Jump to content

An Invitation to Islaam and Tawheed


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Tawheed, you are trying to feed those who are already full. There are countless way to be filled, you bring something that can only be found in the Islam to a place full of its own fragerence. Your gesture is greatly noted, but you cannot sell your gold coins to someone who already has found diamonds.

You bring me gold coins and i show you diamonds. Don't become enticed in your ignorence that these diamonds are fake for all you know that gold you hold could be nothing more than dust itself. It is up to you to turn that gold into diamonds, and the potential you carry is of a seed ready to burst into a tree. Fear not for you have been buried in a different soil than me. Just water it with your tear and watch it sprout into Love. Do not dig up this seed and try to plant it in your soil, for you might spoil it. Perhaps it has already shown the first signs, do not become responsible for the welfare of it. Let the one who planted the seed take care of it as he pleases.

Waheguru.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is from a curious man:

well in general wht i feel is that in the very beginning of human life there were many religions , all tribal, everyone started to beleive in sun , stones , water etc, as God, then when it was all at its height maybe then JUDAISM was born(i dont know much about its origin) ...people started worshipping the real God...

but after many centuries... when people again lost faith..started idol worship...became cruel..started thinking that their religion should overtake others...CHRISTIANITY was born...again spreAding the SAME message ... to different people in a different way.......by sending a prophet......

everything was well.........then after some time people again lost faith in God....idol worship again started....people lost their senses and forcefully fought for superiority of their religions ..... thus God sent another prophet... and ISLAM...begin......

on the other hand in east...i.e. India.. when Hinduism was too much deeply affected by idol worship... BUDDHISM and after that JAINISM started....

Islam also taught the same message in different manner to different people of those time... and it was immensly successful...

all went well..but when islam and christianity both took forceful actions to convert people..known as Holy wars..i guess... and when there was lot of paakhand and rituals..

God sent another prophet..and SIKHISM started and spread the same message again in a different manner to the people of those times....

to date i feel ..since its the newest ...only 5 centuries old...let it grow ..c how it will change todays world like other religions did in past ...

and nothing is like FINAL MESSENGER....srry its my feeling.... if people again get blind.. if people again started fighting for making their religion superior... when sikhs also start to do paakhands and rituals...

HE will agin send a prophet to teach HIS children ...what is right and what is wrong!!!

So what i feel, is that God is one, dont worry about the manner u worhip God, but worry whom u r worshipping, i.e., obviously dont worship stones and do rituals... but think,praise, meditate,worship, HIM!!!

no religion which beleives in one god is a matter of true or false... its the way we handleit.... handle it honestly...then its true....handle it faithfully ..then its true... handle it truthfully... then its true... handle it with love..then its true...

well i cant go into any texts and research.. lol ..cuz i m just 19 and doin engineering....no time... ...

anywys...i gave my feeling...

hope i didnt do anything wrong!!

NANAK JEEVTIYAA MAR REHIYE , AISA JOG KAMAIYE||

Link to post
Share on other sites

heydude, you should try to get your hands on this book, I Say Unto You by Osho. I have the book, i'll try to post some stuff regarding the stuff you just posted above. The Process of the evolving religion. It is not based on it, but in the book there are great explanation on how religions were brought upon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Pheena bro,

that post wasn't mine (I was just posting it for someone) but still it would be great if you can post some stuff from the book :)

heydude, you should try to get your hands on this book, I Say Unto You by Osho. I have the book, i'll try to post some stuff regarding the stuff you just posted above. The Process of the evolving religion. It is not based on it, but in the book there are great explanation on how religions were brought upon.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

I think we seem to be going off on a tangent here. Please stick to the original topic of discussion, which is to discuss the claim that Sikhism propounds pantheism. Other points raised in relation to Islaam can be discussed on separate threads, otherwise it becomes confusing for new members to follow the line of discussion. Having said that, some interesting side issues were raised, I will try to post questions raised by some members in separate threads soon so Mr Tawheed can address those in a more specific manner.

