Saihajleen Kaur Khalsa

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! I used the arguments used by Prof Teja Singh Ji from 'Gateway of Sikhism' to explain to a Muslim what Sikhism believes in relation to Vaheguru being part of His creation, and present and diffused throughout creation. The following is his reply. I know it is long, but I thought it was a good idea to post it here to expose what these people believe and if possible to gain some knowledge from the learned Sangat on the forum. Let us examine the notion of Pantheism and see if it befits the majesty and upholds the absolute perfect nature of God. Before we do this, let us realise that language is that which is defined and understandable. However, there are definitions that are beyond human comprehension. An example of this is: "eternity", which is clear in its meaning but the meaning itself is beyond our comprehension. Hence, when we speak of God as being All-Powerful, we understand the meaning of the word but cannot comprehend its reality. Furthermore, our intellect is established upon language. Without language, intellect would not exist, thus spirituality is established upon language since the intellect is a precursor to what is defined as spirituality. Let us also define the Universal Law of Non-Contradiction, which states that: A cannot be both A and NOT A at the sametime. Having established these well known maxims let us examine Pantheism and its relation to an all-perfect absolute God. We must understand that God has endowed humans with both intellect and language, thus, it would be unjust on God's part to describe Himself in a way which cannot be unde rstood rationally, but which in fact leads to an absurdity or contradiction. St. Thomas Aquinas understood this perfectly well when he stated, in the main body of an article in the Summa Theologica, on 'Whether God is omnipotent': Yet if we consider the matter aright, since power is spoken of by reference to possibilities, when God is said to be able to do everything the correct interpretation is that he can do everything possible, and this is why he is spoken of as omnipotent. Now according to The Philosopher (Metaphysics IV (ii)) possible is used in two senses. In the first sense it is in relation to some power; for instance, whatever is within human powers is said to be possible for man....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; and this is the other sense of the word possible. Something is said to be possible or impossible absolutely in virtue of the relations of terms: possible in as much as the predicate does not contradict the subject, as that Socrates is sitting; but impossible absolutely when the predicate does contradict the subject, as that a man is a donkey.... Whatever does not imply a contradiction is, therefore, among those possibilities in virtue of which God is described as omnipotent. But what does imply a contradiction is not subsumed under the divine omnipotence; because these things are not in Principe possible. So it is better to say that they are not possible than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel saying, 'No word will be impossible with God'. For that which implies contradictions cannot be a word; since no intellect can conceive it. (IQ 25A3) This was also established by the scholar Ali Ibn Abul 'Izz al-Hanafi (792 AH) in his commentary of the great book of Islamic Creed by Imaam At-Tahawi (321 AH) who wrote: Allaah's saying: "Allaah has power over all things." [59:6] ...As for the followers of the propheti c ways, 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. [sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah, pg. 35] From your email Professor Teja Singh states: God is described both as nirgun, or absolute, and sargun, or personal. I assume here you have finally accepted the term 'absolute' applicable in describing God's perfection. If so, then we must also take its opposite, which entails perfection in the relative sense, i.e. limited Before there was any creation God lived absolutely in Himself, but when He thought of making Himself manifest in creation He became related. In the former case, when God was Himself self-created, there was none else; He took counsel and advice with Himself; what He did came to pass. Then there was no heaven, or hell, or three-regioned world. There was only the Formless One Himself; creation was not then. There was then no sin, no virtue, no Veda or any other religious book, no caste, no sex. Before creation, it is proposed that God was Formless/ Absolute (Nirgun), which you described as: "Vaheguru appears in two forms, Nirgun (beyond qualities, formless) and Sargun (human incarnations, Guru's)". 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. If God was Nirgum - formless, absolute, then this was obviously not for eternity, since eternity means: everlasting. The fact that Vaheguru changed from formless into creation, i.e. from being 'beyond qualities' to acquiring qualities, by 'diffusing everywhere and in all direction', is an indication that Vaheguru is not an absolute being th at is unchanging. On the contrary, He is subject to change and therefore is not absolute in the perfect sense, rather He is relative and no different from his creation which is also subject to change. Anything that is subject to change cannot be described as perfect in the absolute sense since change entails either an addition to or deletion from a previous state. This is established in the Islaamic creed of Imaam at-Tahaawi: "He was eternally possessed of His Attributes before His (act