammad) in order that you
might lead mankind out of darkness into the light by their Lord's Permission to the
path of the All-Mighty, the Owner of all praise." (Qur'an 14:1)

Part of this completion is the plethora of rights afforded to women in Islaam. Hence, we ask the sincere
reader to ponder over the completeness of this revelation and how it guards against, and closes the doors
to, all actions that will lead to evil and corruption.

Our Prophet Muhammad (may Allaah's blessings be upon him) said:

"Only an honourable man treats women with honour and integrity. And only a mean, deceitful
and dishonest man humiliates and insults women." (Ibn 'Asaakir)

"O Allaah! I declare it a great sin to harm, do injustice, hurt or waste the rights of the two
vulnerable persons, the orphan and the woman." (Sunan an-Nisaa'ee)

"Be kind [with the COMMAND VERB: 'be kind'] to women." (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)

"The most perfect of the believers in faith are those who are the best in attitude, and the best of
you are those who are best to their women." (At-Tirmidhee, 1/217; Ahmad, 2/250; al-Silsilah al-
Saheehah, 284)

Part of this behaviour encompasses how a Muslim husband is to behave towards his wife, to know what
her rights are over him, and to fulfil them.

The husband in Islaam has been given the responsibility of maintaining his family's sustenance and
protecting them, as Allaah says in the Qur'an:

"
...And upon the father is the mother's sustenance and her clothing according to what is
reasonable. No person shall have a burden on him greater than he can bear…" (Qur'an
2:233)
More over, another important aspect of Islaam is the recognition of satisfying in the permissible prescribed
manner one of the most important physical needs of all human beings - the sexual appetite.

The Messenger of Allah said:

"There is no shyness in matters of religion."

Sexual relations are among the important matters of life which Islaam came to explain and to prescribe
proper conduct and rulings for; thereby elevating it from the level of mere bestial pleasures and physical
desires. Islaam connects it to a righteous intention, supplications and proper conduct that raise it to the
level of worship for which the Muslim will be rewarded, as the Sunnah of the Prophet has explained.

Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim (d.751 AH) wrote:

"Concerning sexual relations, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) brought
the most perfect guidance, whereby health may be preserved and people may find
pleasure and enjoyment, and it may fulfil the purpose for which it was created, because
sex was created for three basic purposes:
The preservation and propagation of the human race, until they reach the number of souls that
Allaah has decreed should be created in this world.
Expulsion of the water (semen), which may cause harm to the body if it is retained.
Fulfilling physical desires and enjoying physical pleasure. This alone is the feature that will be
present in Paradise, because there will be no producing of offspring there, and no retention which
needs to be relieved by ejaculation." (Zaad al-Ma'aad)

REWARD FOR PERMISSIBLE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"In the sexual intercourse of anyone of you there is reward" (meaning, when he has intercourse
with his wife)." They said: "O Messenger of Allaah! When any one of us fulfils his desire, will he
have a reward for that?" He said: "Do you not see that if he were to do it in a forbidden manner,
he would be punished for that? So if he does it in a permissible manner, he will be rewarded."
(Muslim, 720)

And equally importantly in Islaam is the wife's right to companionship from her husband and fulfilment of
her sexual needs.

WIFE MUST BE SEXUALLY SATISFIED

The Prophet said:

"The wife of 'Uthman ibn Madh'oon complained to the Messenger of Allaah that her husband had
no need for women. During the days he would fast [1] and at night he would pray. The Prophet
asked him: "Am I not the best example for you to follow?" He answered: "Certainly, may my
father and mother be sacrificed for you." The Prophet then told him: "As for you, you pray
during the night and you fast during the day. Certainly, your wife has a right upon you and
your body has a right upon you so pray and sleep and fast and break your fast." (Saheeh Ibn
Hibban)

In a long hadeeth reported by Salmaan Al-Farisi:

"I went to visit my brother in faith, Abu-Darda. Upon arrival, I was greeted by his spouse who
was wearing very casual house clothes. Seeing that, I asked her, 'What is the matter with you;
why are you wearing such simple and casual clothes and not wearing other suitable clothes to
please your husband?' She said: 'Your brother, Abu-Darda, has no interest, none whatsoever,
with this world and its affairs. He spends his nights praying and spends the day fasting!' Upon
the arrival of Abu-Darda, who welcomed Salman, and offered him some food, Salman said: 'Why
do not you eat with me?' Abu-Darda said: 'I am fasting.' Salman said: 'I take an oath by Allaah
that you must break your fast and eat with me.' Abu-Darda broke his fast and ate with Salman.
 Salman spent that night with Abu-Darda. The latter got up during the night to offer some night
prayers. Salman stopped him from doing so saying: 'Your body has certain rights upon you; your
Lord has certain rights upon you; and your family has certain rights upon you. Fast some
days, and break the fast on others, approach your spouse and fulfil her instinctive needs.
Grant every person his due right.' Just before the break of dawn, Salman permitted Abu-
Darda to get up and offer prayers. Both of them got up, performed ablution and offered some
prayers then they headed to the Masjid to offer Fajr prayer. Upon finishing the prayer with
Allaah's Prophet. Abu-Darda reported to the Prophet what Salman had said and done to him. The
Prophet of Allaah confirmed: "Salman said the truth." (Al-Bukhaari)

The Prophet told 'Abdullaah ibn Amr ibnul-'Aas (who spent all day fasting and all night in prayer)
to fast sometimes and not at other times; to pray at night and to sleep at night: "Your body has
a right over you, your eyes have a right over you and your wife has a right over you." (Al-
Bukhaari)

TIME LIMIT OF FOUR MONTHS

However, from Allaah's absolute Mercy and Wisdom, He prescribed a maximum time limit for a man
neglecting this right without a legitimate legislative reason, and that is - 4 months. After this time the
man is obliged to return to his wife and fulfil her rights; otherwise she can seek divorce or take him to
court.
The proof for this legislation is the following verse in the Qur'an:

"Those who take an oath not to have sexual relation with their wives must wait four
months, then if they return (change their idea in this period), truly, Allaah is oft-
Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if they decide upon divorce, then Allaah is All-Hearer, All-
Knowledgeable." (Qur'an 2:226)

In this verse, Allaah has protected the rights of women. Today we find men holding back from their
women for long periods of time thereby placing her at risk of committing adultery. And since this is a
sensitive subject many women do not bring this out into the open for fear of embarrassment. However,
Allaah has established this right for the woman in no uncertain terms.
According to the scholars, the above verse indicates that the man is sinning by taking this type of evil oath
and depriving his wife of her sexual rights, whether verbally or consciously, due to Allaah's saying:
"Verily, Allaah is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful".

Ibn Katheer (d.774 AH) in his commentary wrote:

If the period exceeds four months, the woman must ask her husband for sex or divorce,
otherwise the judge will urge him to do so in order not to harm her.

Shaykhul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah (d.728 AH) stated:

The harm that comes about to the woman by the man avoiding sexual intercourse with her is
such that the marriage may be dissolved under every circumstance, regardless if it was
intentional from the husband or unintentional, or if he had the ability to perform sexual
intercourse or not. [2]

MAXIMUM TIME AWAY FROM THE WIFE

From the balance of Islaam is also the fact that Allaah, out of his mercy, has prescribed a limit for the
period of time a woman can bear to be away from her husband. This temporary separation, however, can
only be undertaken for Islamically acceptable reasons; and al-hamdulillah (all praise be to Allaah) has not
been set to last for years on end.
This ruling is based on 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab seeking guidance from his daughter Hafsah. He inquired:

"O my daughter, how long can a woman bear to be away from her husband?" She replied: "Subhaan
Allaah (Glorified be Allaah above all imperfections)! Would one such as you ask one such as me about
that?" He said: "Were it not that I want to make a decision concerning the Muslims I would not have asked
you." She declared: "Five months or six months." [3]
Based on her proclamation, 'Umar - who was the leader of the Muslims at that time - set a time limit for
campaigns to last for six months in which they would march for a month, stay for four months, leaving a
month for the return journey.

From this Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen said:

With regard to a man travelling and being away from his wife: if she is in a place of safety then there is
nothing wrong with that; but, if she lets him stay away for more than six months, then likewise there is
nothing wrong with that. However, if she asks for her rights and asks him to come back to her, then he
should not stay away for more than six months. But if there is a reason such as a sick person who is being
treated etc., then cases of necessity come under their own rulings. Whatever the case, it is the wife's
right, and if she allows that and is in a safe place, there is no sin on him, even if the husband is away a
great deal. [4]

[1]
In Islaam it is impermissible for the fasting person to partake in certain designated actions since these
would break the fast
[2]
Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Fataawa al-Kubra, vol. 4, p. 562; Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmooh al-Fataawa, Vol. 32, p.
40.
[3]
See: Al-Mughni, 7/232, 416.
[4]
Fataawa al-'Ulama fi 'Ushratin-Nisaa, pg. 106.

CONCLUSION

"Women are the twin halves of men." (Ibn 'Asaakir)

It is boasted by many Sikhs that Sikhism does not encourage a monastic way of life; but rather a life of
commitment towards siring children and living amicably with one's spouse.

We dispute this empty claim by asking:

What is worse, the one engaged for years in carrying out a task at only the expense of his own
well being, or the one engaged for years in a task at the expense of not only his own well being,
but others who have a greater right over his time than the said task?

Nanak's wife was a woman who would have had the same desires and needs as any other woman.

Who would have tended to her sexual needs during those 12 years, let alone 28-years of
combined travel?

If Sikhism is against monasticism then who was Sulakhni turning to for companionship and intimacy?
These are important questions since the behaviour of a man who wanders off for 12-years, having
committed to a relationship with a woman, is a type of oppression and will place the woman at risk of
committing illegal sexual actions.
How was she satisfying her personal needs?

Was she engaging in what Islaam calls "the secret act" - masturbation, which incidentally is forbidden in
Islaam?
Our contention is that Sikhism, like many other important matters, is silent over its permissibility or
impermissibility.

We cannot imagine that the Sikhs will forward the unintelligible response that Sulakhni too was a
Gursikhni who had elevated herself above the natural sexual needs and conquered this inherent nature.
Even if this absurd explanation is forwarded then surely the same explanation cannot be given for the
intimacy and loneliness she must have felt at the extended absences of her other half.
Furthermore and more significantly, these actions from the paragon of virtue for Sikhism - Nanak -
effectively gives an open licence for any of his adherents to pursue similar religious activities at the
expense of their duties towards their family.
If Nanak is the example to be followed by all Sikhs and he left his family to gallivant around the Indian
subcontinent during his udhasis, then it stands to reason that any lesser Sikh will also have leeway to do
the same?

"As a man, he was sensitive, kind-hearted, but never sentimental. He was fair and correct. Love
of his parents, his sister, his wife, or his children did not prevent him from undertaking
long travels, at times lasting several years." [1]

How is it fair for the breadwinner to leave his family as a burden for others to look after?
It is not from love to leave your wife behind for years on end, presumably fending for herself and her
children.

We ask the question:

How would the children have felt seeing their role-model leave them for years on end?

In the Islamic world view, the understanding is that Allaah will hold everyone accountable for what they
had responsibility over.
Anas reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"Allaah will ask everyone who has been given responsibility about whatever he was responsible
for, until He asks a man about his family." (Reported by Ibn Hibaan)

Abu Hurayrah said:

"I heard the Messenger of Allaah saying, 'By Allaah, if one of you were to get up in the morning
and carry firewood on his back, and sell it and meet his own needs from the money and give
some away in charity, this would be better for him than coming to a man and begging from him,
and either being given something or not. The upper hand (the one which gives) is better
than the lower hand (the one that takes), and start with those for whom you are
responsible." (Muslim 3/96).
According to a report narrated by Ahmad (2/524), it was said: "For whom am I responsible, O
Messenger of Allaah?" He said, "Your wife is one of those for whom you are responsible."

