Fact

This is in reply to the article 'DID MUHAMMAD NEGLECT HIS WIVES RIGHTS' islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue Reply: Black With the complete absence of evidence, it is safe to say that, unlike Guru Nanak, Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) was a constant presence in his wives' and children's lives and was, thus, in a position to fulfill his rights as a husband during his life time. But mohammad should have known by applying common sense that if he, at the age of 53 years, is marrying a 6 year old ayesha then for most of her life, ayesha would have to live without mohammad i.e. for (53-6)=47 years approximately. But mohammad chose not to apply common sense and married a 6 year old child. Mohammad's age was same as that of aisha's father, abu bakr. But still mohammad married aisha to whom he was a fatherly figure. In contrast, the same is not true of Guru Nanak when examining his marriage to Sulakhani (1473-1545CE). According to Max Arthur MacAuliffe, the Janamsakhi that bears the name of Man Singh states that "Nanak was married [to Sulakhani] at the age of fourteen". Sulakhani is usually taken to be around four years his junior. Hence, when Nanak's so-called enlightenment occurred in 1499 C.E. at the age of "thirty years old", Sulakhani was around 26 years of age. With Nanak having practically abandoned his wife and children by spending an inordinate amount of time travelling the wilderness during his udhasis (proselytising mission) - accounting for a staggering 28 years of his remaining 38 years of life (1469-1538/9CE), poor Sulakhani was, from the age of 26, without the company of her good husband. Despite this sordid fact, we are patronisingly told that "though she undoubtedly was lonely, she waited patiently"! If a soldier is fighting a long war for his country because of which he has to stay away from his home for much time then will it be fair to say that he is neglecting his family? Only a mad person would say that he is neglecting his wife because the truth is he is simply doing his duty towards his country and towards his job. Similarly, being the messenger of God, it was the duty of Guru Nanak Ji to spread the message of truth far and wide. So, guru sahib left his home for a greater good i.e. to provide true happiness and peace to the humanity. It was a sacrifice he made for the mission he was bestowed upon by God. Mata sulakhanee, his wife, was a very wise person and a devout sikh. She clearly understood the mission and fully supported her husband in this great feat. So, in light of above explanation, it would be plain lunacy to suggest that guruji neglected his wife rights.

This is in reply to the article 'FORCED MARRIAGE' islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue Reply: Black 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) Is the above quote also applicable to female slaves? The answer is a big NO. In Islam, a female slave may be used for sex by her master. He does not need her permission to practice al-'azl, and after having sex with her he may sell her to another man. If he desires her as a wife, he may marry her and does not have to pay her a bride price. Her freedom is considered her mahr. This can come in handy when a man is poor and yet desires to have a wife. A captured woman costs nothing, and he does not have to pay any money to marry her. So what will muslims call this kind of marriage which is done without taking the will of woman into account? Isn't this kind of marriage a forced marriage? It is astonishing to note that mohammad himself had slave girls whom he married forcefully. Juwairiya was a captive from the Banu Mustaliq tribe. She was given to one of the Muslims, and she entered into an agreement with him to purchase her freedom. She then sought assistance from Muhammad for the payment amount. He offered to pay the price of her freedom if she married him (since she was very beautiful). On account of Juwairiya, one hundred families of the Banu al-Mustaliq were set free. The example of Safiyah is also shocking. This Jewish woman whose father had just been killed by the Muslims and husband had just been tortured to death was taken by Mohammad as his wife. Would she have happily married him? Could this have been a marriage free from fear and compulsion? What kind of woman could see her husband tortured to death and then happily marry the torturer? Mariya was a Coptic concubine sent as a gift from Egypt to Muhammad. She gave birth to Muhammad's son Ibrahim, but he died by the time he was two. They were never married, but he had sex with her because she was his property. Rayhana was a Jewish captive from the Quraiza tribe. One source says Muhammad offered her marriage instead of slavery, but she declined and remained Jewish. Another source says he married her, and her manumission was her mahr. The above examples clearly prove that mohammad himself was involved in forced marriages which in turn means that forced marriages are allowed in islam. In comparison, however, our contention is that Sikhism's Holy Scripture - Sri Guru Granth Sahib - has absolutely no clear proclamation prohibiting forced marriages. The following lines from guru granth sahib clearly prove that forced marriages are not allowed in sikh religion: "Kabeer, it is tyranny to use force; the Lord shall call you to account." (SGGS p1375) "Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal." (SGGS p1374) "They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together. They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies." (SGGS p788) Now question needs to be asked that in case of forced marriage, can husband and wife be one light in two bodies? The answer is an obvious no. So the above lines from guru granth sahib clearly prove that forced marriages are not allowed in sikhi.