Right, so now we have the meaning of the word or concept of pantheism from Mr Tawheed, let us relate it to Gurbani and try to decide whether this is the correct term to utilise when describing Sikhism's concept of the nature of God, since this was the original question raised by our Muslim friend. I believed that Sikhism alluded to pantheism when describing the nature of Vaheguru, until I stopped reading articles which contained almost no quotes from Gurbani on this topic, and then I started to refer to the best source of all, the word of Vaheguru revealed in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. A member mentioned that Mr Tawheed should stop quoting from scripture and establish his point independantly of the Quran, but to be fair, we cannot expect our limited minds to understand or conceptualise God and we must refer to our respective religious scriptures when engaging in a discussion of this nature. In fact, we should base all of our points and answers on Gurbani, which gives us confidence as it is the Truth and we can only expect the same from a Christian, Jew or Muslim, bearing in mind his convictions and beliefs.

Mr Tawheed:

You said:

It has two definitions, but the one that is applicable and most common is that God is everywhere and in everything - what I believe you refer to as Sargun.

Im assuming you believe pantheism means that God is everywhere and in everything, according to your above statement. Let's analyse this theory of yours in light of what Gurbani tells us. God is everywhere. What does this statement reveal? God is All-Powerful, which we both believe, and He is therefore not restricted by any force of nature or manmade law. He is able to overcome time and space, as He is the Creator of all that is. I think Islam and Sikhism are in agreement with this so far, correct me if I am wrong. If God is not restricted by any person of force, then He has the ability to be everywhere at any given place, at any time. He is close to us, yet far away, depending on our faith, our openess to accept His presence. When is God far away? He is far away when we choose not to acknowledge His presence, we say 'Guru ang sang', how many of us believe this and for how many of us has this become a constant remembrance, if it was, we would not be able to commit any sins. He is near, yet afar. He is near when we base our actions in the awareness of His presence. So, this does not mean He floats away, He is not restricted by our disbelief, just the same way as He is not restricted by any force of nature, He is everywhere if you search for Him, if you open the door to your heart, He is knocking constantly...He gives to all, Saint or Sinner, Believer or Disbeliever, I think even Kaffir are given a chance to breath in oxygen, to eat food created by His grace, to live and breath in the same oxygen as a Believer..'Denda dai lendey thak pavey, juga jugantar khahee khahe' (He never tires of giving, whilst the ones who recieve His bounty may tire of His gifts).

So, now we know God is not restricted and may exist 'everywhere at the same time'. This is what Sikhi believes. What does Islam believe? From my knowledge of Islam, I know that it believes God does not exist inside creation as it negates His majesty and does not befit His purity. Allah exists above Heaven, He is aware of the world through His workers (angels) and by His knowledge. His knowledge is part of Him. You cannot say that a dancer is separate from His dance, it is the dancer's nature, which is considered a part of Him. Similarly, if Allah's knowledge cannot be separated from Him, in a sense He is part of creation as His knowledge is 'everywhere', which would raise the question, does this affect His majesty if a part of Him is within creation? Islam says 'Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein', (by His knowledge), Sikhism believes God does not stay above a 7th Heaven, but He is not restricted by creation, or disgusted by His own creation, that He cannot be close to us.

Now, the fact that angels are present who report to Allah regarding what happens in the world raises a difficult question for Muslims, which is that Allah's knowledge must be restricted for it rely on angels also.

Is creation so filthy that Allah cannot stand to be close to it? Is his essence (true self) separated into attributes such as knowledge? Does a mother, who creates a child through sexual union believe it does not befit her to be close to the child? To love it unconditionally? To love the child, share it's pain, change it's nappies! I have not seen a mother who refuses to change her child's nappy because it's filthy and so it does not suit her nature, she does so out of love, unconditional love, and Vaheguru's love is greater than a mother's love, imagine it's intensity, can we believe He would not even stand to be near us if His love was of this nature? He would even go so far as to be within us! ;)

You said:

Of course! From a religious perspective. Is the atheist, the one who denies the existence of God equal to the one who affirms and worships Him correctly? Is the Hindu lingum worshipper equal to the monotheist of al-Islaam? Is the Pagan Wikka equal to the Sikh? Are they all equal in their worship and understandiong of Allaah?

Hence, mankind is all one in the sense that they all originate from one source, i.e. Allaah created them. However, if you mean to say they are equal spiritually and in their worship of God, then there is a differentiation here as clear as the differentiation between the colours black and white.