Narrated by Jaabir ibn Samurah, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

"If Allaah gives something good to any one of you, let him start with himself and his family."
(Muslim 1454)

Subhan'Allaah (Glorified is Allaah above all imperfections)!

How far away is this conduct and teaching for 'truth living' from the example of Guru Nanak?
The Prophet warned that the responsibility of looking after the family should be given to no one but the
husband.

The Guru Granth Sahib states:

"jaa ddithaa pooraa sathiguroo thaan andharahu man saadhhaariaa

When I see the Perfect True Guru, then deep within, my mind is comforted and consoled." (SGGS
310)

How is it possible for a conscientious man to be comforted and consoled by the reality of choosing to
forsake his family for over a decade, knowing there is no one back home to tend to the needs of his family
in the manner of which only he as a husband and father could?

It is patently obvious which example is better.

Sa'd ibn Maalik reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him:

"Whatever you spend on your family, you will be rewarded for it, even the mouthful which you lift
up and place in your wife's mouth." (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)
In order to lift that morsel of food to the wife's mouth, one must firstly be present in her company.

Allaah says:

"And truly you (O Muhammad) are upon an exalted character." (Qur'an 68:4)

[1]
The Sikh Gurus, K. S. Duggal http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/ksd/gnd03.htm

FORCED MARRIAGE

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

INTRODUCTION

In May 1999, a High Court judge issued a court order to prevent Anita, a 17-year-old English
Sikh, being married off to a Sikh in the Punjab. With the aid of Interpol and the Indian
authorities, the UK's Mr Justice Singer ensured that Anita was brought back to England before
her eighteenth birthday so that she could be made a ward of court.[1]

A young Punjabi girl, born and brought up in England, was sent to India by her parents after she
declared that she wanted to marry an English man, her colleague - a constable in county police.
Her parents neither opposed the proposal nor gave their assent to it, but quietly persuaded her
to visit India for some time. When the unsuspecting girl arrived at her ancestral home in
Garhshankar, she was forcibly detained there and an attempt was made to marry her off to a
Punjabi boy of her community.[2]

Forced marriage fears in Punjab

Massive migration from areas of Punjab has led to forced marriages
For 21-year-old Sikh woman Rupneet Kaur (not her real name), the New Year finally brought
some hope.
On 5 January, a two-member team from the British High Commission in Delhi - with the help of
the district administration - recovered Miss Kaur from the house of her maternal uncle in a
Punjab village in Nawanshahar district.[3]

Forced marriages have been a major talking point in recent times and much has been done to stem this
oppressive tide. Admittedly this problem exists in the Muslim community; however, it is endemic only
amongst those Muslims who have chosen to contravene the clear edicts stipulated in the Holy Islamic Law
(Shari'ah). Such a practice cannot be justified in any shape or form since a clear prohibition of this
disgusting practice can be found in the revelatory scriptures of Islaam.

The question is: Can the same be said of Sikhi scripture?

[1]
Spiked Liberties - Forced marriages: no simple solution, by Para Teare
[2]
Forces unite to tackle ‘forced marriages', by Prabhjot Singh
[3]
By Khushwant Ahluwalia (BBC News, Punjab) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4172167.stm

ISLAMIC FORBIDDANCE OF FORCED MARRIAGES

Allaah says in the Qur'an:

"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor
should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the
dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open
lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity.
If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allaah
will bring about through it a great deal of good." (Qur'an 4:19)

Commenting on this verse, the commentator Ibn Katheer wrote:

"That is, have kind speech for them; deal with them with kind deeds and in a beautiful
manner to the best of your ability. In the way that you love that from them, behave in
that way towards them. As Allaah has said, "They have rights similar to those upon
them according to what is right." (Qur'an 2:228) The Messenger of Allah said: "The
best of you is the best of you to his wives and I am the best of you to my wife." It was
from his behaviour that he would treat them in a beautiful fashion, with a smiling
face. He would sport with his wives, be gentle with them and spend generously upon
them. He would laugh with his wives and he even raced 'A'ishah...Every night, he would
gather his wives together in the house of the one with whom he was going to spend the
night and eat dinner with them on occasion...After he prayed the night prayer, he would
enter his house and talk to his wife a little bit before sleeping, making them comforted
thereby. And Allaah has said: "You have in the Messenger of Allah the best
example." (Qur'an 33:21)

Indeed the Muslim who fears His Lord above and hopes for His Mercy is continuously mindful of the
following Prophetic tradition:

Ma'qil ibn Yassaar said: I heard the Prophet (blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: "There is no
person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them
properly, except that he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim)

Abu Hurairah said: "The Messenger of Allaah ordered: 'Be kind [with the COMMAND VERB:
'Be Kind'] to women.'" (Ibid)

"The most perfect believers are the best in character, and the best of you are the kindest to their
families."[1]

Hence, the parents must take care of their children and give them their rights, as legislated by their
Creator, in order to avoid the threat of punishment.

On the authority of Al-Miqdaam ibn Ma'dee, the Prophet (blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood in front of
the people and said: "Verily Allaah commands you to be good to women. Verily Allaah commands
you to be good to women. Verily Allaah commands you to be good to women[repeating it three
times],[2] for certainly they are your mothers, daughters, and aunts, and indeed a man from the people of
the Book (Jews and Christians) will marry a poor young woman and neither one of them will desire to
leave (divorce) the other until they die of old age." [3]

The Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allaah be upon him) in many traditions emphasised the importance
of good conduct and treatment towards daughters:

"He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them,
they will be a protection for him against Hell-Fire." (Al-Bukhaari & Muslim)

"Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day
like this; and he joined his fingers together." (Muslim)

"He who has a daughter and he does not bury her alive, humiliate [insult or degrade] her and
does not give preference to his son over her, such a person will be granted entry to
Paradise by Allaah." [4]
 Ibn 'Abbaas transmitted that the Prophet said: "A Muslim who has two daughters whom he
treats well when they accompany him or when he accompanies them is admitted to
Paradise."[5]

On the authority of Abu Huraira: "The Prophet said: 'Whoever had three daughters and showed
patience in their keeping, their pleasure and displeasure, Allah admits him to Paradise for his
mercy over them. A man asked, 'And what about two daughters, O Messenger of Allaah? He said:
'And two daughters as well." Another asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, what about one daughter?"
He said: 'And one daughter as well."[6]

"Be just and fair to your children; be just and fair to your children; be just and fair to your
children, (repeating it thrice – see footnote [2])." (Al-Bukhaari & Muslim)

From the aspects of rights that children are afforded, from the absolute Justice and Fairness of Allaah, is
that it is absolutely impermissible to force women into marriage. The Prophet said:

"The widow and the divorced woman shall not be married until their order is
obtained, and the virgin shall not be married until her consent is obtained." (Al-
Bukhaari)

"Once a virgin girl came to the Prophet and said that her father had married her to a
man against her wishes. The Prophet gave her the right to repudiate the
marriage." (Sunan Abu Dawood)

Significantly, Imaam al-Bukhaari entitled a chapter from his Saheeh collection:

"When a man gives his daughter in marriage and she dislikes it, the marriage shall be
annulled."

Many societies enforce the idea that a widow was not allowed to marry but to stay single. Allaah in Islaam
gave divorced women freedom to contract another marriage. Allaah says:

"And when you divorce women, and they have come to the end of their waiting
period, hinder them not from marrying other men if they have agreed with
each other in a fair manner." (Qur'an 2:232)

With regard to widows, Allaah says:

"And if any of you die and leave behind wives, they bequeath thereby to their
widows (the right to) one year's maintenance without their being obliged to
leave (their husband's home), but if they leave (the residence) of their own
accord, there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves in a lawful
manner." (Qur'an 2:234)

Furthermore, the Prophet Muhammad clearly stipulated that a forced marriage is in fact null and void:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbaas: "Barira's husband was a slave called Mughith, as if I am seeing
him now, going behind Barira and weeping with his tears flowing down his beard. The
Prophet said to 'Abbaas, "O 'Abbaas! Are you not astonished at the love of Mughith for
Barira and the hatred of Barira for Mughith?" The Prophet then said to Barira, "Why
don't you return to him?" She said, "O Messenger of Allaah! Do you order me to do
so?" He said, "No! I only intercede for him." She said, "I am not in need of him." (Al-
Bukhaari)

In a further tradition, it was narrated:

Khansa Bint Khidam said: "My father married me to his nephew, and I did not like this match, so
I complained to the Messenger of Allaah (blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said to me:
"Accept what your father has arranged." I said: "I do not wish to accept what my father has
 arranged."
He said: "Then this marriage is invalid, go and marry whomever you wish." I said: "I have
accepted what my father has arranged, but I wanted women to know that fathers have no
right in their daughter's matters (i.e. they have no right to force a marriage on them)." [7]

This is how clear Islaam is in relation to details of life that must be apparent for humankind to sustain the
balance in life, which will uphold the highest level of moral standards – a guidance from the all-Wise and
Merciful Creator.

As a side note, Islaam also went as far as to prohibit two suitors from competing against each other for
the hand of a woman. The Prophet disapproved of two persons competing with one another to secure
marriage with the same woman. This is because such a situation is likely to develop bitter enmity between
two Muslim brothers, which is forbidden in Islaam due to the emphasis of brotherhood/ sisterhood. The
Prophet said:

"A believer is a brother of a believer. Hence it is not lawful for him to bargain
upon the bargain of a brother, nor propose for (the hand of a girl) after the
marriage proposal of his brother, until the latter (voluntarily) withdraws the
proposal." (Saheeh)

[1]
Abu Dawood, Sunna:15; at-Tirmidhee, Rada':11
[2]
NOTE: It is well known that when the Prophet repeated something thrice, it signified extreme
importance and a command that should not be neglected.
[3]
At-Tabaraanee's Mu'jam Al-Kabeer. Authenticated by Al-Albaanee in As-Saheehah no.2871
[4]
Abu Dawud, 5/5146; Al-Hakim who corrected it 4/177, approved by Adh-Dhahabi
[5]
Al-Bukhaari in Al Adab Al Mufrad (77); Ibn Abu Sheiba, 8/551; Ahmad which is corrected by Sheikh
Shaker (2104); Ibn Majah (3670); and others.
[6]
Its authority amended by Al-Hakim, agreed upon by Al-Zahaby, 4/176
[7]
Fathul Bari Sharah Al Bukhari 9/194, Ibn Majah Kitabun Nikah 1/602

THE SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB SOLUTION?

In comparison, however, our contention is that Sikhism's Holy Scripture - Sri Guru Granth Sahib - has
absolutely no clear proclamation prohibiting forced marriages. We assert that out of the ten Gurus who
presided over their people; were engaged and cognisant of the cultural practices of Hindustan between
1469 CE to 1708CE (239 years), not one recorded an unequivocal, unambiguous prohibition to this
practice. The question is:

Why?

It is inconceivable to imagine these erudite men; leaders of thousands; role models for generations,
unaware of this social disease being practiced in their midst. Hence, it is safe to assume they knew; but
yet they chose to remain silent:

Why?

What was the mission of the true Messengers of God? (Please read) - TRUE MESSENGERS OF GOD

Is this mission consistent with what the 10 Gurus did?

We say: No!
Thus, we ask the question:

Where are these revolutionary rights of women in Sikhism so often lauded as a substitute to Islaam?

If this right is absent in a divinely proclaimed scripture, are we to assume the Most Merciful Creator
considered this subject unimportant?
 "But if they answer you not, then know that they only follow their own lusts. And who
is more astray than one who follows his own lusts, without guidance from Allaah?
Verily, Allaah guides not the people who are evil-doers." (Qur'an 28:50)

It is for this reason that Sikhs were forced centuries after the death of their last Guru - Gobind Singh - to
desperately formulate Rehat Maryadas to solve the shortcomings in their world view, such as the
following:

Anand Sanskar (Lit. Joyful Ceremonial: Sikh Matrimonial Conventions and Ceremony)
Article XVIII
(a) A Sikh man and woman should enter wedlock without giving thought to the prospective
spouse's caste and descent.
(b) A Sikh's daughter must be married to a Sikh.[1]

However, we pose the question:

What did the Gurus say in relation to forced marriages during their time before these laws were
drawn up? Further, what did the Sikhs do between the period marking the end of Guruship and
the formulation of these laws?