This is in reply to the article "CREMATING THE RIGHTS OF THE DEAD" islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue Reply: Black But, the question we pose is: if the body is going to be so disrespectfully discarded anyway, why bother with these superficialities? If muslims say that burning the body is disrespecting then leaving the body to rot and to be eaten by worms and insects is also disrespecting. So according to this logic, muslims should never dispose off the dead body. 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) First read this hadith and decide: Narrated Anas: Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk." But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the prophet and drove away his camels. The prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died. (Bukhari V7 B71 N589) If the above cruel act of mohammad is humility then any cruel act in the world can be called humility. Is this humility quranic verse is referring to? Any sane person in today's world will not do such kind of cruel act. 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! Before talking of superstitions in sikhi, muslims should have a look at the superstitions that are carried out in muslim funerals without any logic: The grave is aligned perpendicular to the qibla (i.e. towards Mecca). The body is laid such that the head is facing the qibla. Graves are raised up to 12 inches above the ground. Women are discouraged from participating in the funeral procession. The qur'an prohibits widows to engage themselves for four lunar months and ten days, after the death of their husbands. It is mustahab that nails and teeth cut off or extracted during lifetime are also buried. If a person dies in a well and it is not possible to take him out, the well should be sealed, and the well should be treated as his grave. It is recommended that the person who lowers the dead body in the grave should be bare-headed and bare-footed and he should climb out of the grave from the feet side. Moreover, persons, other than the near relatives of the deceased, should put the dust into the grave with the back side of their hands Slapping one's head or face is permitted to display the grief. There is absolutely no logic behind all above superstitions. 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. If that's the case then muslims should not travel thousand of miles for hajj because so much fuel and money is wasted just for kissing and circumbulating a stone. For eg: Indian government gave a subsidy of Rs 640 crores for hajj in 2008. Now that 640 crores could have been used for controlling environment pollution but that money was wasted on hajj. So if mohammad was so concerned about environment then he would have disallowed pilgrimage to mecca and medina. Also, cremations are typically much less expensive than ground burials because burial requires a very expensive and limited resource - land. Today so many poverty stricken people don't have land to sleep on but muslims are wasting the land for their burials. Was mohammad not concerned about poor people. As far as pollution due to cremation is concerned, new techniques of cremation have been developed which doesn't cause any pollution. For eg: solar crematorium, gasifier based cremation and electric cremation doesn't cause any pollution. Solar energy and biogas also have the advantages of being renewable in nature. Cremation can, in addition, be an excellent option for those who are apprehensive about environmental factors. For some, in this day of green consciousness, the thought of endangering the environment for wood that will only be buried is not comprehendible. Casket is made of wood which is buried along with body. Therefore so much wood is wasted due to burial. As far as water pollution is concerned, muslims have forgot to read that ashes can be buried at that very place. Ashes contain components like potash, calcium carbonate and trace amounts of manganese, zinc etc which can increase the fertility of soil.

This is in reply to the article "AWAKENING THE HOLY BOOK THAT SLEEPS" islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue Reply: Black What comprises a book? One would say: paper, ink, some binding material in the form of glue and/ or string, and a dust cover. Taking it down to the microscopic level, we would all agree that it is made up of the same created material as the rest of the universe: atoms. One would expect that all books that have, are and will be bound together are merely created matter and nothing more; and one would be wrong. If SGGS is paper and ink, then will a sikh bow to a book with identical physical characteristics as that of guru granth sahib. The answer is an obvious no. Now that book also contains paper, ink and binding but a sikh will not bow to it because it does not contain the shabad, This proves that SGGS is not paper, ink or binding. Idol worship can only be true if there is in fact an idol. The shabad is by no means an idol. Also, question needs to be asked that will a muslim use a paper, on which quranic verses are written, as a cleaning paper. The answer is an obvious no. Now that paper is not important but the quranic verses written on it is making it as important for a muslim. Similarly the paper on which shabad is written is an ordinary paper without the shabad but after shabad is written on it, it is handled with care and reverence. More damning, however, is the double-standard employed by Sikhs vis-à-vis Hinduism. Both religions openly and unashamedly acknowledge that a created object, fashioned by their own hands, contains the true nature of God. Hindu idols may be fashioned by