You said no one is equal spiritually, I agree. Not all Muslims are equal in Eeman, it increases and decreases right? Not all Muslims have the same intensity of Taqwa (see? I do read). No one is equal spiritually, whether they are following the same religion, or following separate ones. A 'Lingam worshipper' may feel intense love for His God which is nowhere near the feelings a particular Muslim has for Allah. In Sikhism, the Guru's respected the intense love felt by people following different faiths and fought for their right to carry on worshipping their God in this way. They knew that God has created different religions similar to the beauty seen in variation in nature for example. We see variation everywhere, all around us. Can you see the variation in species of animals? plants? flowers? Amazing. Similarly there is variation in the ways people worship their Creator. There is a story of a Bhagat who was so simple minded he followed the advice of a sculpturist to worship a stone statue, so he would make some money in selling his sculptures. The Bhagat worshipped this idol with so much love and intensity that he reached the stage where he did experience God. He would see God everywhere, he loved all, respected all. Bhai Kanhaiya (Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj) in the battlefield started serving water to enemies and the Sikhs. Sikhs told Guru Ji that he was even giving water to the enemy and should be stopped. When he was questioned he said I cannot discrimminate on the basis of which side is fighting what or who, he said he saw Guru Ji's beloved face in everyone! All forms of discrimmination ended for him, with his intense unconditional love for his Guru. Who are we to say this feeling he experienced, or Bhagat Dhanna experienced is wrong because they do not follow a particular ritual or rituals which most people follow with empty hearts?!

You said:

ince the religion is perfected, there is nothing that can succeed it otherwise it would not have been classed as ‘perfect’ in the first place. Therefore, Islaam is the only religion acceptable to Allaah according to these clear verses.

The Messenger of Allah (‘alayhi salaatu wa salaam) said:

"By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, there is no-one of this Ummah, Jew or Christian, who hears of me then dies without believing in that with which I have been sent, but he will be one of the people of Hell." [saheeh Muslim, 153]

I know this is a little off topic, but wanted to ask a quick question about the above. You say only Muslims will go to Heaven because Islam is the only true religion, then there were so many Jews and Christians before Islam was revealed, do all of those people who died before the advent of Islam go to Hell? That was of no fault of theirs, that they did not hear about Islam right? I'm asking because Islam is distinct from Christianity and Judaism in the obvious differences of the ways prayers and other rituals (Hajj, Salah etc) are practised.

Ok, back to the point. You do realise that there are different types of pantheism, as in theism. Do you know which one is part of Sikhism? If it is at all, or did you make your mind up before exploring what Gurbani says? The MulMantar is not enough if you have preconcieved or premature ideas of Sikhism. Firstly, pantheism believes, and I quote from your post ''a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe'' & ''belief in many or all gods, or the belief that God exists in and is the same as all things, animals and people within the universe''. The first definition does not relate to Sikhi as Sikhism does not equate Vaheguru to forces of nature, as they are created by Him. We do not worship the sun, we worship the creator behind it. When in Haridwar the Hindu's were throwing water to the sun so that it would quench the thirst of their ancestors, Guru Nanak Dev Ji started throwing water in the same way but in the opposite direction, and said to them if their water can reach millions of miles away to the sun, then his should reach his fields to his crops! Why did Guru Ji do this? To show them that forces of nature should not be worshipped, but the Creator is worthy of worship. So the first definition does not apply to Sikhism. Secondly, the definition ''belief in many or all gods, or the belief that God exists in and is the same as all things, animals and people within the universe''. We do not believe in many Gods, the lesser Gods, if they exist are created by Vaheguru. ''Ek Oankar'' (One God). Can I bring to your attention the following in your second definition ''or the belief that GOD EXISTS IN AND IS THE SAME as all things...''. This definition also does not apply to Sikhism. Firstly God is NOT THE SAME as His creation, as your definition implies. If we believed this then He would not be called 'Karta Purukh' (The Creator). Obviously, if you call God a Creator, He will have a creation, it's His attribute. So for us creation is NOT the same as the Creator. This creates a problem for you and your definition, I have just proven (from two words from the MulMantar) that Vaheguru is the Creator and his creation is thus different and separate from Him, and not the one and same. Is this Pantheism? Recheck the definition.