It is clear that this problem remains in Sikhism.

Let us take the following scenario:

A father lures his daughter back to his homeland in an attempt to coerce her through blackmail
and threats to marry a man she has no desire to marry. Now, if a Sikh attempted to dissuade the
father from such subtle coercion, let alone the more apparent forms, and used indirect proofs
from the Adi Granth, such as, verses stipulating the impermissibility of using force and
oppression, or what Guru Amar Das said: "dhhan pir eaehi n aakheean behan eikat(h)ae
hoe
eaek joth dhue moorathee dhhan pir keheeai soe
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"[2]; the father could
quite easily turn around and say that he is in the best position to decide his daughter's future,
thereby interpreting away the indirect proofs in order to justify his actions.
However, if a proof existed where a non-consensual marriage would be null and void with a
declaration that forcing daughters into marriage was forbidden, such a predicament could never
arise.

Hence, unlike the Muslims who can turn to clear, unequivocal, unambiguous proofs from their Holy
Scripture to emphatically condemn this oppression, the Sikhs, alas, cannot.

[1]
http://www.sikhs.org/reht4.htm#art18
[2]
Raag Sohee Page 788

SOTERIOLOGY

The doctrine of soteriology is the study of salvation.

It is a reality shared by both Muslims and Sikhs, and yet in a markedly different way. Indeed, the salvific
modality and understanding of each is in such stark contrast that only one conclusion can be reached; that
is, both are mutually exclusive.
It stands to reason, therefore, that only one teaching in respect to this subject, and leading on to
encompass the whole religion, can be defined as true. Either Guru Nanak was correct or Prophet
Muhammad (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him).
We will, by the permission of Allaah, attempt to show to the rational minded sincere individual, looking to
follow the Truth from Allaah, that the Sikhi's formulative doctrine is untenable, inconsistent and violates
the absolute perfection of Allaah's Justice.
 Once again, as mentioned in our Aim, we call you out of empathy and care with all sincerity seeking only
the face of Allaah, and not intending to cause offence.

Burning the dead - How moral and ethical is this Hindu-invented

Cremating the Rights of the Dead
mode of disposal?

A critical look at the ceremony known as Sukhasan that sees

The Sleeping Book
SGGS taken to 'Sach Khand' - its resting place for the night!

The Absurdities of Examining the classical Eastern view of multiple chances at life in
Reincarnation-Transmigration the form of humans as well as animals

Cremating the Rights of the Dead

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

INTRODUCTION

Imagine living with a loved one your whole life,

walking hand in hand through the long emotional
roller-coaster of life, sharing in the moments of
delight and happiness, and helping to shoulder
the burdens of hardship and adversity - but then,
suddenly, the one you love dies and YOU are
confronted with the horrifying reality of personally
setting to fire his/her body and staring as it spits,
crackles and burns. Imagine then, after going
through this horrendous ordeal, of not being
expected to grieve!
All praise is due to Allaah (alhamdulillaah) for
guiding us to a religion of mercy (deenur-
rahmah) that has laid down a complete guidance
which established the rights for all relevant
aspects of life in order to maintain harmony and
balance:

"And He found you unaware and guided you." (Qur'an 93:7)

"Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the
Scripture and the balance that mankind may maintain justice." (Qur'an 57:25)

"And the heaven He has raised high, and He has set up the perfect balance. Do not
violate the balance." (Qur'an 55:7-8)

Part of this balance is to recognise that the teachings and laws of Islaam came to honour people, as Allaah
says:

"And indeed We have honoured the Children of Adam." (Qur'an 17:70)

Part of this honour is to know the rights established by our Creator. The rights of the mother over her
children and vice-versa, the rights of the wife over the husband and vice-versa, the rights of the leader
over his subjects and vice-versa, rights the animals have over us, the rights of the enemy, the rights of
the neighbours, the rights of the foetus, even the walkway has a right over us, and over all this is the
most important right of God.
Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the one who conveyed to us the laws of our
Lord, he taught us what Allaah has prescribed concerning the dead.
Let us see how this fares with the Sikhi concept of Saskar - funeral/ cremation.

ASHES TO ASHES

Firstly in Islaam, just as the living have rights; likewise, the dead too have rights. The living have the right
of being treated respectfully. A human's honour is sacred and inviolable. Similarly, the deceased too has
rights, part of which is to treat the dead body with respect and not dishonour it.
Secondly, Islaam has ordered that one treat the deceased with utmost respect just as s/he was treated
when alive. Allaah has prescribed for us that when a Muslim dies, s/he should be washed and cleansed,
shrouded in a cloth, preferably white, and then a funeral prayer be offered seeking mercy and forgiveness,
after which s/he must be buried and covered with earth. Hence, it is forbidden in Islaam to burn or
cremate the dead; such an action is considered sacrilegious.
It is forbidden for Muslims to step, walk or sit on the grave, which should not be plastered over or
entombed, how much more abhorrent must it be to burn the deceased?
Thirdly, these funeral rites and practices have been prescribed by revealed law from the beginning with
Prophet Adam up until the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them all); burying the dead has been
the prescribed method of sending off the soul to the next and final abode.
On the other hand, Sikhs believe that once a person has died, the body becomes an extraneous shell.

Why do Sikhs cremate their dead and not bury them?

A: Sikhs, by convention, cremate bodies. It is not a divine rule though. We don't care about the
body, we know the atmaa (soul) has left and all that is left is dirt. We don't care about the
body. Sometimes it is even buried at sea. Why? Because the body is nothing without a soul.
Sikhs are not bound by beliefs that the body will be resurrected on some Day of
Judgement. How will the body, now decayed and turned to soil ever, rise again?[1] And
so Sikhs also do not jam precious land by filling it with dead bodies and then declaring it
"sacred".[2]

It is an interesting answer and indicative of the Sikhi mentality. Sikhs, however, it should be noted, do not
believe that cremation is the only way to go:

Sikhism does not restrict the way in which a dead body may be disposed of. People may bury the
body, throw it in water, cremate it, or treat it in any convenient but respectful way.[3]

Although cremation takes precedence over all other modes of "disposal" as per the following Rehat
Maaryada (Article XIX) on funeral ceremonies:

(c) However young the deceased may be, the body should be cremated. However, where
arrangements for cremation cannot be made, there should be no qualm about the body being
immersed in flowing water or disposed of in any other manner.[4]

We must also acknowledge and pay tribute to the respectful manner in which Sikhs, similar to the
Muslims, take care of the pre-cremated body:

(e) The dead body should be bathed and clothed in clean clothes.[5]

But, the question we pose is that if the body is going to be so disrespectfully discarded anyway, why
bother with these superficialities?
Although the Sikhs are guilty of adopting and carrying on this Hindu man-invented mode of disposal,
albeit with their own separate and unique ceremony style, they should be commended for not carrying on
the superstitious beliefs of the Hindus:

(d) As to the time of cremation, no consideration as to whether it should take place during day or
night should weigh.[6]
(g) Adh marg (the ceremony of breaking the pot used for bathing the dead body amid doleful
cries half way towards the cremation ground), organized lamentation by women,[7] foorhi (sitting
on a straw mat in mourning for a certain period), diva (keeping an oil lamp lit for 360 days after
the death in the belief that that will light the path of the deceased), pind (ritual donating of lumps
of rice flour, oat flour, or solidified milk (khoa) for ten days after death), kirya (concluding the
funeral proceedings ritualistically, serving meals and making offerings by way of shradh, budha
 marna (waving of whisk, over the hearse of an old person's dead body and decorating the hearse
with festoons), etc. are contrary to the approved code. So too is the picking of the burnt bones
from the ashes of the pyre for immersing in the Ganga, at Patalpuri (at Kiratpur), at Kartarpur
Sahib or at any other such place.[8]

However, an action that has been stipulated in Sikhism, although noted it is not in SGGS, which is similar
to what the Hindus practice, is the following:

(f) When the pyre is burnt out, the whole bulk of the ashes, including the burnt bones, should be
gathered up and immersed in flowing water or buried at that very place and the ground leveled
[sic].

In Islaam, the Qur'an so poetically describes the humble state of mind and the actions of a true believer in
Allaah:

"The worshippers of the Most Merciful are those who tread the earth with humility..."
(Qur'an 25:65)

How far away is this from this instruction that pays no mind to the blatant pollution of water? We can only
imagine how much a water source will be polluted when we think of the number of deaths that occur
where Sikhs and Hindus reside. Unfortunately, they seem to give more importance to superstitious
practices than harmful actions!
However, an important observation we have noted is the proven reality that burying the dead is more
environmentally friendly than cremation. This further confirms the dictum that Allaah has "forbidden
for us only what is injurious or harmful for us (or for our environment)".
Some Sikhs have contended that cremation does not take up much space as opposed to huge cemeteries.
But, we would contend that this is relative. The earth is more than spacious enough to accommodate the
dead, and burial is without doubt more environmentally friendly.

This question: "How will the body, now decayed and turned to soil ever, rise again?" was also
[1]

posed by the predecessors of the Sikhs, the polytheistic pagan Arabs, who also rejected the Day of
Resurrection. Allaah answers this question emphatically:

"And they say: 'When we are bones and fragments (destroyed), should we really be
resurrected (to be) a new creation?" Say (O Muhammad): 'Be you stones or iron. Or some
created thing that is yet greater (or harder) in your breasts.' Then, they will say: 'Who shall
bring us back (to life)?' Say: 'He Who created you the first time'" (Qur'an 17:49-51)

"(They ask) 'When we are dead and have become dust and bones, shall we (then) truly be
resurrected? And also our fathers of old?' Say (O Muhammad): 'Yes, and you shall then be
humiliated.' It will be a single Zajrah (the second blowing of the Trumpet), and behold, they
will be staring! They will say: 'Woe to us! This is the Day of Recompense!' (It will be said):
'This is the Day of Judgement which you used to deny.'" (Qur'an 37:16-21)

"They said: 'When we are dead and have become dust and bones, shall we be resurrected
indeed? Truly, this we have been promised - we and our fathers before (us)! This is nothing but
tales of the ancients!' Say (O Muhammad): 'Whose is the earth and whosoever is therein? If
you know!' They will say: 'It is Allaah's!' Say: 'Will you not then remember?' Say: 'Who is (the)
Lord of the seven heavens, and (the) Lord of the Great Throne?' They will say: 'Allaah.' Say:
'Will you then not fear Allaah?' Say: 'In Whose Hand is the sovereignty of everything? And He
protects (all), while against Whom there is no protector, if you know?' They will say: 'To
Allaah.' Say: 'How then are you deceived and turn away from the truth?'" (Qur'an 23:82-89)

[2]
http://www.sikhism101.com/?p=values&ans=8
[3]
http://www.sikhmarg.com/english/chapter02.html
[4]
http://www.sikhs.org/reht4.htm
[5]
Ibid
[6]
Islaam too rejects this superstitious notion: Ibn 'Abbaas narrated: "A man died whom the Prophet used
to visit (during his illness). He died at night and they buried him at night, and when morning came, they
informed him (the Prophet). He said, 'What kept you from telling me?' They said, 'It was night, and it was
dark, and we did not like to disturb you.' He went to his grave and prayed for him." (Al-Bukhari and
Muslim)
The Prophet was buried at night. Imaam Ahmad narrated that 'Aa'ishah said: "We did not know that the
Messenger of Allaah had been buried until we heard the sound of the shovels at the end of the night." Abu
Bakr, 'Uthmaan, 'Aa'ishah and Ibn Mas'ood were all buried at night.
[7]
Prophet Muhammad firmly warned against the exaggerated forms of wailing over the dead, which had
become a customary norm amongst the pre-Islamic Arabs, especially the women, to the extent that he
said: "He is not from us the one who slaps the cheeks, tears the front opening of the shirt or follows the
ways and traditions of the pre-Islamic days of ignorance (jaahiliyyah)." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
Abu Burdah reported: "(My father) Abu Musa got seriously ill and lost his consciousness. His head was in
the lap of a woman of the family and she began to wail. When Abu Musa recovered his consciousness, he
said: 'I am innocent of those from whom Messenger of Allaah is innocent. Truly, the Messenger of Allah
declared himself free of (responsibility) from a woman who wails, shaves her head and tears up her
clothes.'" (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
Al-Mughirah bin Shu'bah said: "I heard the Messenger of Allaah saying, 'He who allows (others) to wail
over his death, will be punished for it on the Day of Resurrection.'" (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
So reprehensible was this deed that the women who came to give their pledge of allegiance to the Prophet
would take this as a specific clause. Umm 'Atiyyah said: "At the time of giving the pledge of allegiance,
the Messenger of Allaah took from us an oath that we would not wail." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
Abu Hurairah said: "The Messenger of Allaah said, 'Two things are signs of disbelief on the part of those
who indulge in them: Slandering one's lineage and wailing over the dead.'" (Muslim)
[8]
http://www.sikhs.org/reht4.htm

CONCLUSION

After what has followed, it brings us back full circle - can burning the body of the deceased really be
described as a "respectful way"?

