A LAUGH? ONLY AT YOUR EXPENSE

The comments of the following individual of unknown gender, and known only as ms514, were brought to our attention.

He facetiously begins by asking "anyone [who] wants to have a laugh, [to] please visit this [Islam-Sikhism] website". ms514 claims that we take "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".

However, after having patiently waded through what ms514 deludingly calls a "rebuttal", we were ourselves at a loss over whether to laugh or cry to such a poorly constructed response.
Despite one member of the forum on which this was originally published lauding ms514 as being from the "intelligent people", and in spite of ms514's acknowledgment that said response "is NOT comprehensive, but a mere blurb", we hope the truly intelligent person will quickly be able to recognise the quality, or lack thereof, of ms514's counter.

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... 

Wrong! Given the number of times we have had to correct Sikhs on what constitutes a contradiction and how the law of non-contradiction is to be applied correctly, one would be forgiven in thinking that, in general, Sikhs are irrational and illogical.

And although we hold this to be untrue, what is certainly beyond doubt is that ms514 must be added to the unenviable list of fellow co-religionists, viz. I. S. Dhillon, Saajan Sandhu, Project Naad, and Bijla Singh, who is either ignorant of or purposefully chooses to ignore the a priori law of non-contradiction.

Take the ill-conceived analogical fallacy between water and God; it is clear that ms514 not only has no clue of how to correctly apply the law of non-contradiction, but also fails to realise the inherent pitfalls of drawing absurd analogies between the Creator and His creation; between the atemporal and the temporal.

ms514 is correct to say that it would indeed be stupid for anyone to claim that water cannot exist as both liquid and gas (as well as its solid state for that matter) at the same time. In thermodynamics, we know that at zero degrees Celsius or 273.16K at 611.2 Pa, water can exist in all three states in thermodynamic equilibrium. But, does this disprove the law of non-contradiction, and thus prove that God can exist as a contradiction á la the absurd theological notion of Nirgun-Sargun? It would if the triple point of water occurred and did NOT occur at the same time at zero degrees Celsius. But, of course, we all know that it cannot and neither has any rationally minded person forwarded such a suggestion.

As for the equally absurd analogical fallacy between the quantum theory known as the wave-particle duality and God, please see: The Waheguru Wave-Particle Duality

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).  

The pseudo-scientific evidence for the proof of reincarnation has been forwarded by none other than ms514's Sikh brothers; all we did was present counter evidence from the mainstream scientific community to show the highly dubious nature and falsity of said evidence. Our aim was to show that this pseudo-scientific evidence used by Sikhs in their desperate attempt to scientifically corroborate the validity of reincarnation-transmigration does not find any credence or acceptance in the scientific mainstream community.

So let's 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?

If this is bringing it down to human level, we shudder at the thought of what ms514 might consider the intellectual level. 

ms514's human level analogy is again misplaced vis-á-vis the intended purpose of our original article. Our purpose was to take what Sikhs believe to be a computer hard drive full of data that serves as evidence for the truth of reincarnation-transmigration and show them that a bona fide computer technician would be dumbfounded if asked to read computer data from a vacuum cleaner submitted to him as a computer hard drive.

If ms514 wanted the hard drive analogy to fit the idea of reincarnation-transmigration, then it would be something as follows: one hard drive is full of data; once that fails, however, another independent hard drive is manufactured. This new hard drive is naturally empty; but, lo and behold, without any technological intervention, the data found on the old failed hard drive is mysteriously transported over to the new hard drive. We wonder how ms514 would go about explaining this at the "human level".

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.

And this final remark all but proves that ms514 has snatched a hold of the wrong end of the stick. As stated before, those who attempted to forward from the scientific community said evidence for reincarnation-transmigration were the Sikhs; all we did was show that these pseudo-scientists and their "evidence" were, in actual fact, refuted and rejected by the mainstream scientific community.

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 Qua'ran. If the Qua'ran 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 Qua'ran). 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???

ms514's argument is at best disjointed and incoherent.

Firstly, sidestepping the argument for being environmentally conscientious by flippantly declaring it to be absurd does not defeat the argument or prove ms514's case. Our contention still holds that burying the dead is more environmentally friendly than burning it and tossing the ashes into a river to further pollute it. 

Secondly, as regards the dictum: Allaah has "forbidden for us only what is injurious or harmful for us (or for our environment)", then this is from the point of view of necessity in the absence of an alternative. It is certainly not necessitous that dead bodies be cremated when the alternative and cleaner burial method exists. 

Thirdly, the actions of Muslims do not invalidate the edicts and dictates of God - it is simply the Muslims who are at fault.

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 Emperor's 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 [sic] to the author? Perhaps the author should refer to Islam's own protocols regarding the treatment of the Qua'ran: 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 Qua'ran 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 Qua'ran - 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? 

As with ms514, the same category error was committed by Bijla Singh. Instead of the Qur'an (not "Qua'ran"), Bijla equated the orthopraxical rituals carried out during pilgrimage in Mecca, specifically: circumambulation of the Ka'bah and the kissing of the Black Stone (Hajr al-Awsad), as idol worship. But, both Bijla and ms514 have mixed categories by erroneously associating respect and honour towards both divine and non-divine objects as idol worship. A clear distinction, however, exists between the two.

In the article Awakening the Holy Book that Sleeps, Bijla asks:

This is purely an act of idolatry because any reverence given to an idol is idol worship. What is the purpose of bowing to a stone which holds no power, life or divine knowledge?