There is no one meaning in all forms of pantheism, and within some forms several types are found. Because of this, the central problem of pantheism, unlike theism, is to determine just what pantheism means. For example, philosophical Taoism is one of the best articulated and thoroughly pantheistic positions there is. The Tao is the central unifying feature. What kind of unity is (or should be) claimed by pantheists and which, if any, is plausible?

Where pantheism is considered as an alternative to theism it involves a denial of at least one, and usually both, central theistic claims. Theism is the belief in a "personal" God which in some sense is separate from (transcends) the world. Pantheists usually deny the existence of a personal God. They deny the existence of a "minded" Being that possesses the characteristic properties of a "person," such as having intentional states, and the associated capacities like the ability to make decisions. Taken as an alternative to, and denial of, theism and atheism, pantheists deny that what they mean by God is completely transcendent. They deny that God is "totally other" than the world or ontologically distinct from it. The dichotomy between transcendence and immanence has been a principal source of philosophical and religious concern in Western and non-Western traditions; and all major traditions have at times turned to pantheism as a way of resolving difficulties associated with the theistic notion of a transcendent deity or reality.

Not only is pantheism not antithetical to religion, but certain religions are better understood as pantheistic rather than theistic when their doctrines are examined. Philosophical Taoism is the most pantheistic, but Advaita Vedanta, certain forms of Buddhism and some mystical strands in monotheistic traditions are also pantheistic.

With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person. The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is disputed by its critics. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person.

What does Gurbani tell us?

Kitta Passau Eko Kawaaoo (By His single Command the Creation was fashioned).

Or in the Japuji:

Hukmi Howan Akaar, Hukam Naa Kahiyaa Jayee (By His Command, the creation came into being, His Hukam cannot be enunciated).

The above quotes seem similar to the concept of creation as described in Islam, does this mean Islam is pantheistic? The creation therefore is separate from the Creator, but as the Creator is not restricted and does not follow our laws and our manmade views of 'filth' and 'what befits royalty etc', He is pervading His creation. Try to understand the difference.

Furthermore, panthiesm actually denies a Transcendent God (separate from creation). The Guru Granth Sahib has the word Transcendent in Gurmukhi appearing nearly 154 times. Pantheism also denies the interplay between God and the Creation, since both are essentially the same. The word 'Karta' (Creator) appears more than 1000 times in the Gurbani, how do we then classify Sikhi into a pantheistic belief that denies the presence of such a Creator?

The problem arises when you try to mold Sikhism in the predominant ways of thought (generic oriental or Semitic). You cannot pigeon-hole Sikhism into the broad categories of the accepted religious terminology as Sikhism is a newly revealed distinct faith. You will understand it's philosophy if you study an accurate translation of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji without preconcieved ideas and an open mind.

Finally, I would like you to provide the definition of 'Omnipresence' in your next post, before continuing with this discussion.

Gurfateh

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tawheed Ji: I asked you a simple question

The meaning of Islam. I did not ask for quranic quotes. But if you have chosen the path, then Quran may come out with some contradictions to what you quoted.

Why I find it funny that when defining pantheism and stating that sikhi believes in pantheism, you candidly quote Webster's. Perhaps you should have studied our Guru.

Can I ask you to give a simple definition of the word Islam once again.

I think Islam means submission to God and God alone.

Well even if I were to quote from Quran, I would quote as follows: (which clearly show that the Prophet was a warner, not meant to be convertor. He was a servant of God, not meant to supersede God's authority.

1. "Thou (Muhammad) art not responsible for

guiding them (non-Muslims) but God guides

whomsoever He will."

(The Cow, II: 275)

"Thou (Muhammad) art only a warner,

and God is the guardian over everything."

(Hood, II: 15)

"Your Lord knows you (Muhammad) very well;

if He will, He will have mercy on you,

or, if He will, He will chastise you;

We (Allah) sent thee not to be a guardian

over them." (The Night Journey, XVII: 55)

He should be respected of course, by muslims because God chose him to reveal Quran: as per your belief.

However he cannot be a part of the defination of Islam

Islam does not mean submission to God and Prophet.

Why the Quran also says that Islam is a religion started by Abraham:

"the creed of your father Abraham, who named you

Muslims:" (The Pilgrimage: 75)"

Defination of Islam please.....