The Islamic tradition holds as part of its social concept of respect that the body of the deceased must not
be cremated, but rather buried with respect. However, there is also an emotional concept attached to the
action of burying the dead, and that is, to serve as a reminder to the conscientious Muslim that one day
very soon we shall all return to the earth, from whence we came, just like those we have buried. Hence,
the impermissibility of cremation revolves around both a social and emotional concept.

1. To respect the rights of the dead.

2. To serve as a reminder that life is fleeting; that everyone will die and return to their Lord for a
final judgment.

Hence, it is completely untrue for Sikhs to claim that the reason Muslims bury their dead is because of
simply their belief in the Day of Resurrection. The wisdom behind burying in actual fact has nothing to do
with this Final Day and everything to do with respect and practicality.
There is no reminder more important than remembering someone very close to you who was once with
you sharing the joys of life, but has now suddenly left you for the next abode. Indeed, Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"I used to forbid you to visit graves, but now visit them." (Muslim) According to another report:
"...for they will remind you of the Hereafter." (Ahmad, Ibn Maajah)

Since cremations were a common theme in India, the 10 Gurus did not find it objectionable. On the
contrary, they continued the tradition of the Hindus as per their Sikhi worldview.
In a recent article, a leading Sikh organisation expressed its anger after a non-Sikh society had asked, on
behalf of both the Hindus and Sikhs, the right to hold the first open-air cremation in the UK for over 70
years.[1]
This is not only ironic, but also indicative of Sikhism's short-sightedness when one witnesses Sikhs
angered by such an insignificant issue as open-air cremations when compared to the horrible ceremony of
torching the body of their loved ones and watching these corpses burn, crackle and spit.

[1]
http://www.sikhsangat.org/publish/article_1183.shtml
 The Sleeping Book

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

INTRODUCTION

Sikhs show great reverence towards their holy book SGGS. Indeed, Sikhs refer to SGGS as the true guru
in this world - the "Living Guru" - since it is the embodiment of the teachings of their gurus, the
embodiment of divine light, and the eternal word of the Guru.
The Sikhs have conferred to SGGS their reverence, hope, fear, love, devotion, etc.
However, in our estimation, the term "Living Guru" could be taken in the literal sense when one observes
the daily ceremony carried out by the Granthi (Sikh priest) both in the morning and in the evening in a
ritual known as Sukhasan.
In fact, upon close inspection, this ceremony and its subtle nuances literally catapults the term "Living
Guru" into a whole new light.

SUKHASAN CEREMONY

Sikhs have a tendency of accusing other religions of performing empty rituals. This
accusation essentially stems from the founder himself Guru Nanak who dismissively cast
aside the actions of worship in other religions as empty and false displays of piety.
Hence, actions such as salaah (praying), sawm (fasting), circumcision, were haughtily
discarded as either superstitious or irrelevant in accordance to Nanak's world view.
However, when observing Sukhasan, one wonders why this particular ceremony too has
not been placed in the category of empty rituals.

What is this Sukhasan? [1]

Sukh (peace) Asan (position) is the ritual of taking SGGS to 'Sach Khand' - Gurus resting
place for the night!

According to the following account, SGGS is "put to rest":

"Sukhaasan" means "easy pose" or posture of rest, peace and tranquillity. At night after Sodar
Rehraas, Guru Ji's Saroop (Volume) is put to rest (i.e. ceremoniously closed and placed) in a
special room or place, but before being moved, Guru Ji is put into Sukhaasan. In essence, it is
the reverse of the Prakaash ceremony. Sukhaasan takes place after the sun goes down, or at any
time before Guru Ji's Saroop is moved, such as at the completion of Gurdwara ceremony when
Guru Ji is to be moved.[2]

The following is a summary of the Sukhasan ceremony:

1. The Granthi folds clean, white sheets (rumalas) around the SGGS with great respect while
reciting 'Sohila', the night/ bed time prayer.
2. Then the Granthi stands facing the SGGS and recites Ardas (prayer).
The congregation also stands and joins with folded hands and utmost reverence.
3. Ardas is said to offer thanks to the SGGS for the day's benevolence and a humble request for
permission to take Guru Sahib to 'Sach Khand' - Gurus resting place for the night.
At the end of Ardas, everyone bows to the SGGS.
 4. The Granthi carries the SGGS very respectfully on his head, after covering it with a clean towel or
(cotton) cloth, and carries it to 'Sach
Khand' where "Guru Ji will spend the
night".
The Granthi is followed by a devotee
respectfully waving 'Chauri Sahib'
(sacred whisk) over the SGGS.
The Sangat (congregation) follows,
traditionally joining together to sing:
"Wherever my True Guru goes and
sits, that place is beautiful, O Lord
King. The Guru's Sikhs seek out that
place; they take the dust and apply
it to their faces. The works of the
Guru's Sikhs, Who meditate on
Vaheguru's Name, are approved.
Those who worship the True Guru, O
Nanak - Vaheguru causes them to be
worshipped in turn. (Ang 450,
SGGS)"
5. The SGGS is placed in 'Sach Khand',
an upstairs room, for its nightly rest.
It is placed on a manji/ bed.
6. On completion, the Sach Khand lights
are switched off and the
congregation bows respectfully and takes leave of the SGGS.

The above gives a whole new meaning to the term "Living". Coupled with explanations such as: reciting
'Sohila', the night/ bed time prayer (incidentally, this is the same prayer usually recited during the
ceremony of cremation), placed on a manji (bed), Sach Khand - Gurus resting place for the night, devotee
respectfully waving 'Chauri Sahib' (sacred whisk) over the book SGGS, and requests of seeking permission
in transporting SGGS, one is forced to ask the question whether this book is just created matter or really a
living entity?
When one has a specific locality for this book to be transported for the night after wrapping it up
meticulously, tenderly and cosily in white sheets, carrying it to a bed (manji) whilst waving a so-called
'sacred whisk' over it, and then turning off the lights after bidding it farewell by saying "Wahe Guru ji da
Khalsa Wahe Guru ji da Fateh", one is forced to ask the pertinent question:

If this is not idol worship then what is?

[1]
The following link is a full video detailing the ceremony: http://www.cleo.net.uk/resources/...Sukh
Asan.html
[2]
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Sukhasan

A SLEEPING DEITY

For the Muslims, this type of ritualism is nothing more than deifying a created thing and elevating it to an
object of worship. In Islaam, this is the greatest crime one could commit against the Creator - to take
worship, which is an exclusive right of the Creator, and direct it to other than Him. It is known as Shirk
(associating partners in the worship of Allaah) and it is so severe that Allaah has warned in no uncertain
terms:

"Truly Allaah will NEVER forgive Shirk, but He shall forgive whatsoever is lesser than
that to whomsoever He Wills. And whoever commits Shirk with Allaah has invented a
tremendous sin." (Qur'an 4:48)

"Truly he who commits Shirk, then Paradise will be forbidden for Him and Hell-Fire
shall be his abode, wherein he shall find no helpers." (Qur'an 5:72)
 "And indeed it has been revealed to you (O Muhammad) just as it was to those who
came before you: 'If you commit Shirk, indeed (all) your deeds will be negated and you
will be from among the losers (in the hereafter)'." (Qur'an 39:65)

However, the Sukhasan ceremony is not unique to Sikhism. There are millions of Hindus and thousands of
mandirs (temples) who have been practicing a similar ceremony of waking up and putting to sleep their
false deities for thousands of years.

THE HINDU SUKHASAN

"Allaah! None has the right to be worshipped except He, the Ever-Living, the Self-
Subsisting. Neither sleep nor slumber can overtake Him..." (Qur'an 2:255)

Early in the morning and late at night, the Hindus, like the Sikhs, sing hymns of devotion, as they open up
the doors to the sanctuary where their idols have been put to rest for the night, and transport them out
into the open for the beginning of another day of idol-worship. The same process is repeated when the
idol is put back to rest.

Suprabhatam, literally an auspicious dawn, is a name given to Sanskrit hymns recited in the
morning to awaken the Lord.[1]
In the morning before sunrise, the murtis (idols) that are dressed in their nightwear are woken
up by the Sadhus (priests) and the shrine doors are opened for the first [Mangala arti] of five
'arti' prayers during that day.
The shrines are then opened a final time for the Shayan arti, with the lights dimmed and lower
music, the devotees then recite a few hymns, gently sending the deities to sleep, and the shrines
are then closed for the night.[2]

And similar to the Sikhs, they too display great reverence and show meticulous care in their ritual
ceremony. As with the Sikhs who seek permission from the SGGS before transporting it, the Hindus too
inquire about the welfare of the deity by welcoming it, asking about its journey and whether it faced any
problem coming to the place of puja (worship). This is known as svagata. Similar to the manji, asana
involves offering the deity a seat. And like the chauri sahib waved over the SGGS, pushpanjali - flowers
are offered to the idol, dhupa - incense is lit, and dipa - a lamp too is lit.