of) creation, without any addition caused by them that was not already there (in Him) before their creation. And, as He ever was (in existence) with His Attributes, so they will remain with Him forever". Imaam Ibnul Abul 'Izz al-Hanafi commented on this statement: "That is to say, Allaah the Most High has certainly been in existence with His Perfect Attributes...It will be wrong to supposed that an Attribute has been ADDED TO HIM THAT HE LACKED EARLIER, FOR HIS ATTRIBUTES ARE THE PERFECT ATTRIBUTES: THE ABSENCE OF ANY OF THEM WOULD MEAN IMPERFECTION. Therefore, it is not allowed to think that He obtained perfection after He had had an attribute opposite to it." [sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah, pg. 28-9] Moreover, why would God want to "realise himself"? If He is all-Knowledgeable for eternity, there is no reason for Him to realise anything himself. This is indeed a strange and perilous statement from a 'scholar'. In presenting this double phase of the Supreme Being, the Gurus have avoided the pitfalls into which some people have fallen. As will be demonstrated, the Gurus in their endeavour to avoid these pitfalls further compounded their position falling into that which they wanted to free themselves from With them God is not an abstract idea or a moral force, but a personal Being capable of being loved and honored, and yet He is conceived of as a Being whose presence is diffused all over His creation. We ask the question: how can God be honoured, His purity sustained and the highest description, which He has described Hiself with, be upheld if we are forced to conclude, under this ridiculous notion that God is everywhere, that He is in our tummy or in the pig sty or somehow part of our faeces? Indeed, this is an evil description and leads to our dishonouring God. No one with sound intellect could ever, in their right mind, conclude that their creator, sustainer, provider, could ever be part of their own waste products, and we ask Allaah to forgive us for even mentioning such a disgusting thought. "To those who do not believe in the Hereafter, applies an evil description, whereas to Allaah is given the HIGHEST (MOST WORTHY) DESCRIPTION" [The Bee 16:60] "And for Him is the HIGHEST (MOST WORTHY) DESCRIPTION in the heavens and the earth." [The Romans 30:27] He is the common father of all, fashioning worlds and supporting them from inside. He Himself stands for the creative agencies, like the Maya, the World and Brahma; He Himself is Truth, Beauty and the eternal yearning of the heart after Goodness (Japji). "Supporting them from inside"!! Does God have to physically be part of His creation in order to support it? Furthermore, if Him being part of His creation leads to a violation of His perfection then this further reinforces the argument that pantheism does not lead to honouring God, but rather His dishonour. On the contrary, the honourable description and that which is most worthy of His magnificence is what He Himself has described concerning His intimate relationship with His creation: "Allah does whatever He wills." [22:18] "To whomsoever amongst you wills to walk the straight path, you will not, unless (it be) that Allaah Wills, the Lord of the 'Aalameen (humankind, jinn and all that exists)." [81:28-9] “And you will not will (to do anything), except by that which Allah has willed and truly Allaah is All-Knowlwedgable All-Wise.” [76:30] Hence, nothing can occur except By His Will and His permission. Why? Because He has knowledge of ALL things and it is not restricted to past, present and fu ture, rather it encompasses all things. Allaah is apart from His creation, but He has knowledge of ALL things: "He created all things and He has full knowledge of all things." [6:101] "For Allaah has knowledge of ALL things." [58:7] As He is the Creator of everything: "Should He not know what He created? And He is the One that understands the finest details (al-Lateef) (and) is well-acquainted (with them) (al-Khabeer)."[67:14] “And Allah has created you and your actions.” [37:9] Since His knowledge encompasses all things, being that He is the creator of everything and thus has most knowledge of His creation, and that nothing occurs except by His Will and permission, it can be determined that Allaah does not need to be physically involved with His creation "supporting them from inside", leading to His imperfection, because nothing can take place except that He already has knowledge of it and has Willed it to occur, "Not a leaf can fall except that He has (prior) knowledge of it." [6:59] This is the most perfect description of Allaah, upholding His purity and perfection. In a word, the Gurus have combined the Aryan idea of immanence with Semitic idea of transcendence, without taking away anything from the unity and the personal character of God. The Gurus notion of God has nothing to do with the Muslim understanding of Allaah's trancendant nature - the beautiful description that He is the one who is Most High - and that He is intimately close to His creation (precluding imperfection) by His all-encompassing knowledge and wisdom. Indeed the Muslims understanding of Allaah is the most sublime and honourable. It neither leads to His dishonour nor contradicts His absolute perfection, being completely compatible with the intellect He has endowed us with to understand Him. O! give me, give some message of my Beloved. I am bewildered at the different accounts I have of Him. O happy devoted souls, my companions, say something of Him. Some say that He is altogether outside the world; Others say