Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Islam-Sikhism Website - What A Load...

Recommended Posts


A forum member PMed me a link to this website:


If anyone wants to have a laugh, please visit this website. Taking interpretations of individuals rather than engaging in any true open minded study, taking one verse out of context and making it the focus of a tirade, the authors of these "articles" do as much of a thorough job as trying to melt an iceberg with a blowtorch:

So here is a short response on the nonsense on the website. Please feel free to add/comment to it. It is NOT comprehensive, but a mere blurb:


THE NIRGUN-SARGUN CONUNDRUM - crux of the article works on the principle of "If something is accepted as true, all things to the contrary must be rendered and taken to be false." and This Nirgun-Sargun duality must be recognised a priori as nothing but a contradiction in terms." Basically stating that God cannot be both Nirgun and Sargun. That argument is about as stupid as saying because Water is Liquid, it can never be gas as one thing must be in the same form and cannot exist in two different states of matter. Perhaps the author would like to explain the concept of a photon, which exhibits properties of both waves and particles? Right...

EVIDENCE FOR REINCARNATION DEBUNKED presenting scientific evidence on religion…yeah, that always works. A few hundred years ago, scientists were convinced that the theory of abiogenesis was the golden rule that creatures would literally be given birth to by inanimate stuff garbage giving birth to rats, horse manure giving birth to flies etc (the concept of mating, sperm and egg were not considered). So lets take this argument down to human level. The author is stating that it is impossible for one to reincarnate. the absence of any evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and transfer to another body. So a lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo (basically, no evidence of reincarnation because there is no evidence and that reincarnation theory is mass hallucination). So I present the author this…if I take my computer hard drive filled with information and over-write all of the hard drive space with 0s and there is no evidence remaining of the past information and I hand it to a scientist and he/she concludes that the drive contains no information that I should take that as the gospel truth? Science is limited by our natural and technological senses what we can see/hear/interpret. Is God so powerless that we have become masters of all the secrets that God has? We, the species which finds new species in the oceans and forests almost daily have the nerve to conclude that our science is perfection enough to reach these definitive conclusions? Posting this evidence up is about as stupid as posting up articles in support of atheism because of the lack of evidence. Go shovel it somewhere else.

CREMATING THE RIGHTS OF THE DEAD the author has this thinking that burial is somehow very sacred and that the dead have rights too. The crux of the argument proposed is that On the other hand, Sikhs believe that once a person has died, the body becomes an extraneous shell. And yet if the body is going to be so disrespectfully discarded anyway, why bother with these superficialities? Perhaps I shall propose something. Indeed the body is a shell. But take a moment to think of it this way a book is pages, ink and words and yet, when the words of the Prophet are scribed in it, it becomes the Quaran. If the Quaran is old and withered, would one merely toss it in the garbage? I should hope not (sorry, I am not familiar with the proper end ceremonies of the Quaran). One properly disposes of the vessel because it housed the content. So ceremonial disposal of a body is a means to respect the person/soul that was housed in that body. Arguments about environmentally friendly are as absurd as you can get. This further confirms the dictum that Allaah has "forbidden for us only what is injurious or harmful for us (or for our environment)". So basically, all Islamic countries use clean fuels only…no coal plants, no gasoline cars? Their missle systems have no emissions…rocket launchers have catalytic convertors???

THE SLEEPING BOOK so the main argument We can only conclude that the Sikhs sukhasan ceremony is nothing more than a classic display of idol-worship. It becomes painfully obvious again that the author is ignorant of the very basic fundamentals of Sikhism. First, does the author perhaps know that the hall in which the Guru is parkash is called the Darbar, the Emperors Court? That human emperors had an entry ceremony and an exit ceremony? That emperors issued proclamations to the court attendees (Hukamnama)? If the Sikhs show respect of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji as one who is the embodiment of the spirit of the Gurus, then what pain it it to the author? Perhaps the author should refer to Islams own protocols regarding the treatment of the Quaran: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_Muslims_respect_the_Qur'an . I mean if what the author is so convinced to this viewpoint, then the author would have no issue with me usint the Quaran to, say, prop up a crooked table or as bathroom reading or perhaps even use the pages as toilet paper (note: I would not do any such thing. Hpothetical scenarios). Why do Muslims then show such respect for the Quaran is this not idol worship? The concept of what the Guru Granth Sahib the MESSAGE, the TEACHING, that which makes animals (after all, what is a human without religion eats, sleeps, dies animal) into something Divine. If a teacher inspires you to become something great, you will honor that teacher for a lifetime. If a teacher can lead to great heights of spirituality and bliss, would you not honor such a teacher appropriately?

The Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration this article has one major flaw. Personification when you take something non-human and try to make it human i.e. assign it human characteristics. For instance, saying a cat is talking to you or that your dog is pondering the deep mysteries of the universe (you get the idea). The Guru Granth Sahib Ji clearly states that the creation is Gods Play, and that all in the creation are Gods playthings. Here, we have an author which keeps insisting that the HUMAN concept of justice is applicable as Gods Law. Has the author met God and asked if this is true? Shall I throw in the scientific argument where is the proof? To state that God would have the exact set of laws as humans is as absurd as me insisting that pet cats follow human justice or that hyenas would have the same sense of right and wrong??? And yet, that is exactly what is being implied with this article. Sorry…very narrow minded. There is one underlying theme that has to be understood when undertaking any religious study (not that I am a scholar, but it becomes obvious upon even cursory inspection) that there are fundamental differences between Western religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and Eastern religions. If you insist reading Arabic with the insistence of only using Roman alphabets, you will not get far. So to truly understand and appreciate what the message of the faith is, you have to put aside your personal hardcore fundamentals and at least understand the base concepts of the studied faith. Western religions lean towards a very human like law system of God rules and regulations and right and wrong. Sikhism sees God as something far beyond this with everything in its hands. If God is truly Omnipotent and Infinite, how are we, the finite and limited beings to fully comprehend God? Sorry, using one scripture against another will lead to nothing but unending argument that will get nowhere.

VACANCY: GURUSHIP uhhh…yeah. Here are some facts. A) The Khalsa Panth has a MOTHER and a FATHER. That per the Sikh Rehat Maryada (keep the Jathebandi beliefs aside this is in the Panthic Maryada) women have full rights to any seva, up to and including seva in the Punj Pyare and Keertan. Saying such things that women are not allowed to do Harimandir Sahib…ok, then tell me, if the Taliban insist on beheading people of other faiths because they refuse to conver to Islam does that make them the official representatives of Islam? If a few bad elements refuse to implement what is correct religious law, then it is the fault of the individuals, not the religion (this is in reference to the Harimandir Sahib keertan ban on women). Funny coming from a Muslim who should really comment on how women require others to verify her testimony in court (where no such stipulation is required for men) and how equally property is divided up upon the death of a Muslim womans husband (hint: Its not). The Religious law of Sikhs fully backs women having full rights to all duties of a Sikh. Attempting to explain why all of the Gurus were men...I dont know. Shall I make up excuses like you do? http://www.islam-sikhism.info/rebut/paedo01.htm .

THE HORROR OF HIRSUTISM wow, the way this website defends womens rights, youd think women are held in so high regard in Islam. And yet, polygamy, full coverage of the body with the nakab (and yes, this is mentioned in the Quaran), less rights than men and others are somehow telling of something else. Sikhism requires a person to be dead to be alive to give ones head and to follow the Gurus path. It is said in the Shabad Hazaarae, which is read by many Sikhs as Nitnem that the path is thinner than a knifes edge or a hair. If you walk this path, then you follow its rules. If women really think Islam is easy, then by all means, let them go explore it. But perhaps they should look into the whole burqa, nakab, and being treated to such pleasures as polygamy first. If someone thinks this is an attack on Islam, think again. This is a statement of fact and sanctioned by the Quaran. And yes, there are great Gursikh men who have indeed married Gursikh women with facial hair. Funny how per the Quaran, God fashioned humans from clay and made the angels worship the creation and yet, the author here finds Sikhs honoring Gods creation by not modifying it to be abhorrent. If the author has no problem calling Sikhs hypocrites, then I have no issue calling the author a hypocrite either.