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprabhatam
[2]
http://neasdentemple.quickseek.com/

CONCLUSION

We can only conclude that the Sikhs sukhasan ceremony is nothing more than a classic display of idol-
worship.
We feel there is nothing more to say here other than to seek refuge in Allaah and ask Him to guide us
towards the Truth and His correct worship and away from the darkness of idol-worship. How true are
Allaah's words when He says:

"And whoever worships along with Allaah any other object of worship [like the SGGS],
have NO PROOFS for that. His judgment will be with his Lord. Indeed the disbelievers
will never succeed." (Qur'an 23:117)

We leave you with the account of a scholar from Yemen, Shaykh Yahyaa al-Haajooree, who visited England
in 1998. There he was taken to a Hindu temple in London to see for himself idol-worship being practiced in
the flesh:

"We also went to the Hindu place of worship, which is called a Temple, and it was very big. They
said that it was the second largest temple and that there couldn't be found a temple bigger than
this one except in India. A person who claimed to be from 'Aden took us for a tour in it. He told
us that they also had a temple in 'Aden but it was small. Then he brought us to a cow in the
temple, which the people were going to. The men would prostrate with their hands stretched out
 in front of it. A man would throw his hands out as far as he could and then prostrate to it five
times in that condition of extending his hands out. Then he would stand. As for the woman, then
she would sit in front of it and move her cheek from the right to the left. And they had a number
of statues in that place of worship. When we first came to enter inside, they told us to wait for a
while. We asked why. They responded because their god was sleeping and that we had to wait
until he woke up and then we could enter! So we waited until he woke up and then we entered to
look. And behold their god was a rock in the shape of a statue! So we said: "Where is the god
that woke up." One of the brothers named Hasan Turkee asked them. They pointed to a cow and
male and female private parts." [1]

From the book: "Mushaahadaatee fee Britaaniyah - My Experiences in Great Britain" of Abu 'Abdir-
[1]

Rahmaan Yahyaa bin 'Alee al-Haajooree, pg.32

THE ABSURDITIES OF
REINCARNATION-
TRANSMIGRATION

By Abu Adeeba

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

INTRODUCTION

The belief in Reincarnation and Transmigration is in stark contrast to the belief of, what is commonly
referred to as the "Semitic" religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islaam. In particular, Islaam holds that
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) directed the Muslims to accept and
believe in a Resurrection following death and in a Day of Judgment. The basic understanding, as taught by
all of Allaah's Prophets and Messengers, was:

• The life and reality of this created domain will come to a permanent end on an appointed day.
Everything will be annihilated. That day is referred to as Yawmul-Aakhir - the Last Day.
• All human beings will be restored to life and will stand before Allaah for judgment upon absolute
justice concerning how they lived life.
This is called Hashr - Resurrection.
• The entire record of deeds for every man and woman - all his or her doings and misdoings - will
be presented to him/her including a final judgment.
• The ones who obey Allaah and do righteous good deeds will be rewarded. The ones whose evil
deeds of disobedience outweigh the good deeds will be punished.
• Those who emerge successful in this judgment; for them the doors of eternal bliss will be opened
and they will be admitted to paradise (Jannah), whilst those who are condemned and deserving
of punishment, due to them consciously rejecting the clear truth in life, will be sent to Hell - the
abode of eternal damnation and humiliation.

The belief in Reincarnation-Transmigration of the eastern religions in comparison to the Semitic religions is
mutually exclusive, i.e. contradictory.
Hence, it can be concluded that both cannot be true, but only one is true.

AN EXAMINATION

This treatise will attempt to examine Sikhism's concept of Reincarnation-

Transmigration and show that it contains fundamental flaws that violates the universally accepted attribute
associated to God of absolute perfection - the all-Just ('al-Adl). In doing so, we will show, insha'Allaah
(God-Willing), that this concept is flawed and contradictory, violates the absolute perfection of God, and
must therefore, by necessity, be rejected as false and untrue.

According to the concept of karma, our present life is the result of our past karma. Karma operates in this
life and successive ones. The law of karma does not cease to operate after death. According to Sikhi:

Karma does not mean that everything is pre-ordained and that man has no free-will. He carries his
past Karma in the form of character. It is his own actions that make him what he is. Guru Nanak says,
"The record of my deeds cannot be effaced because God has recorded them." [i]
Keeping in mind that preordainment does not necessitate an absence of freewill, there is a major
problem with this concept of one's life being determined by previous karma.
The first and most obvious is that since we are living this life, then our previous life was an
unsuccessful attempt in achieving moksha, due to our sinful actions. From this comes a question that
must be asked:
What were the mistakes we committed that resulted in our failure to acquire liberation?
According to SGGS: "After union, the separation comes and after separation the union. After living the
span of life, the death comes and after death the life. He becomes the father of many and the son of
many, the disciple and preceptor of many. Their lives in the past and future are countless. Nothing is
known what was in the past and what will be in the future?" (Salok M.1. P 1238)
Hence, according to Sikhism, our past life and actions are unrecollectable.
We are made to go through khand for past misdeeds we are in fact incapable of recalling. Based upon
this, the next question one should ask is:
If one does not know what one is being punished for, then does not the possibility exist of
repeating the same mistake?
The answer is not only an obvious yes; but, the problem is further compounded when we realise that
since we do not know what evil deeds we committed, resulting in failure to liberate ourselves from the
cycle of life and death, then how is it possible for us to learn from our mistakes in order that we do not
repeat them, or worse still, commit worse transgressions?
Leading on from this, if we hold to the concept of "A person reaps what he sows" - "Jehaa beejai so
lunai karma sandraa khet: The man sows so does he reap. Such is the field of actions." (SGGS 134)
- it can safely be said that if one is born under circumstances that could be construed as unfavourable,
then this is simply a case of reaping what was sown in a previous life or lives. For example, if a baby
was born with a deformity or born into a family stricken by extreme poverty, which in either case
would assure a life of difficulty and hardship, and as a result lead to an early death, the question that
would immediately arise is:
Is it just on God's part to punish a person under such unfavourable conditions for past misdeeds that
one has absolutely no knowledge of?

The answer to this question can quite easily be determined when we see children suffering and realise that
this is merely just reward (punishment) for misdeeds committed in some unknown and unrecollectable
past life.

[i]
http://allaboutsikhs.com/mansukh/042.htm

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KARMA AND

THE SUFFERING CHILD
The problem with this relationship is that since it is inexorably linked to the notion of Karma,
Reincarnationists habitually conflate the following two propositions:

(1) Everything has a cause: "The man sows so does he reap. Such is the field of actions." (SGGS
134)

(2) The effect it has on one's present life, including happiness and unhappiness, is determined by
past deeds: "Beej bovas bhog bhogahi keeyaa appnaa pavaye: As are the seeds one plants,
so are the fruits; he receives the consequences of his own efforts."
 (SGGS 705) "Jaisaa kare so taisaa paavai. Aap beej aape he khavai: Man is rewarded
according to his actions; as he sows, so does he eat or reaps." (SGGS 662)

These are quite distinct claims and neither implies the other. Subject to certain qualifications, (1) is
plausible but (2) is not, and it is the latter which reincarnationists need for their argument.

The idea that Karma is a "Law", if it can be defined as such, which operates autonomously, i.e.
automatically produces the appropriate results like any other law in the natural domain, nobody can cheat
the law and that it is as inexorable as any natural law, on the face of it sounds reasonable.
However, let a further examination determine how just this "Law" really is.

Going back to the example of the child born with a deformity or one that suffers terribly and then dies, we
can examine the implications in light of the following:

1. The child's suffering is directly related to sins committed in previous lives.

2. The child's parents are likewise suffering the pain and anguish as a result of their own sins
committed in their own respective past lives.

SGGS: "Daddai dos na deyoo kisai dos krammaa aapanyaa. Jo mai keeyaa so mai paayaa dos na
deejai avar janaa: Do not blame anyone else; blame instead your own actions. Whatever I did, for that I
have suffered; I do not blame anyone else." (SGGS 433)

Before we determine how just and humane this concept is, we have to realise certain factors.

Recalling that the parents and child have no recollection of their past lives in terms of sins and
transgression to justifiably warrant them being reborn, we can, thus, see clear absurdities that lead us to
inevitable conclusions of injustice when we consider the following:

(A) Personality and self-awareness developed over one lifetime comes to an end after we die.
(B) Upon being reborn, there is absolutely no trace of ones personality and self-awareness from
any so-called previous life.
(C) Hence, if a completely new personality and a totally different self awareness exist, then
various reincarnations, extending over a period of time, are no more significantly linked than
the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time.
The questions that needs to be asked is:

1. How is it possible to justify the suffering of a person as a deserved

punishment for previous sins when one has absolutely no recollection of the transgressions
committed in a past life?

2. Is there any difference between this and accusing a newly born child, who has no means of
determining the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, of possessing a sinful nature
before it has acquired the faculties of reason - similar to the Christian notion of Original Sin?

If there is no connection between ones previous life and the next in terms of personality and self-
awareness, it stands to reason, therefore, that actions of a previous life are separate, distinct and
unconnected to the next life. This implies that an innocent person will be punished for crimes committed
by another said person, i.e. one person accumulates karma and another completely independent person
with a different personality will suffer the consequences. It is a case of 'one person sows and a different
person reaps', since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation to the next. This is
not only unfair, but fundamentally contradicts the idea of perfect justice. From this absurdity, can it
therefore be said that Hitler will suffer for his sins in the next life? No! Since there is no continuity
between the person of Hitler and that of the individual who has to endure, presumably, the severe
hardships incurred by Hitler's karma.
The only conclusion one can arrive at is that not only will an innocent person be unduly punished, but
Hitler himself will go unpunished for his crimes against humanity because he ceased to exist! As a result,
it is not possible to justify punishment for past actions (deeds) that are neither connected to one's present
existence nor recollectable, let alone being able to justify it for an innocent child. Moreover, this child, for
all intents and purposes, is innocent of those unrecollectable yet incriminating actions since it has
absolutely no means of learning from them.

In Islaam, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the pen for the
recording of actions and deeds in life, including the judgment, is lifted i.e. suspended, in such cases where
one has either not developed the means or lost the ability to rationalise, i.e. the use of sound reasoning
and moral judgment:

"The pen has been lifted for three: the insane until he regains his sanity, the child until he
reaches puberty (age of discernment), and the sleeper until he wakes up."

And yet, under the Karmic worldview, this child is not only held accountable for unrecollectable actions,
but must also be deemed and described as a guilty sinner! The ramifications are of course shocking to say
the least and in light of this, we can do nothing but come to the harrowing conclusion that in relation to
the suffering child, God must be described as unjust.

We seek refuge in Allaah!

In Islaam, the suffering of the child is not due to previous sins. On the contrary, it occurs due to factors
external to it and beyond its control by the decree of Allaah. It cannot be said that the child is being
punished since punishment is only meted out upon the one who commits sins and transgressions. As for
the suffering of a child then this could either be due to punishment meted out upon others with whom it is
associated to, e.g. parent's being punished for their transgressions and evil deeds, the consequences of
which directly affects the child, or Allaah is testing the parents to see how they will react in the face of
their child's suffering. In both cases the child is considered innocent from any personal blame.

It is from the distinguishing characteristics of God's absolute justice that He punishes the guilty after they
have been informed clearly of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, with evidence
established against them. This is certainly true for Islaam as Allaah says in the Holy Qur'an:

"...And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning). And when We would
destroy a town (population), We would (firstly) send a definite order (to obey Allaah) to those
among them who live at ease. Then afterwards they would transgress, thus the word (of
torment) was justified against them.
And We would then destroy them utterly." (Qur'an 17:15-16)

However, this does not hold true for the Karmic theory, which assigns guilt, blame and punishment for
unrecollectable past woes unbeknown to the unfortunate victim. Hence, the potential for rectification, by
learning from these previous errors, does not exist.

AN EXAMINATION OF REAL-LIFE SCENARIOS

Can the defender of Karma admit that some suffering is outrageously severe or must he say that
all suffering is a priori just and necessarily deserved merely because it occurs?
[Philosophical Quarterly, 1965, p. 151, Steinkraus]

In light of what has preceded, let us examine other real life scenarios by attempting to interpret them
under the umbrella of the so-called Karmic Law.

1. What can we say of the incineration of six million Jews by their Nazi exterminators? In
accordance to the theory of Karma, they merely "reaped" what they had "sown". That is to say,
their physical and
mental torture, starvation and eventual murder was no more than what they deserved based
upon the notion that their suffering and eventual demise is connected to transgressions
committed in a past life. In answering the question posed above: "Can the defender of Karma
admit that some suffering is outrageously severe or must he say that all suffering is a priori just
and necessarily deserved merely because it occurs?" we are forced to conclude that suffering in
life, no matter how severe and torturous, is directly proportional to the degree of transgression
 and evil committed by these Jews in a past life. Since the most important factor here is an
inevitable reaping of past crimes, the manner in which this occurs - what can be referred to as:
The Karmic Effect - is seemingly irrelevant. This creedal Fatalism [i] accepted by Sikhism forces
one to an amazing conclusion:
No matter what transpires in life, it is wholly justified and inevitable.
By this rationale, 'The Karmic Effect' for the Jews, i.e. their Nazi exterminators, was merely a
consequence of what they had sown.
Hence, from the viewpoint of the Jews, the action of these Nazis was an inevitable consequence
of what was destined to occur. In other words, the Jews got what they deserved! Do not be
surprising if one is accused of being "Anti Semitic" after forwarding such an explanation!