their own hands but Guru Granth Sahib was compiled by Sikh gurus themselves. Nobody is allowed to change even a comma or a period out of 1430 pages. Replace the words 'living deity' with 'living guru' and you have a notion that is akin to that which Sikhs adhere to vis-à-vis SGGS. The practices that muslims are associating with guru granth sahib are clearly rejected in sikh rehat maryada which muslims have ignored to read: d. Such practices as the arti with burning incense and lamps, offering of eatables to Guru Granth Sahib, burning of lights, beating of gongs, etc., is contrary to gurmat. (SIKH REHAT MARYADA CHAPTER IV ARTICLE V) This is precisely the same reasoning applied by the Hindus. Sikhs consider it impermissible for Hindus to worship their hand-crafted deities irrespective of the Hindu's insistence that they are not worshipping the idol, but the divine form that resides within. The Sikhs, as Bijla Singh has eloquently described, hold exactly the same idea. The Shabad resides in an object and Sikhs bow down to it; for Hindus, the divine nature of God also resides in an object and they bow down to it. And for Sikhs to argue otherwise is an exercise in double standards and hypocrisy. There is a difference between hindu concept of idol worship and sikh concept of bowing to guru granth sahib. Hindu idols and black stone, which muslims revere and kiss, give no spiritual wisdom and teaches nothing about spirituality whereas guru granth sahib teaches us about spirituality. He forgot to mention that just as the chauri sahib (wand) was waved over the Gurus when they were alive, it was also waved over the SGGS. Hence, these acts of devotion where the SGGS is "covered in special clothes" (similar to the Hindus who dress up of their idols), fanned by a chauri (again like the Hindus), brought out in the morning and put to bed at night, etc., are perfectly consistent with actions that would be justified only for a living being, which in this case, is divine. First of all sukhasan doesn't mean putting guru granth sahib to sleep. Secondly, there is also a similarity in hindu worship of their idols and muslim worship of black stone. And the similarity is hindus circumbulate their idols several times just like muslims circumbulate kaaba and black stone several times. So, by extension of same logic, even muslims are idol worshippers like hindus. So if there are one or two similarities between hindu treatment of their idols and sikh treatment of guru granth sahib doesn't mean that sikhs are idol worshippers because by the extension of same logic it can is proved that even muslims are idol worshippers. Correction: Muslims are forbidden to pick up the Qur'an if they are not in a state of ablution (wudu). Moreover, such is the respect towards the Qur'an and the high level of cleanliness demanded of the Muslims that it is forbidden for anyone to recite the Qur'an, let alone pick it up, either from the Qur'an or from memory if they are in a state of ritual impurity (junoob). So when muslims treat the quran with respect then it is not idol worship but when sikhs treat guru granth sahib with respect then it becomes idol worship. When muslims perform ritual cleanliness before reciting quran then it is not idol worship but when sikhs cover guru granth sahib with special clothes then it becomes idol worship. So it is the muslims and not the sikhs who are maintaining double standards because muslims are a bunch of hypocrites. If reverence constitutes making "rounds around" "a man-made" object while idol worship means holding such an object significantly in the religious way of life, then Sikhs too are idol worshippers since a man-made book is held significantly in their religious way of life! First of all, why does Allah requires a house in kaaba. It beats logic and rationality. Secondly, the main difference between kaaba and guru granth sahib is that stones like black stone give no spiritual wisdom. So there is no logical reason to treat them with reverence because black stone is comparable to the infinite number of stones found on the earth. A stone is a stone no matter what form, color or shape it is in. No good can come from worshipping it and no harm can come from walking over it. But guru granth sahib gives us spiritual wisdom. That is why sikhs treat it with reverence. The only reason we face the direction of the Ka'bah during prayer, circumambulate it and kiss the black stone during pilgrimage, pray five times a day, fast during the month of Ramadan, and give zakaah (obligatory alms-giving), etc., is out of complete submission to God's commands and in obedience to our Prophet, but certainly not in veneration of any created objects deemed to be divine and eternal. But muslims have failed to tell the reason that why would Allah ask his followers to travel thousand of miles just to circumbulate and kiss a stone. Indian government gave a subsidy of 640 crores for hajj in 2009. So large amount of money is wasted, which in other case would have been utilized for development, just for travelling thousand of miles to kiss and circumbulate a stone. But still muslims, surprisingly, claim that they are not idol worshippers. Likewise, why would Allah ask his followers to pray in one direction when he very well knew that he has made earth round. Obviously such a practice makes more sense under a flat earth conception. After all, just what direction is a muslim to pray if he/she happens to be polar opposite to mecca on a round globe? Should the muslim pray 'into' the earth thus making a straight line through the globe into mecca? This cleary proves that mohammad was an illiterate person and not a messenger of God.