And if you are a believer in Islam, you should follow the Quran above .....for if Allah did not allow Prophet Mohammed to be a preacher, how can he give you the authority to preach with the aim of conversion. Why since you are not even close to the Prophet in spirtuality, you may NOT even be a warner, like the Prophet was ordained to be !!!!!

Akal Sahai,

Babbar Sher

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sangat Jio, remember that there are so many of us asking so many questions from to just one person. Let's be patient and give Tawheed time to answer all of us. Naturally it will take time. We should be fair and tolerant towards people who have said they do want to learn about Sikhi, this could be the way Tawheed is learning more about us, as we are about Islam.

(Rochoooooo! Main kya see, thori lassi piya karo, hehe).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Javanmard

Gurfateh

I find it very funny to see that someone like Tawheed dares "invite" us to Islam when he himself is not even a proper Muslim!!!! :twisted:

Let's cut the cr.... Tawheed! You're a Wahabi and I knew it from the minute I read your post! You were too chicken scarred to answer the question about the succession of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) which any real follower of AhlulBayt would have answered with pride!

Now how can you call yourself a Muslim if you follow the false califs who insulted the Holy Propeht (pbuh), insulted, persecuted and murdered his familly!

If you do not recognise the Imamat of Imam Ali (AS) YOU ARE SIMPLY NOT A MUSLIM!!! You can do as many namaz as you wish, you can do as many dawa as you wish but fact remains that without the wilayat of Imam Ali (AS) you cannot call yourself a Muslim!!!!

Guru Nanak in the Bhai Mani Janamsakhi clearly says that Imam Ali (AS) was the rightfull successor to the Holy Prophet (pbuh) this implies that Shias are the real Muslims!!! I obey my Guru and as far as I am concerned you have no right to call yourself a Muslim.

Your people the Wahabis have damaged the tomb of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), you have destroyed Karbala and ravaged the tomb of Imam Hussain (AS) the grandson of the Prophet (pbuh). You insult the Prophet by rejecting his famous hadith : Iam from Hussain and Hussain is from me!!!

You Wahabis have destroyed the tombs of the family of the Prophet (pbuh) anb ravaged the tomb of his daughter Fatima Zahra (AS)!!!

Tawheed before you call yourself a Muslim ask forgiveness to Imam Ali (AS) and accept his wilayat for otherwise you are not a Muslim!!!

Funny how you try to use aqal in this debate when this is forbidden to you by Ibn Hanbal in his very writings!!!!

If you wish to know more about Tawheed and his fake form of Islam (Wahabism) read this: http://www.answering-ansar.org/wahabis/dev...ibi_wahabis.pdf

And if you wish a graphic illustration of Wahabi practice look at this http://www.art.irqparliament.com/Flash/Movie1A.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Shabad is by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Siree Raag on Pannaa 53

ik oa(n)kaar sathigur prasaadh ||

One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

sireeraag mehalaa 1 ghar 1 asattapadheeaa ||

Siree Raag, First Mehl, First House, Ashtapadees:

aakh aakh man vaavanaa jio jio jaapai vaae ||

I speak and chant His Praises, vibrating the instrument of my mind. The more I know Him, the more I vibrate it.

jis no vaae sunaaeeai so kaevadd kith thhaae ||

The One, unto whom we vibrate and sing-how great is He, and where is His Place?

aakhan vaalae jaetharrae sabh aakh rehae liv laae ||1||

Those who speak of Him and praise Him-they all continue speaking of Him with love. ||1||

baabaa alahu agam apaar ||

O Baba, the Lord Allah is Inaccessible and Infinite.

paakee naaee paak thhaae sachaa paravadhigaar ||1|| rehaao ||

Sacred is His Name, and Sacred is His Place. He is the True Cherisher. ||1||Pause||

thaeraa hukam n jaapee kaetharraa likh n jaanai koe ||

The extent of Your Command cannot be seen; no one knows how to write it.

jae so saaeir maeleeahi thil n pujaavehi roe ||

Even if a hundred poets met together, they could not describe even a tiny bit of it.