that He is altogether contained in it. His color is not seen; His features cannot be made out; O happy devoted souls tell me truly. He lives in everything; He dwells in every heart; Yet He is not blended with anything; He is separate. There is only one account of Him that is truly worthy of His perfect description. Either it is Islaam or it is Sikhism! Those who are conversant with the eastern thoughts fix upon those passages which refer to the thoughts of immanence and conclude that Sikhism is nothing but and echo Hinduism, I concur! An echo of Hinduism, a religion whose origin is so obscure and convoluted, that only the brave would lend an ear to its distant hollow echo, and we seek refuge in Allaah from their poison and ask Him to protect us from their absurd man-made interpretations of God and worship. Others who know both will see here no system, nothing particular, nothing but confusion. Pantheistic pursuits have always brought confusion If however, we were to study Sikhism as an organic growth evolved from the existing systems of thought to meet the needs of a newly evolving humanity, we would find no difficulty in recognizing Sikhism as a distinct system of thought Pantheism has been around much earlier than the advent of Sikhism. In Sufi orders it is known as Wahdatul Wujood and has been refuted thoroughly. Take, for instance, Guru Nanak’s Asa-ki-//, which in its preliminary stanzas lays down the fundamentals of Sikh belief about God. it is a trenchant clear-cut monotheism. How can it be monotheism when Vaheguru's essence was contained in the 10 Gurus before they became Gurus? When Vaheguru was manifestationed in the Gurus, incarnate in them? This is not the strict Islamic definition of monotheism where ALL worship (in the form of actions, supplications, hope, fear, reliance, aid, help, etc) is directed exclusively to the Creator and not to anything else. God is called the in-dweller of Nature, and is described as filling all things ‘by an art that is artless’. He is not an impotent mechanic fashioning pre-existing matter into the universe. he does not exclude matter, but transcends it. This is not only confusing but also contradictory. If God is the in-dweller of nature, filling all things, and does not exclude matter then how can He transcend matter? This is a classic example of a contradiction. If God is contained in matter, i.e. not excluded, then we take this as definition A. However, if He transcends matter at the same time then this negates defintion A, which results in a clear contradiction, that is: A cannot be both A and NOT A at the sametime. Let us remind ourselves of what Ibn Abul 'Izz al-Hanafi aptly stated: "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." How can God give us an intellect and expect us to accept an impossibility? His Will is above Nature as well as working within it, and in spite of its immanence it acts not as an arbitrary force but as a personal presence working most intelligently.’ Another example of something which is impossible. How can His will be above nature when He is working within it, part of it? The first thing about God is that He is indivisibly one, above every other being, however highly conceived, such as Vishnu, Brahma, or Shiva, or as Rama and Krishna. Again an impossibility, a contradiction: how can He be above every other being and yet be part of everything? No sound intellect could ever accept such a notion , rather it would reject it out right. But as Allaah has stated so wisely about those who turn away from his guidance: "The disbelievers are in nothing but DELUSION." [67:2] Since it is only in state of delusion where one can convince oneself of accepting a contradiction. It is only the irrational mind that will accept these impossibilities and c onvince itself otherwise. We ask Allaah to sustain our mental faculties and keep them sound and nurtured by His guidance, aameen The ways to realize Him are not many, but only one, and that way is not knowledge, formalism, or what are received as meritorious actions which establish a claim to reward, but love and faith, the aim being to obtain the grace of God. The only way of worshiping Him is to sing His praises and to meditate on His name. If the only way to realise Him is not firstly through clear quantifiable and demonstrable knowledge and proof, but only through Love and Faith, thereby obtaining His grace, then all religions are true since it is impossible to define abstractions such as Love and Faith. As a result, we must conclude that God has no honour since He would accept Love and Faith of those who worship Him alone as well as those who worship Him as animals, rocks, etc. Is such an understanding establishing the true worship of God, thereby upholding His honour and purity, or destroying it? Gurfateh!

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Singh Khalsa Bro, You're absolutely right. There is no need to slander anyone because that anger is harming yourself, no one else. However, to say we should respect all religions because ALL are EQUAL to Sikhi is a misconception. Sikhi is the highest, purest, straightest and fastest route to the ultimate realisation - Vaheguru. Gurfateh

Waheguroo Jee Ka Khalsa! Waheguroo Jee Kee Fateh!! Guys, I had to change my name again, Im er..Gurpreet and er Sarbloh Kaur, see there are two Sarbloh's and it was confusing for Penji, and I had to change it because that was the letter that came up when I took Amrit. So, finally I was named 'Saihajleen Kaur Khalsa' so sorry for the inconvenience caused to anyone and Sarbloh Penj. Thanks Gurfateh