However, the farce does not end there. Many more mind-boggling absurdities arise that question whether
the theory of Karma is just:

2. Returning to the suffering child. In light of the explanation cited earlier from SGGS: "Do not
blame anyone else; blame instead your own actions. Whatever I did, for that I have suffered; I
do not blame anyone else" (SGGS 433), consider giving the following heartless explanation to the
child's parents: "It all makes sense - your child deserved her fate; she sinned in a
previous life, and the severity of her suffering is directly proportional to the severity of
the sins she committed. What is more, you yourself are, likewise, suffering and there is
no doubt that you are being punished for some serious transgression either in this or
an earlier life or both. You can see that, as always, justice prevails!" Upon receiving such
an heartfelt explanation, how many would not look to take a baseball bat to the cranium of such
an individual!

3. What conclusions would be drawn if we attempted to explain away the deaths of thousands of
people due to a natural disaster? Let us take the example of the great Tangshan Earthquake of
1976 in China, which lasted between 14-16 seconds, leaving a death toll of approximately
242,000 people. Were all these men, women and children, who died so suddenly, simply
deserving of such a fate?
Perhaps they were even a catalyst for the disaster itself! Can we not ask whether nature too is
subject to this deadly Karmic Effect?
Was this disaster meant to occur so that these people payoff the past-debt? And was death the
ultimate and necessary price for those unrecollectable actions they had sown?

If one were to hold to this incredulous Karmic theory, the absurd and inexplicable conclusions reached for
any given scenario in life would not only be morally untenable, but also extremely distasteful,
objectionable and wholly unjustifiable.

It should be noted here that fatalism cannot be applied to Islaam's belief in Divine
[i]

Preordainment.

The difference between the fatalism of Sikhism and Islam's understanding of Divine
Preordainment is explained beautifully by the great scholar Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen,
in his book: "The Divine Pre-Decree and Ordainment of Allaah":

O Brothers, know that the Muslim ummah (nation) is divided into three groups with respect to
Allaah's Pre-Decree:

The First Group: They went overboard in their affirmation of Allaah's Pre-Decree, denying that
the human being has any ability or choice in the matter. They hold that "A person has no ability
or choice - he is controlled and has no free will, just like a tree when it is blown by the wind."
They do not distinguish between a person's action that occur as a result of his choice and an
action of his that occurs without him choosing so. No doubt, these people are astray, because
what is known from the Religion by necessity, and from the intellect and customs, is that a
human being knows the difference between an action he chooses to do and an action he is forced
into doing.

The Second Group: They went to extremes in their affirmation of a person's ability and choice,
such that they negated Allaah having any part in Willing or Choosing or Creating what action a
person does. And they claimed that a person is independently responsible for producing his
action. This is such that a group amongst them went too far, saying: "Allaah does not know what
actions His servants will do until after it occurs from them." These people have also gone to
extremes and shown great radicalism in affirming a human being's ability and choice.

The Third Group: These are the ones who truly believe, and so Allaah has guided them
concerning that which is disagreed upon from the truth. They are Ahlus- Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah
[the people of the Prophetic guidance of Muhammad and those who follow him]. They have
treaded the moderate path and the middle course, which is based on religious and logical proofs
and evidences. And they say: The actions that Allaah introduces into existence are divided into
two types:

First: The actions from Allaah that He causes to occur in His Creation. No one has any choice in
regard to these actions, and they are such as when rain descends, when the earth produces
vegetation, when life or death occurs, when health or sickness befalls and so on and so forth -
from the many things that can be observed occurring within the creation. Without doubt, no one
has any part in choosing or willing for these things to transpire, but rather it is only Allaah who
wills that to happen.

Second: The actions that the creation, i.e. all of the various types of creatures that possess a
willingness, do. These actions occur as a result their choosing and wanting to do them, since
Allaah gave them the ability to do that, as He says:

"To whoever amongst you wills to go straight." (Surah At-Takweer: 28)

And He says:

"Among you is he who desires the worldly life and among you is he who desires the
Hereafter." (Surah Aali 'Imraan: 152)

And He says:

"So whoever wishes, then let him believe, and whoever wishes then let him disbelieve."
(Surah Al-Kahf: 29)

A human being knows the difference between what occurs from him as a result of his own free
will and what occurs from him as a result of being compelled and forced. So for example, when a
human being climbs a ladder to get to the roof of a house, he ascends the ladder out of his own
free will, and while knowing that he freely chose to do so. But when he trips and falls down from
the roof, he knows that he did not choose to do that. So he can tell the difference between these
two actions - that he freely chose to do the former, while he was compelled to do the latter. Every
human being knows this.

...We stated previously that: The Divine Pre-Ordainment is a hidden secret, you have no way of
finding out about it. So right now, you are between two paths - a path that will take you to
salvation and success, and a path that will take you to destruction and regret. So right now, you
are standing between these two paths with a free choice. There is no one in front of you
preventing you from taking the right path or the left path. If you wish, you can go here, and if
you wish, you can go there. So how can you take the left path and say: "This has been pre-
decreed for me!" Isn't it more befitting for you to take the right path and say: "This has been
pre-decreed for me!"

And if you want to go on a journey to some other country and before you lies two roads, one of
which is paved, short and safe, while the other is unpaved, long and dangerous, we would find
you choosing the short, paved and safe road and not the other one. So this figurative road is
similar to it and doesn't differ from it at all.
However, it is the souls and desires that sometimes govern and take over the mind.
The believer must take over and control his desires. And when his mind judges, the mind,
according to its correct meaning, should prevent a person from what harms it and lead it to what
benefits and pleases it.
 With this it becomes clear that people have a free choice when it comes to their actions, and that
they are not coerced. And just as he has a free choice in the acts of his worldly affairs, if he wills
he will put out this product or make that his business, then likewise he has a free choice with
regard to the affairs of the Hereafter. In fact, the paths of the Hereafter are clearer by far than
the paths of this worldly life, because the One who clarifies the paths of the Hereafter is Allaah, in
His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So
the paths of the Hereafter are clearer and more lucid than the paths of the worldly life.

This shows that Islam does not hold in anyway that Allaah punishes mankind for actions committed in the
past in which they have no choice. According to Islaam, people fall into trials and tribulation, or receive
punishment after they have consciously chosen to disobey the commandments and violate the edicts of
their Lord, i.e. they have knowledge of right and wrong and based upon this they continue to go ahead
and do wrong, before they are subjected to any type of worldly punishment.

KARMA ABDICATES PERSONAL

RESPONSIBILITY

On the face of it, the Karmic theory seems alluring since it merely shifts the immediate consequences of
one's actions to past lives. However, when viewed holistically, this concept leads not only to apathy, but
also a very real undermining of the meaning of the term: personal responsibility.

We have seen that all outcomes in life are inexorably linked to the actions of past lives. From this it was
understood that blame cannot be assigned to a person or people who choose to do a particular action
since these actions, and the results, are a direct consequence of actions carried out in previous lives.

This concept shifts any immediate blame from the one who consciously committed wrong to his/her
alleged past life. Hence, the Karmic theory abdicates complete personal responsibility from that person
and places it squarely upon unrecollectable past lives, which, as we saw, has no real tangible connection
to one's present life.

It is an incredible proposition that this theory provides one with the excuse of shrugging off responsibility
for any wrongdoing with the comforting thought that they were merely forced to enact actions in order to
pay off some mysterious karmic debt.

LEVELS OF SIN AND PUNISHMENT

We come to the question of whether Sikhism provides any indication of "levels of sin" that determines
what the consequences would be for a person in the next life, e.g. a person who is a thief will come back
as a rat.
This differentiation and categorisation is necessary since all actions, be they good or evil; differ in terms of
the degree of good and evil. Hence, murder is recognised as being more evil than swearing. Hence, the
punishment for murder is more severe. This understanding is important because it not only serves as a
means of dissuading people from carrying out actions recognised to be major sins, but also reflects God's
absolute justice. We as social human beings have recognised and implemented that the severity of
punishment is directly proportional to the severity of the crime committed. If this is known to us, then it
stands to reason that the One we recognise to be all-Knowledgeable and all-Wise has a greater right of
knowing this. Further, it would be unjust on His part to have knowledge of this categorisation, and not
inform us in order to bring about clarity and consistency.
We know that the precursor to Sikhism - Hinduism, affirms Reincarnation and Transmigration, and has
established, for example, the following categorisation of "levels of sin" and punishment:

"The murderer of a brahmin becomes consumptive, the killer of a cow becomes hump-backed
and imbecile, the murderer of a virgin becomes leprous - all three born as outcastes. The slayer
of a woman and the destroyer of embryos becomes a savage full of diseases; who commits illicit
intercourse, a eunuch; who goes with his teacher's wife, disease-skinned. The eater of flesh
becomes very red; the drinker of intoxicants, one with discoloured teeth...
Who steals food becomes a rat; who steals grain becomes a locust... perfumes, a muskrat;
honey, a gadfly; flesh, a vulture; and salt, an ant.... Who commits unnatural vice becomes a
village pig; who consorts with a Sudra woman becomes a bull; who is passionate becomes a
lustful horse.... These and other signs and births are seen to be the karma of the embodied,
made by themselves in this world. Thus the makers of bad karma, having experienced the
 tortures of hell, are reborn with the residues of their sins, in these stated forms." (Garuda Purana
5 [Similar punishments are figured by The Laws of Manu 12, 54-69])

The question we ask is:

Does Sikhism provide this type of categorisation that differentiates "levels of sin" and its
subsequent punishment?

Yes it does:

a(n)th kaal jo lashhamee simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai

sarap jon val val aoutharai
aree baaee gobidh naam math beesarai rehaao
a(n)th kaal jo eisathree simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
baesavaa jon val val aoutharai
a(n)th kaal jo larrikae simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
sookar jon val val aoutharai
a(n)th kaal jo ma(n)dhar simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
praeth jon val val aoutharai
a(n)th kaal naaraaein simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
badhath thilochan thae nar mukathaa peetha(n)bar vaa kae ridhai basai
At the very last moment, one who thinks of wealth, and dies in such thoughts, shall be
reincarnated over and over again, in the form of serpents.
O sister, do not forget the Name of the Lord of the Universe.
At the very last moment, he who thinks of women, and dies in such thoughts, shall be
reincarnated over and over again as a prostitute.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of his children, and dies in such thoughts, shall be
reincarnated over and over again as a pig.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of mansions, and dies in such thoughts, shall be
reincarnated over and over again as a goblin.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of the Lord, and dies in such thoughts, says Trilochan,
that man shall be liberated; the Lord shall abide in his heart.
(Bhagat Trilochan, Raag Gujri, p.526 SGGS)

The sheer absurdity of the above is apparent to see. Even if one's final thoughts before death is for the
concern of his wife and children, as maybe the case for most if not all, this is considered blameworthy and
will cause one to transmigrate as a pig or prostitute! Is it not possible for one to think of his Lord and also
hope for the well-being of his family prior to death?
It seems unjust of God to hold one responsible for mere thoughts. How many things must race by for a
person who is about to die? The aforementioned Hindu categorisation of "levels of sin" and punishment at
least holds one responsible not just for mere thoughts, but for actualising those thoughts into action. Here
in Sikhism, just the mere thought or intention is enough to condemn a person.
How Merciful (ar-Rahmaan), Generous, Kind (al-Kareem) and Just (al-'Adl) is Allaah who rewards the
good-doers from His over-flowing bounties (thu-Fadhalil-'Atheem) and forgives bad deeds. The Prophet of
Mercy, Muhammad (peace be upon him), said:

"Allaah has forgiven my ummah (nation) for thoughts that cross their minds, so long as they do not
speak of them or act upon them." (Muslim 127)

And he said:

"Allaah has decreed hasanaat (good deeds) and sayi'aat (bad deeds), then He explained it. Whoever
intends to do a good deed, but does not do it, Allaah will write it down as one complete hasanah; if he
intends to do it and does it, Allaah will write it down as (a figure) between ten and seven hundred
hasanaat, or more. Whoever intends to do a bad deed, but he does not do it, Allaah will write it down as
one complete hasanah; if he intends to do it and does it, Allaah will write it down as one sayi'ah (only)."
(Al-Bukhaari 81)
THE ORIGIN OF BAD KARMA
According to the Karmic theory, our Karma is an accumulation of evil actions stemming from past lives
and is responsible for suffering in this life.
However, a unique dilemma arises.
If we take the present life to be the 100th life and the suffering that occurs is from the 99th life and
the Karma of the 99th life stemmed from the 98th life, etc. one would eventually come to life number
one. Since there was no life before the 1st, the question we ask is:
Where did this karma originate from?