keemath kinai n paaeeaa sabh sun sun aakhehi soe ||2||

No one has found Your Value; they all merely write what they have heard again and again. ||2||

peer paikaamar saalak saadhak suhadhae aour seheedh ||

The Pirs, the Prophets, the spiritual teachers, the faithful, the innocents and the martyrs,

saekh masaaeik kaajee mulaa dhar dharavaes raseedh ||

the Shaikhs, the mystics, the Qazis, the Mullahs and the Dervishes at His Door

barakath thin ko agalee parradhae rehan dharoodh ||3||

-they are blessed all the more as they continue reading their prayers in praise to Him. ||3||

pushh n saajae pushh n dtaahae pushh n dhaevai laee ||

He seeks no advice when He builds; He seeks no advice when He destroys. He seeks no advice while giving or taking.

aapanee kudharath aapae jaanai aapae karan karaee ||

He alone knows His Creative Power; He Himself does all deeds.

sabhanaa vaekhai nadhar kar jai bhaavai thai dhaee ||4||

He beholds all in His Vision. He gives to those with whom He is pleased. ||4||

thhaavaa naav n jaaneeahi naavaa kaevadd naao ||

His Place and His Name are not known, no one knows how great is His Name.

jithhai vasai maeraa paathisaahu so kaevadd hai thhaao ||

How great is that place where my Sovereign Lord dwells?

a(n)barr koe n sakee ho kis no pushhan jaao ||5||

No one can reach it; whom shall I go and ask? ||5||

varanaa varan n bhaavanee jae kisai vaddaa karaee ||

One class of people does not like the other, when one has been made great.

vaddae hathh vaddiaaeeaa jai bhaavai thai dhaee ||

Greatness is only in His Great Hands; He gives to those with whom He is pleased.

hukam savaarae aapanai chasaa n dtil karaee ||6||

By the Hukam of His Command, He Himself regenerates, without a moment's delay. ||6||

sabh ko aakhai bahuth bahuth lainai kai veechaar ||

Everyone cries out, ""More! More!"", with the idea of receiving.

kaevadd dhaathaa aakheeai dhae kai rehiaa sumaar ||

How great should we call the Giver? His Gifts are beyond estimation.

naanak thott n aavee thaerae jugeh jugeh bha(n)ddaar ||7||1||

O Nanak, there is no deficiency; Your Storehouses are filled to overflowing, age after age. ||7||1||

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tawheed Brother, i want to ask you something, if most Muslims (not all) think that Jews utter falsehood then why do you still read the Jewish Torah for? Why dont you just read the teachings of Mohammad Sahib Ji, why dont you just read the Qu'ran alone if it is complete and without error? Wot if Angel Gabriel was the fallen angle?

Dear Brother, Human history is sooo messed up, some are chinese wispers and some do tell some truth. We have soken different lanuages and got into different ways of life. Its because of these seperations that we dont see eye to eye. People are full of pride mostly of false pride, Allah will bless you for spreading the word.

I want you to do one thing for me, as a favour, pray 5 times a day, and inbetween these prayer times recite the name Allah with love and devotion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

What are your views on the following Sangat Jio?Tawheed in Comparison to Sikhi Pantheism

The Sikhi understanding of God rests upon the Indian subcontinent notion of God called Nirgun-Sargun. An example of this is Hinduism that refers to God as:

Brahman Nirguna - the impersonal Ultimate Reality, "without attributes", formless

Brahman Saguna - Brahman with attributes, as a personal god.

Principal Teja Singh (whose article can be found on http://allaboutsikhs.com/books/doctrines.htm) has written an article describing the nature of God or the Name, including the dual notion of Nirgun-Sargun, from the Sikhi perspective.

He writes:

God is described both as nirgun, or absolute, and sargun, or personal. [bold mine]

From another website, this is further explained as follows:

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.

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 in both the forms resides within us. Our body is the temple of Lord.

[http://www.sikhe.com/gsdno/articles/gurbani/12302001amardeepsingh_veilofillusion.htm (bold and underlining mine)]

As I understand it, according to the Sikhs, God exists with attributes “sargun” at the same time as not having attributes “nirgun”. I also understand etymologically that the suffix ‘gun’ means ‘attributes’, whilst ‘sar’ means ‘with (all)’ and ‘nar’ means ‘none’. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Moving on, Teja Singh elaborates:

Before there was any creation God lived absolutely in Himself, but when He thought of making Himself manifest in creation He became related.