THE EXPENDABLE WIFE this article is hilarious. The author is having a dig at Guru Nanak Sahib because he spent time away from his wife. It almost seems to make women somehow needy and weak. Sorry, Sikhism has proven that women are much stronger thanthe author implies and that marriages are beyond just the physical presence at home. Guru Sahib has brilliantly refuted this by the verse that states that those who merely sit together are not husband and wife those who are one soul in two bodies are. Sorry, this argument is about as stupid as they come, especially given the scope of Guru Nanak Sahibs mission, the unbelievable depth of Guru Sahibs philosophy in Gurbani and the widespread appeal of Sikhism in the world.

FORCED MARRIAGE the author tries to take advantage of a cultural issue forced marriges and use it against Sikhism. First, nothing in Sikhism supports forced marriages. The general concept of forcing anything upon anyone is condemned in Sikhism. Sikhism has been a champion of fighting against anything forced upon anyone since its inception whether it be conversions, forced marriages or otherwise. How the author concludes that any person would attempt to cite Guru Granth Sahib verses as backing for forced conversions is preposterous. Perhaps the author would care to explain the while Islam does indeed limit the number of women a man can marry, what exactly the position is of women slaves (concubines) in terms of the Quaran? Sanctioned or otherwise? Koran 23:1,5-6 "abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess." Koran 33:50-52 "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee;" Big gamble attacking a religion that has been in the forefront of womens rights when your own faith has some interesting things to say?

BLIND EQUALITY the basic premise of this article is that Sikh men and women can dress the same and the author has a problem with it. Well, I think that is the authors problem, not Sikhisms. Sorry bud, get over it.

REHAT MARYADA TO THE RESCUE Yet these Rehat Maryada are nothing more than the opinions of simple minded people, limited in their scope and outlook of life. Wow, talk about insulting…Sikh scholars gathered to pine over the various Rehatnamae, tested them against Gurbani and drafted the Rehat Maryada, then sent it to across the globe for deliberation from the Sikhs and then revised the draft to make the Rehat Maryada. Again, this was done to remove some corruption of time and culture that had crept into Sikhism and to refresh the code of conduct back to Guru Sahibs time. Anyways, the author should focus more time on his own faith: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

THE BIG GAME HUNTERS one word Halal. Religious means of inflicting torture on an animal. One who engages in this has no grounds on commenting on hunting.

THE ORIGINAL WORSHIPPERS another of the look how clear the answers are in Islam are articles. Fact: One verse is posted in the article and the author claims to have discovered the flaw in Sikhism. Quoting singular verses out of any religious text are about as ridiculous as reading the cover on a book and attempting to claim you have understood the complete text. For instance, some claim that Islam has yet to figure out who was the first Muslim using similar methodology: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/first_muslim.htm .

Conclusion: This is in no way a comprehensive rebuttal of the website. Could the author of that website rebut the above? Possibly. If it is not obvious, the entire purpose of this website is the same as the RSS confuse the reader and provide salvation towards Islam. All readers are encouraged to post additions to this. My only reason for doing this was to have a record somewhere of the nonsense of that website and to provide some minimal response. A comprehensive rebuttal would see verses from Gurbani refuting the ridiculous claims, but is outside of my timeframe to do perhaps a project for http://www.whyichosesikhism.com.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mehtab1singh