According to SGGS, we began to believe our mind and body to be our own, which resulted in the cycle of
birth and rebirths:

"kaachae bhaaddae saaj nivaajae anthar joth samaaee.

jaisaa likhath likhiaa dhhur karathai ham thaisee kirath kamaaee.
man than thhaap keeaa sabh apanaa eaeho aavan jaanaa.
jin dheeaa so chith n aavai mohi andhh lapattaanaa.
He created and adorned the earthen vessels (human bodies) and infused His Light within them. As is
the destiny pre-ordained by the Creator, so are the deeds we do. The human began to believe that
the mind and body were all his own; this is the cause of his coming (births) and going
(rebirths). He does not think of the One who gave him these; he is blind, entangled in emotional
attachment." (AGGS, M 5, p. 882)
The question that follows is:
When did this occur and what was the initial reason behind man acquiring this free-thinking
aberration?
Guru Arjun Dev in SGGS asks:
"jab kachh na see-o tab ki-aa kartaa kavan karam kar aa-i-aa: When nothing existed, what
deeds were being done? And what Karma caused anyone to be born at all?" (SGGS p.748 Arjun Dev)
Likewise, Bhagat Naam asks:
"Saasat no hotaa Bed naa hotaa karam kahaan te aa-i-aa:
When there was no Shastras and no Vedas, where did the Karma come from?" (SGGS p.973 Nam Dev)

However, this above explanation opens up a whole new can of worms. If the cycle of birth-rebirth was
kick-started by those free-thinking humans, it stands to reason that this cycle of birth-rebirth did not exist
amongst their ancestors. If this is true, then the question is:

What type of belief did they hold and did they only share the understanding of the Semitic
religions of just one life?

Another interesting question is:

Why did these pre-Karmic humans not achieve liberation from the cycle of birth-rebirth and
become one with God?

Had this occurred, the existence of karma would not arise. Or perhaps even more profoundly, they would
not have formulated the reincarnation-transmigrational theory and accepted the just revelatory truth of
Islam.

CONCLUSION

We have seen from the above arguments how the notion of karma leads to absurdities and mind-boggling
scenarios that point to two possible conclusions:

1. God is unjust for subjecting mankind to a countless number of lives, wherein so much suffering is
endured, based upon the indefensible reasons derived from the Karmic Law.
 2. God is all-just, but Sikhism is untrue and man-invented explaining why such insurmountable
problems exist when attempting to justify reincarnation-transmigrations

May Allaah guide us all away from falsehood and towards the clarity and light of our Creator and His Truth
so that our hearts become united upon a singular understanding and worship of Him; brothers and sisters
upon a singular faith and creed.

THE ORIGINAL WORSHIPPERS

By Abu Adeeba & Abu 'Abdur-Rahman

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

INTRODUCTION

Allaah has given humans the faculty of reason. With this we ponder the great mysteries of the world, are
prompted to ask questions, whilst seeking to determine the answers. The inquisitive mind has constantly
sought answers to the most profound aspects of life, a habit not unknown to Allaah since it is He who
instilled within man such curiosity.

In the Holy Qur'an, Allaah is constantly engaging the human mind with questions and queries, prompting
them not just to formulate questions, but to ask the right ones. Such is the profundity of this approach
that it forces the human mind to develop in a way that leads towards Truth through the process of
eliminating the irrelevant and extraneous thoughts and pursuits.

Allaah encourages His servants to think and use their intelligence:

"Will they not then use their intellect?" (Qur'an 2:44; 6:32; 12:109; 21:10; 21:67; 23:80;
28:60)

"Will they then not think deeply?" (Qur'an 30:8)

"Will they then not consider the Qur'an with deep deliberation?" (Qur'an 4:82)

"Indeed in that are signs for people who reason (think/use their intelligence)." (Qur'an
13:4)

"Verily, the worst of all living creatures with Allaah are the deaf and the dumb, who do
not use their intellect." (Qur'an 8:22)

One question that many have asked is:

How and what were our ancestors worshipping?

Was it similar to how we are worshipping or different?

Others have asked a more precise question:

What was the religion of the first humans?

A final revelatory guidance from Allaah needs to cater for these curiosities and answer them for two main
reasons. Firstly, satisfying the curiosity and developing confidence and steadfastness in the worshipper.
Secondly, eliminating the onset of frustration brought about through doubts and confusion in response to
the absence of a satisfactory answer. The answer to these questions not only provides a coherent and
consistent story, but also holds the key to unearthing the inherent inconsistencies found in the historical
myths formulated by the errant religions.
For instance, if it can be determined that God revealed for the first humans a particular religious doctrine;
it stands to reason, thus, that any aberration from this original guidance through the invention of non-
revelatory doctrines must be errant especially if this aberration is contradictory.

In this short article, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), we intend to firstly present the historical model of worship
and creed, giving emphasis over its consistency in relation to the purpose set for all human beings to fulfil
as well as the call of the true Prophets and Messengers.

Once again, our contention will be that such consistency is completely absent in Sikhism. From this we
shall raise probing questions, which are vital in determining the validity of religious pluralism. We shall
also demonstrate the confusion that arises for one who has no access to the type of religious doctrine the
first human beings were upon.

THE HISTORICAL MODEL OF ISLAAM

"And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur'an) as an exposition of everything -
a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to
Allaah as Muslims)." (Qur'an 16:89)

One of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him), Abu Dharr
said:

"When the Messenger of Allaah left us (passed away) there was not a bird that flies but he had
informed us (of something) about it." [1]

If he taught his people something by way of knowledge concerning birds, then one can only imagine, if he
was a Messenger of guidance to lead them "from out of the darkness (of false worship) into the
light (of Islaam)", what knowledge he must have left in relation to the more significant and impactful
aspects of life, concerning both this world and the hereafter.

A Muslims faith in the Truth of Islaam is strengthened knowing that nothing is left to chance, no stone is
left unturned, and the Creator has provided answers for all aspects of life right down to the smallest most
intricate details, which will assist in the further nurturing of one's consciousness of Allaah.

The following is an excerpted explanation given by the great scholar of Islaam Shaykh Muhammad Naasir-
ud-deen al-Albaani describing what the first human beings were upon and the subsequent events that
followed:

From that which has been established in the Sharee'ah (Holy Islamic Law) is that mankind was -
in the beginning - a single nation upon true Tawheed (to single out Allaah for all forms of
worship),[2] then Shirk (directing any part or form of worship, or anything else that is solely the
right of Allaah, to other than Allaah) gradually overcame them. The basis for this is the saying of
Allaah - the Most Blessed, the Most High:

"Mankind was one Ummah (nation), then Allaah sent prophets bringing good
news and warnings." (Qur'an 2:213)

Ibn 'Abbaas [one of the great scholars from the companions of the Prophet] said:

"Between Noah and Adam were ten generations, all of them were upon Sharee'ah (Holy
Islamic Law) of the truth, then they differed. So Allaah sent Prophets as bringers of
good news (paradise, etc.) and as warners (Hell-Fire, etc.)." [3]

Ibn 'Urwah al-Hanbalee (d.837 H) said:

"This saying refutes those historians from the People of the Book who claim that Qaabil
(Cain) and his sons were fire-worshippers." [4]
I (Al-Albaani) say: In it is also a refutation of some of the philosophers and atheists who claim
that the (natural) basis of man is Shirk, and that Tawheed evolved in man! The preceding verse
falsifies this claim, as do the two following authentic hadeeth:

Firstly: His (Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) saying that he related from his Lord
(Allaah): "I created all my servants upon the true Religion (upon Tawheed, free from Shirk).
Then the devils came to them and led them astray from their true Religion. They made unlawful
to people that which I had made lawful for them, and they commanded them to associate
partners in worship with Me, for which I had sent down no authority." [5]

Secondly: His (Muhammad) saying: "Every child is born upon the fitrah [6] but his parents make
him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian…" Abu Hurayrah said: Recite if you wish: "Allaah's fitrah
with which He created mankind. There is to be no change to the creation (Religion) of
Allaah." (Qur'an 30:30) [7]

After this clear explanation, it is of the utmost importance for the Muslim to know how Shirk
spread amongst the believers, whilst they were muwahhideen (people upon Tawheed).
Concerning the saying of Allaah - the most perfect - about the people of Noah:

"And they have said: You shall not abandon your gods, nor shall you abandon
Wadd, nor Suwaa‘, nor Yaghooth, nor Ya'ooq, nor Nasr." (Qur'an 71:23)

It has been related by a group from the Salaf (Pious Predecessors),[8] in many narrations, that
these five deities were righteous worshippers. However, when they died, Shaytaan (Satan)
whispered to their people to retreat and sit at their graves. Then Satan whispered to those who
came after them that they should take them as idols, beautifying to them the idea that you will
be reminded of them and, thus, follow them in righteous conduct. Then Satan suggested to the
third generation that they should worship these idols besides Allaah - the Most High - and he
whispered to them that this is what their forefathers used to do! So Allaah sent to them Noah
(peace be upon him), commanding them to worship Allaah alone. However none responded to his
call except a few. Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - related this whole incident in chapter called
Noah (chapter 71 from the Qur'an).

Ibn 'Abbaas relates:

"Indeed these five names of righteous men from the people of Noah. When they died
Satan whispered to their people to make statues of them and to place these statues in
their places of gathering as a reminder of them, so they did this. However, none from
amongst them worshipped these statues, until when they died and the purpose of the
statues was forgotten. Then (the next generations) began to worship them." [9]

The likes of this has also been related by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree and others, from a number of the
Salaf (Pious Predecessors).