This is in reply to the article "'CONTRADICTING ALLAH' OR A CONFUSED BIJLA SINGH" islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue Reply: Black Again, it all depends on what Bijla means by the word "same", which, lo and behold, he has typically failed to define! In this context, we can safely infer that in regards to Waheguru and His relationship to creation, three essential possibilities exist: either Waheguru's intrinsic nature, which includes his attributes, was the same sans creation as it is since creation; or Waheguru does not undergo relational change with the becoming of creation; or both? Bijla certainly seems to acknowledge an intrinsic change when he states: FIRST Waheguru was only Nirgun as there existed nothing but Him. THEN He created the entire creation i.e. solar systems, galaxies, planets, life forms, humans etc. In other words, anything to everything originated from Waheguru. (Bold, underline, capital ours) The use of the adjective "first" with respect to time and order (by order we mean: Waheguru was Nirgun and not Sargun sans creation) followed by the conjunctive adverb "then" (grammatically speaking the full stop before the word "then" should in actual fact be a comma in order to join the two clauses separated by time) clearly point to the fact that a change certainly occurred: Waheguru cannot be what he is said to have been before, otherwise the use of the adjective "first" would be redundant and meaningless. According to Bijla, "Waheguru was only Nirgun" (bold ours) when there existed nothing, but "then" manifested as Sargun when "He created the entire creation", while of course still fully remaining Nirgun. Since Nirgun and Sargun are descriptions of Waheguru's intrinsic nature, i.e. his essence, thus Waheguru underwent an intrinsic change with the becoming of creation. To say otherwise is to deny the claim that Waheguru is Sargun, which he certainly was not sans creation. This shows that muslims have not made a sincere effort to understand the concept of God in sikhism. According to sikhi, time was also created by God. "For endless ages, there was only utter darkness. There was no earth or sky; there was only his command. There was no day or night, no moon or sun; God sat in primal, profound meditation position. There was no food or sources of speech, no air or water. There was no creation or destruction, no birth or death. There were no continents, regions, seven seas, rivers or flowing water. There were no heavenly realms, earth or nether regions of the underworld. There was no heaven or hell, no death or time." (SGGS p1035) So, if time was created by Waheguru then how can muslims claim that Waheguru underwent a change with the becoming of creation. The above argument of muslims can only be true if there was time when God was Nirgun. But the fact of the matter is that time came with the coming of creation. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity tells us that time is relative i.e. if somebody travels with speed greater than the speed of light then time will stop passing for him. Instead he will travel backward in time. So, in light of above explanation, we can very easily conclude that Waheguru didn’t underwent a change with the becoming of creation because God is timeless. The only thing we "Muslims are [...] confused" over is how Sikhs, like Bijla, can delude themselves into believing that "Nirgun (without attributes) and Sargun (with all attributes) at the same time" is a rational and non-contradictory belief? Is it simply because "every word of Gurbani is directly revealed from Waheguru"? If so, then this blind following can only be accepted by rejecting rationality. This would in turn raise questions over the nature of God's relationship with His creation where He would demand of His servants' worship of Him through the acceptance of a mentally oppressive belief in His divine nature. If muslims say that God is not omnipresent then he must be present at some specific place and must be having some finite form. And according to islam, that specific place is the otherworldly heaven. But muslims have failed to tell that where is this futuristic and otherworldly heaven located? Is it located on some lofty island or on some mystical planets somewhere 'up there'? Is it located below the earth or above the earth? So we can also ask the question: How can one worship an entity whose place of dwelling one does not know? Muslims don’t even know where God is but still are worshipping him. Also, if muslims say that God is not omnipresent then he must be present in small area of his own creation. But how can creator inhabit a small area of his own creation? This defeats logic and rationality. Also, if muslims say that God is having finite form then such a God is limited to time and space. Sorry thats not the God sikhs worship.

This is in reply to the article 'PROJECT NAAD DEFENCE OF KARMA' islam-sikhism rebuttal: Blue Reply: Black In Islam, 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 Allah. 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 affect the child, or Allah 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. Author is right in saying that such situation is a test for parents. Sikhism doesn't reject this idea. But there must be some reason from child's side that why certain children die soon after they are born. Also if everybody gets the test that baby got (i.e. everybody starts dying after being born) then everybody will go to heaven which will be good for all of us. So why everybody is not given the test that baby got? Also, do muslims sincerely think that baby was even tested by God? If answer is yes then muslims should explain how he was tested. If answer is no then isn't this injustice that God is sending somebody straight to heaven without even testing him/her? "And we never punish until we have sent a Messenger (to give warning). (Quran 17:15-16) So if a mass murderer is not sent a messenger then he will go to heaven or if a rapist is not sent a messenger then he will not be punished. So a mass murderer is going to heaven according to Islam. Islam's reasoning in relation to the creator's relationship with his creation is so much more sublime, straightforward and befitting the majesty of Allah. Firstly, the relationship between suffering and social status and class is arbitrary and relative since a pauper may not necessarily consider it suffering to live a life of struggle and toil as a rich man would. And the case could be argued by a pauper, and perhaps even acknowledged by the rich, that possessing greater material possessions brings greater stress, worry and other problems that the poor would not "suffer" from. In that case also, it is unjust that somebody is born in a rich family and somebody in a poor family because person born in poor family would be at advantage. If initial conditions are same (past deeds don't matter), then tests should also be the same otherwise it's injustice.