As I understand it, God was formless, without attributes before creation came into existence, i.e. Nirgun.

There was only the Formless One Himself; creation was not then.

However, when God created, He acquired attributes and took form:

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 mine]

Quoting the law of non-Contradiction:

A cannot be both A and NOT A at the same time.

The above concept of Nirgun-Sargun, firstly, posses a unique dilemma in that it seems to be a clear contradiction. It is asserting that God is both Nirgun (without attributes, formless), and Sargun (with attributes, diffused in creation, with form) at the same time.

This is further reinforced from the following verses of the SGGS:

nirankaar aakaar aap nirgun sargun ayk.

He Himself is formless and also formed; the One Lord is without attributes and also with attributes.

[Page250 Line 11 Raag Gaurhee: Guru Arjan Dev]

aap akaar aap nirankaar.

He Himself is formed, and He Himself is formless.

[Page863 Line 12 Raag Gond: Guru Arjan Dev]

O God, You are my power, authority and youth. You are absolute, without attributes, and also related, with the most sublime attributes. ||2||

[Page211 Line 6 Raag Gaurhee: Guru Arjan Dev]

Two questions arise which pose a seemingly unique dilemma.

How is it possible for God to be completely devoid of attributes and also possess attributes at the same time? This, it seems, is a contradiction and, thus, an error being ascribed to the Perfect Absolute Creator (refer to PRINCIPLE 6 & 7).

God has attributes of Absolute Perfection (refer to PRINCIPLE 1 and 2), meaning: they are eternally present and never absent. However, from the above, it is plainly evident that God acquired qualities, in this case attributes, presumably relating to his essence (being), which was previously absent, i.e. He did not have the attributes before creating (sargun) which He had afterwards. This violates the Absolute Perfection of the Creator and renders Him imperfect because an Absolute Perfect all-Powerful Creator is not in need of something from Himself that was previously absent. How is possible for God to have Absolute Perfect Creator to acquire attributes which were previously absent and still be described as Absolutely Perfect?

Moreover, according to these verses from the SGGS, God is supposedly unchanging:

The Formless Lord is undeceivable and unchanging.

[Page1083 Line 3 Raag Maaroo: Guru Arjan Dev]

The Absolute, Formless, Eternally Unchanging, Immeasurable Lord cannot be measured.

[Page1205 Line 8 Raag Sarang: Guru Arjan Dev]

However, as demonstrated above, it seems that God is not unchanging since He acquired attributes that were absent before. Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Furthermore, this concept propounds the following as delineated by Teja Singh:

…He made nature where in He has His seat and is diffused everywhere and in all direction in the form of Love.

… He is conceived of as a Being whose presence is diffused all over His creation. He is the common father of all, fashioning worlds and supporting them from inside, but He does not take birth. He has no incarnations. [bold mine]

From the SGGS we have the following:

oua(n)kaar eaeko rav rehiaa sabh eaekas maahi samaavaigo ||

The One and Only Creator of the Universe is All-pervading everywhere. All shall once again merge into the One.

[Guru Raam Daas Ji in Raag Kaanraa on Pannaa 1310]

hukmee sarisat saajee-an jotee jot milaa-i-aa.

By His Command, the Lord of Light fashioned the Universe, and infused His Divine Light into it.

[Page509 Line 9 Raag Goojree Kee Vaar: Guru Amar Das]

From this, I understand, God either Created everything and then He became part of His creation by His Essence, or that He created everything from Himself, i.e. from His Essence, and is, thus, part of creation. In either case, He is “diffused” and part of His creation by His Essence. This is the epitome of the notion and definition of Pantheism: “God exists in and is the same as all things, animals and people within the universe”. I may be wrong and am open to correction.

However, if I am correct, and everything was created from the Creator’s essence (being) then the question that arises is:

If everything that exists is part of the Creator’s Divine Essence and at some moment in time remerge with the Creator, how do Sikhs distinguish the Creation from the Creator (refer to PRINCIPLE 3), is it even possible?