In ad-Durral-Manthoor (6/269):

'Abdullaah Ibn Humayd relates from Abu Muttahar, who said: Yazeed Ibnul-Muhallab was
mentioned to Abu Ja'far al-Baaqir (d.11H), so he said: He was killed at the place where
another besides Allaah was first worshipped. Then he mentioned Wadd and said: "Wadd
was a Muslim man who was loved by his people. When he died, the people began to
gather around his grave in the land of Baabil (Babel), lamenting and mourning. So when
Iblees (Satan) saw them mourning and lamenting over him, he took the form of a man
and came to them, saying: I see that you are mourning and lamenting over him. So why
don't you make a picture of him (i.e. a statue) and place it in your places of gatherings
so that you maybe reminded of him. So they said: "Yes" and they made a picture of him
and put in their place of gathering, which reminded them of him. When Satan saw how
they were (excessively) remembering him, he said: "Why doesn't every man amongst
you make a similar picture to keep in your own houses, so that you can be (constantly)
reminded of him." So they all said "Yes." So each household made a picture of him,
which they adored and venerated and which constantly reminded them of him. Abu
Ja'far said: "Those from the later generation saw what the (previous generation) had
done and considered that...to the extent that they took him as an ilaah (deity) to be
 worshipped besides Allaah. He then said: "This was the first idol worshipped other than
Allaah, and they called this idol Wadd." [10]

Thus, the wisdom of Allaah - the Blessed, the Most High - was fulfilled, when He sent Muhammad
(Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) as the final Prophet and made his Sharee'ah (Holy
Islamic Law) the completion of all previous divinely Prescribed Laws, in that He prohibited all
means and avenues by which people may fall into Shirk - which is the greatest of sins. For this
reason, building shrines over graves and intending to specifically travel to them, taking them as
places of festivity and gathering and swearing an oath by the inmate of a grave; have all been
prohibited. All of these lead to extremism and lead to the worship of other than Allaah - the Most
High. This being the case, even more so in an age in which knowledge is diminishing and
ignorance is increasing, there are few sincere advisors (to the truth) and Satan is co-operating
with men and jinn to misguide mankind and take them away from the worship of Allaah alone -
the Blessed, the Most High. [11]

To summerise:

• The first generation of humans were upon Tawheed (singling out Allaah for all forms of worship),
which is the intended purpose for all humans to fulfill.
• They were upon this for ten long generations; amongst them were five righteous worshippers.
Following the death of these five worshippers, Satan approached the mourning generation
convincing them to erect statues as a means of reminder.
• The generations thereafter, upon forgetting the original reason for their forefathers erecting the
idols, were again approached by Satan who eventually drove the final nail in the coffin by
convincing them that their forefathers worshipped these idols, thus, they should follow suit.
• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d.751H) said:
Allaah the Exalted informed that the purpose and affair of creation was to know His Names and to
worship Him alone, without associates so that the people could become trustworthy (qist), and
this is the justice ('adl) by which the heavens and the earth are established, as Allaah the Exalted
said:
"We have already sent our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them
the Book and the balance that the people may maintain their affairs in justice.'' (Qur'an
57:25)
So Allaah - the Glorified - informed that he sent His messengers and revealed His books to re-
establish the people upon fairness (qist) and that is justice ('adl). And from the greatest fairness
is Tawheed (singling out Allaah for all forms of worship), and it is the head of justice, and its
maintainer, and Shirk (opposite of Tawheed) is injustice, as Allaah the Exalted said:
"Verily Shirk is the greatest injustice." (Qur'an 31:13)
So Shirk is the greatest injustice and Tawheed is the best form of justice.[12]

Sincerity (ikhlaas) is that all of his actions, statements, intentions, and desires are made purely
for Allaah (alone), and this is the pure Religion (Millatul-Hanafiyyah) that Allaah commanded all
of His servants with, and nothing other than it will be accepted from any of them, and this is the
reality of Islaam. Allaah the Exalted said:
"And whosoever seeks other than Islaam as a religion, then it will never be accepted
from him. And in the Hereafter, he will be from amongst the losers." (Qur'an 3:85)
And this is the Religion of Abraham (peace be upon him) and whoever dislikes it is foolish.[13]

Hence, the purpose for all human beings is consistent with and exactly the same as the first generation of
people, i.e. worship Allaah upon Tawheed and completely eschew the greatest sin - Shirk. This purpose
will never change.

A Sikh will see from this explanation how consistent and straightforward the historical account is.

[1]
Imam Ahmad (9:341 #3897) and at-Tabarani in al-Kabir (2:155 #1647)
[2]
The definition of ‘worship' in Islaam, as defined by Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah is: "A comprehensive
term that encompasses all that Allaah loves and is pleased with, from the statements (of the tongue) and
the actions (of the limbs), both the apparent and the hidden".
[3]
Related by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree in his Tafseer (4/275) and al-Haakim (2/546) who said: "It is
authentic according to the criterion of al-Bukhaaree." Imaam adh-Dhahabee also agreed.
[4]
Al-Kawaakibud-Duraree fee Tarteeb Musnadil-Imaam Ahmad 'alaa Abwaabil-Bukhaaree (6/212/1), still
in manuscript form.
[5]
Related by Muslim (8/159) and Ahmad (4/162) from 'Iyaad Ibn Himaar al-Mujaashi'ee.
[6]
Translator's Note: Ibnul-Atheer said in an-Nihaayah (3/457): "Al-Fitr: means to begin and create, and
al-Fitrah is the condition resulting from it. The meaning is that mankind were born upon a disposition and
a nature which is ready to accept the true Religion. So if he were to be left upon this, then he would
continue upon it. However, those who cause this deviation do so due to following human weaknesses and
blind following of others..." Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar said in al-Fath (3/248): "The people differ concerning
what is meant by al-Fitrah and the most famous saying is that it means Islaam. Ibn 'Abdul-Barr said:
That is what was well known with most of the Salaf (pious predecessors), and the Scholars of tafseer
(Qur'anic commentary) are agreed that what is meant by the saying of Allaah - the Most High - "Allaah's
fitrah with which He created mankind." is Islaam.
[7]
Related by al-Bukhaaree (11/418) and Muslim (18/52).
[8]
Salaf are the first three generations following the inception of Islaam. The Prophet said: "The best
generation is my generation, then those who follow them and then those who follow them." Likewise,
Allaah has ordered the latter generations to follow the Salaf, specifically the companions (students) of the
Prophet Muhammad (Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) since they were the ones who were most
ardent and committed towards actualizing Islaam in its totality; they were the most fearful of Allaah and
loved Him the most. Allaah says: "The foremost in belief are the emigrants and the helpers
(companions of the Prophet), and those who follow them in perfection. Allaah is pleased with
them and they are pleased with Him. And Allaah will admit them in gardens under which rivers
flow wherein they shall abide forever. And that is the supreme success." (Qur'an 9:100). And He
says: "Whoever contradicts the Messenger after the revelation has come down to him, and
follows a way other than the way of the believers (the companions). We shall leave them on
the (errant) path they have chosen and land them in Hell-Fire. What an evil destination."
(Qur'an 4:115)
[9]
Related by al-Bukhaaree (8/534).
[10]
Related by Ibn Abee Haatim also, as is in al-Kawaakibud-Duraree (6/112/2) of Ibn 'Urwah al-Hanbalee,
along with an isnaad (Chain of Narration) which is Hasan (graded: good), up to Abu Muttahar.
[11]
Tahdheerus-Saajid min Ittikhaadhil-Quboori Masaajid (p. 101-106) of Shaykh al-Albaanee.
[12]
Al-Jawaabul-Kaafee (p. 109) of Ibnul-Qayyim
[13]
Ibid, p.115

WHAT DOES SIKHISM SAY?

Due to the lack of clarity and detail in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, many Sikhs in a confused and dazed state
have unfortunately jumped on the band wagon of evolution (macro-evolution). Some have even gone so
far as to extend verses from Sri Guru Granth Sahib in their desperate attempt to justify the validity of this
mathematically impossible theory.[1] Although this is not the place for an in depth discussion of the
absurdities of the Darwinian theory, including its various off-shoots, what we wish to highlight here is the
extent to which people will go to find answers, when clear and coherent revelatory answers are absent, to
satisfy and fit their contrived world-view.

Other Sikhs seem not to care. To them, the beginning has no consequence to their present life. We find
this position irresponsible since evolution is being pushed in an attempt to eradicate the belief in God,
replacing it instead with the idea that things evolve through random selection without the influence of a
Divine Transcendent Will. In this respect, Sikhism and Islaam are on equal grounds in that they believe
the universe has an origin with an all-Wise Creator.

All this confusion will not be found with the Muslims. Alhamdulilaah (praise be to Allaah) who has given us
clarity; thus, only a very ignorant and arrogant Muslim, who commits intellectual suicide by discarding the
clear and emphatic revelatory proofs of the Shari'ah (Holy Islamic Law), would affirm such a grandiose
theory.

Some verses cited to support the theory are:

[1]

"har aapae panch thath bisathhaaraa vich dhhaathoo panch aap paavai
The Lord Himself directs the evolution of the world of the five elements; He Himself infuses the five
senses into it." (SGGS, p.720)
"bhan bhan gharreeai gharr gharr bhajai dtaahi ousaarai ousarae dtaahai
Shattering and breaking apart, He creates and re-creates; creating, He shatters again. He builds up what
He has demolished, and demolishes what He has built." (SGGS, p.935)
"raathee ruthee thhithee vaar, pavan paanee aganee paathaal, this vich dhharathee thhaap
rakhee dhharam saal, this vich jeea jugath kae rang, thin kae naam anaek ananth.
Nights, days, weeks and seasons; wind, water, fire and the nether regions in the midst of these, He
established the earth as a home for Dharma. Upon it, He placed the various species of beings. Their
names are uncounted and endless." (SGGS, p.8)
"jal thhal jeeaa pureeaa loaa aakaaraa aakaar
There are beings and creatures in the water and on the land, in the worlds and universes, form upon
form." (SGGS, p.466)

CONCLUSION

There is a verse in Guru Granth Sahib that sheds light on a type of evolution the early humans may have
gone through:

"kaachae bhaaddae saaj nivaajae anthar joth samaaee.

jaisaa likhath likhiaa dhhur karathai ham thaisee kirath kamaaee.
man than thhaap keeaa sabh apanaa eaeho aavan jaanaa.
jin dheeaa so chith n aavai mohi andhh lapattaanaa
He created and adorned the earthen vessels (human bodies) and infused His Light within them.
As is the destiny pre-ordained by the Creator, so are the deeds we do. The human began to
believe that the mind and body were all his own; this is the cause of his coming
(births) and going (rebirths). He does not think of the One who gave him these; he is blind,
entangled in emotional attachment." (SGGS, p.882)

Let us examine the above verse more closely:

Q1: According to Sikhi, what were the first progenitors upon?

A) One religion.

B) Given freedom to choose more than one religion?

A1:

A) If the answer is A, then this original religion is the religion of Truth. Any aberration from this via
a man-invented non-revelatory religion must be deemed false and rejected.
One would also have to reject the idea that Allaah wanted diversity since two mutually exclusive
religious beliefs, which includes the concept of God, His worship and/or the purpose of life,
cannot both be true at the same time.[1]

B) If the answer is B, would it be just on the part of God to create humankind and provide them
with religions that differed? It would seem more reasonable, to maintain unity and sustained
harmony of thought and actions, if God revealed just one religion with all necessary means for
correct guidance.

C) If the answer is not known then how will we be able to understand a clear, coherent and
consistent historical model of humankind's purpose in life, beginning with the very first people
and ending with the last?
In Islaam the purpose is clear, coherent, consistent and non-contradictory.

Q2: From the aforementioned verse, when did the cycle of birth-rebirth begin and what was the initial
reason behind man acquiring this free-thinking aberration?

A2:

A) It is evident from the verse that this aberration must have occurred after a period of time since
"human[s] began to believe that the mind and body were all his own". Thus, prior to this
deviation, humankind did not have complete control over their mind and body; therefore, there
was no reason for the process of birth-rebirth to begin. Hence, a different process must have
preceded this.
 B) What was the process that preceded birth-rebirth? Could it have been the understanding Allaah
originally taught Adam and Eve and their children before the invention of the birth-rebirth and
reincarnation-transmigration notion, i.e. this is man's only life swiftly followed by a Day of
Judgement?

It becomes apparent how important it is to have clear answers. The above is merely the beginning of
head-scratching when answers are absent.

We pray this has opened the eyes of those who hold to either the inconsistent and contradictory notion of
there being more than one religion of Truth all of which leads to God's salvation/ grace, or the proposition
that it is unimportant to know what religious doctrine and worship our ancestors were upon.

For a further brief read on the contradictory concept of 'Religious Pluralism' please read: The
Contradiction known as Religious Pluralism

We recommend those unfamiliar with the Law of non-Contradiction to read the following article refuting
[1]

those who ignorantly claim this law not to be self-evident or a priori, or those who assert this law to be
man-invented, thus, deducing that God cannot be limited or restricted to these alleged man-invented
laws: The Universal Law of non-Contradiction