This is a never ending debate/quarrel. Some Hindus will always try to prove that Sikhi originated from Hinduism, and some Muslims will always try to prove that 1.) Sikhi borrowed stuff from Islam, and/or 2.) Islam is the truth and Sikhi isn't. ms514 veerji, we've been on this forum for like what close to 7 years now? How many times have we "bashed up" fools who come over here only to get "thrashed"? This website is another vain attempt by them to degrade Sikhi (as if they could). They cannot deny the fact that the reason why India stands as the ONLY non-Islamic country in the middle of ALL Islamic nations is BECAUSE of Sikhs. They cannot deny the humiliating defeat which Pakistan faced at the hands of the Sikhs in the 1971 war. Now come on! They've got such unforgettable wounds that are never going to get healed. Obviously they've got to do something to atleast ease the pain, if not cure it, right? Creating such websites is one such "medication" they abide by. So let them continue to dream. All one needs to do in order to compare Islam and Sikhi is eat langar at a Gurdwara (to get a taste of Sikh philosophy) and then read the newspaper (about who carried out bombings and beheadings). Its that simple!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


"Khalsa soi jo kare nit jang' - what can we do...it's in our blood to fight, be it words, swords, guns or puns... :p

I mean if you just wanted the argument killed in one link:


But as usual, Sikh Panth is under attack from all sides from all peoples by all means - physically, mentally, socially and spiritually.

Said HE You Alone Would Stand Out Amongst Countless,

Gave You a Royal Name, A Royal Dress That Does Impress.

Made You A Part of the Khalsa He Did, Made You Into Precious Gold,

Raised You From The Dead He Did, Made You Into Saintly Bold.

Everybody Hates You Cause They Can't Be You,

They is Jealous, Fuming, Boiling, Scheming Too.

They Torture, Maim, Rape, Kill, Flay And Behead,

We Rise Up, Stand Tall, Conquer Them Instead.

That's The Way It Was, That's The Way It Is,

The Way Of The Khalsa - Soldiers In Bliss.

:6 :6 :6

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Theres counter arguments here


Be aware of Al-Taquia the concept which allows Muslims to lie. The prophet Muhammad married a 6yr old had sex with her when she was 9.

The quran tells muslims its ok to have sex with your slaves. It promotes abudction, murder, fighting, killing. shariah law is proof of this.

There is many calls for Muslims to go and convert women, go to your local SAS talk sikh awareness society.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first seen the title I thought 'WOW' - someone who is being positve, from UK perspective especially in uniting faiths. HOW WRONG I WAS. The website should be prosecuted under trade descriptions act! First Islam -Sikhism initative! Load of *mod edit*. It is a truely one sided missionary website which attempts to declare supremacy of one faith over the other. I thought wow it will help join people of both faiths but it didn't. Just trying to convert people, if they want to I have no probs. But don't hate and disregard others believes. EDIT: My bad, just read it back, how contradictory ohmy.gif- Sorry I just disregarded theres. But if someone wants me to elaborate more and justify my statement, I will do. Rationally, think about it and try to understand my angle.

Please just view my other post in all forums, I do not oppose Islam. I love mankind and hate on nowone just because of their faith. Just in case anyone thinks I do.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
The prophet Muhammad married a 6yr old had sex with her when she was 9.

The prophet Mohammed, married Aisha when she was an infant at the the request of Aisha's father, to cement his bond with the Prohpet. What greater way than through marriage, her father thought. Look please do not say things like, it is has offensive overtones. No one has exact proof of prophet Mohammed's life and actions. All we know is the marriage was consumated after Aisha reached puberty. Some say 12. You were not there so how can yuou comment? Please note in those times people did marry at very young age, not pre puberty but on reaching very soon they were married.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim convert by the name of Omar is behind this site, If I am not wrong. Bijla Singh was dealing with him sometime ago.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms514, I can't thank you enough for posting a reply to this rubbish, despite my best efforts I was getting concerned with doubts I had after reading this site, but you have put into words what I was almost thinking :)

Very happy to know we have intelligent people to explain things when Sikhi is attacked, you should reply on the site, or email the stupid <banned word filter activated>.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking Psychologically, these sorts of web-sites or theories are built byIslamic fundamentalists see a threat becuase of fear to their barbaric and militant fundamentals. So, Islamist fundamentalists just see a fear to their terrorist fundamentals because of openness of the Sikhism fundamentals.

If women have equal rights in Islam, what is the purpose of Burqa, why Males in Islam don't wear a Burqa :)?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use