Finally, for now, Islaam states that Allaah is al-Hayy (the Everliving) – the One who has the Attribute of perfect life. “He begets not, nor is He begotten.” [112:3]. However, it seems, from my interpretation, that Sikhism’s concept of God is different. According to the SGGS, God created Himself. How can God ‘create’ Himself when the meaning of ‘create’, is to either bring something into existence from non-existence, or to fashion and form something from material that already existed. Could you kindly explain this in light of the following verses and also kindly explain the quote where: “(God) evaluates Himself”:

"Aapinai aap sajio aapinai rachio Nao

Dui kudrat sajiai kar asan ditho chao."

(Asa Mohalla 1- pauri 1, p-463)

"God created Himself and assumed Name

Second besides Himself He created Nature

Seated in Nature He watches with delight what He creates."

(Translation of the above)

aapan aap aapeh upaa-i-o.

He Himself created Himself.

[Page250 Line 9 Raag Gaurhee: Guru Arjan Dev]

aapeenHai aap saaji-o aapeenHai rachi-o naa-o.

He Himself created Himself; He Himself assumed His Name.

[Page463 Line 4 Raag Aasaa: Guru Nanak Dev]

aapay aap upaa-ay upannaa.

He Himself created Himself, and came into being.

[Page1051 Line 6 Raag Maaroo: Guru Amar Das]

aapnaa aap upaa-i-on tadahu hor na ko-ee.

He created Himself - at that time, there was no other.

[Page509 Line 2 Raag Goojree Kee Vaar: Guru Amar Das]

aapay aap upaa-ay vigsai aapay keemat paa-idaa. ||6||

He created Himself, and rejoiced; He evaluates Himself. ||6||

[Page1035 Line 16 Raag Maaroo: Guru Nanak Dev]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will clarify in detail later about the sikhi concept, however here would just like to write about Tawheed's comment on his over used and famous (lol) Law:

"Quoting the law of non-Contradiction:

A cannot be both A and NOT A at the same time.

The above concept of Nirgun-Sargun, firstly, posses a unique dilemma in that it seems to be a clear contradiction. It is asserting that God is both Nirgun (without attributes, formless), and Sargun (with attributes, diffused in creation, with form) at the same time.

"

Ever heard of the dual nature of matter, dual nature of light, as well as the principle that a particle can exist at two different points at the same instant of time. You can use Google man....its easy ..even you would be able to use it, and they dont restrict Wahhabis.

Guess Twaheed is K.G. Pass, Dooosri fail ;-) ..err....oops

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

forgive my ignorace, cuz i didn't read many of the replies, so forgive me if i'm repeating something..but this is my view on missionary religions:

They go against God's Will.. We are born into a family, into a certain religion for a reason! to force somebody to leave that is to disobey God's Will. That is the attitude and the actions of people who think they are greater than God. Again, my personal beliefs lead me to respect Islam, but to never really take it seriously by any means... it just feels non-sensical to me... the very religion that is supposedly for all humans can not even be VERIFIED by those humans using logical means (i.e science)

God's Will isn't something to mess with... even those who leave their religion for another should recognize this, but they too feel they know their own good.. That God made a mistake (somehow ????) by putting them in the wrong religion

but that is the play of Kaljug

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Applying the Law of non-contradiction to sikhism is never applicable because it follows a semitic premise that god made man in the image of himself therefore logically it would be reasonable to assume that god is of dualistic nature, just imagine that!... believing in a god who has not acheived mukti himself, the lord is divine essence it is not something which adheres to rationale, if i have the divine essence in me and the god is also the same divine essence but i am never god then surely i defy this law and get away with it?

ISDhillon

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Javanmard paaji, according to what you have said Sheikh Farid could not be considered a real muslim either as he was a Sunni or the Hanafi school (as well as a Chishti Sufi).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sat Sri Akal Vijaydeep Singh Ji,

There is a hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH) that says that the muslims will be divided in 73 sects and all but one is on the right path. Now this can be interpreted by people in a few ways. Usually each sect such as Sunni or Shia will claim that the 1 sect that is on the right path is their sect but I think this hadith has a much deeper meaning.

The same hadith also says that the muslim will have more sects than the Christians and the Jews so this hadith is also meant to be humbling for muslims so they cant claim to be better because they have less sects when they dont.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...