We reply:  

In answer to his question: it all revolves around God's obedience. While fully affirming that said created objects are indeed lifeless, temporal, and non-divine, the Muslims' obedience to Allaah's commands is ipso facto worship of Him and not these lifeless objects, which are not worthy of worship. These divinely instantiated rituals are only carried out by Muslims in full obedience and complete submission to their Creator.   

Similarly, since the copies of the Qur'an are all lifeless, temporal, and non-divine, our respect of them, including any disposal method, cannot constitute an act of worship precisely because they are deemed to be lifeless, temporal, and non-divine.  

The same, however, is not true of Sri Guru Granth Sahib which Sikhs believe is divine. Hence, according to Islaam, their respect, honour and prostration towards a created, lifeless, yet divine object constitutes nothing but idol worship; this is the crux of the problem that ms514 and other Sikhs would do well to acknowledge and tackle, rather than skirting around it by fallaciously mixing categories.

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 God's Play, and that all in the creation are God's playthings. Here, we have an author which keeps insisting that the HUMAN concept of justice is applicable as God's 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.  

The implications borne out of this argument are so damning that one wonders whether ms514 bothered to give it a moments thought before posting them.  

Rather than attempting to cite at least one argument from said article thereby directly addressing it, ms514 instead conveniently constructs a strawman. This leaves us to cite the reasons why we consider Waheguru to be unjust.  

Take the following argument from said article: 

If there is no connection between ones previous life and the next in terms of personality and self-awareness, it stands to reason, therefore, that actions of a previous life are separate, distinct and unconnected to the next life. This implies that an innocent person will be punished for crimes committed by another said person, i.e. one person accumulates karma and another completely independent person with a different personality will suffer the consequences. It is a case of 'one person sows and a different person reaps', since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation to the next. This is not only unfair, but fundamentally contradicts the idea of perfect justice... we can do nothing but come to the harrowing conclusion that... God must be described as unjust. 

In brief, it is unjust to hold an innocent person accountable for the wrong doing of others. Is ms514 seriously suggesting that it is not impossible that God could, according to His "concept of justice", reject this a priori moral rule and find an innocent person guilty for the wrong doing of others? Is ms514 proposing that it is possible for God to punish the innocent?  

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. 

For Muslims, the a priori principle that the innocent will not be punished or held to account for the crimes of the guilty is necessarily true of God and humans. God is all-Just in the absolute, perfect sense and He has ordered Muslims to practice and apply this principle in this life precisely because He deems it to be good. 

If ms514 believes that certain divinely instantiated moral codes of conduct, shared and cherished by the vast majority of religious and non-religious people throughout history, is something that has been revealed or perhaps even intuitively instilled within us by God, then his above argument is self-defeating. On the other hand, if ms514 believes that innocent people can be found guilty for the sins of others, then, of course, his argument holds true. But, how to justify this vis-á-vis God is a seemingly impossible task we leave ms514 to deliberate over; perhaps ms514 will attempt to again reduce it to one of those nonsensical human level analogies.

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).  

What on earth has this ban, the Taliban, the Khalsa Panth having a mother and father, or the citation of rehat maryadas got to do with said article? If ms514 could not be bothered to read it, and judging by this strawman it seems ms514 has not, then the title of the article should have at least provided a clue: Guruship. 

With ms514's failure to again directly cite from said article when constructing his so-called argument, we are forced to rectify his mistake: 

Although the 10 Gurus may have succeeded in instantiating all of the above, they fell miserably short of the mark when it came to what is arguably the most critical act in proving beyond reasonable doubt that gender equality vis-á-vis Guruship was not simply empty rhetoric; and that was to put it into practice themselves. 

ms514 has failed to tackle the specific point of Guruship vis-á-vis practicing what one preaches to justify this notion of complete gender equality. 

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 woman's husband (hint: It's not).  

To the contrary; we could quite easily accomplish this if it had anything to do with the argument at hand. But since it does not, it is merely a red herring; a sly way of diverting attention from the crux of the matter by those devoid of a response. 

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 don't know. Shall I make up excuses like you do? http://www.islam-sik...but/paedo01.htm. 

Finally some honesty; as we said: "A sly way of diverting attention from the crux of the matter by those devoid of a response."  

We contend that the failure on the part of the 10 Gurus, despite the presence of competent and capable Kaurs being appointed at high positions of power and authority, is the clearest evidence of the Gurus having failed their own test of "truth-living" vis-á-vis gender equality. Instead, it epitomises the definition of the term lip service - insincere support or respect expressed but not put into practice, [1] (bold ours).

THE HORROR OF HIRSUTISM - wow, the way this website defends women's rights, you'd think women are held in so high regard in Islam.  

Certainly is in comparison to Sikhism, which is, as we conspicuously express in our section Female Rights: "... like the large hollow drum - empty, yet producing the loudest noise." 

And yet, polygamy, full coverage of the body with the nakab (and yes, this is mentioned in the Qua'ran), less rights than men and others are somehow telling of something else.  

Again red herrings forwarded by those who slyly wish to divert attention from the crux of the matter when they have no meaningful defence.  

Sikhism requires a person to be "dead" to be "alive" - to give one's head and to follow the Guru's path.  

Although we appreciate that, our question is fundamentally: at what cost? At the cost of blind following inherited practices and beliefs that render God as an unjust (reincarnation-transmigration) and contradictory deity (Nirgun-Sargun) who expects human beings to mentally oppress themselves (The Impossible God) by ceasing to use their God-given rationale while accepting extreme practices, such as women suffering from Hirsutism or other physical deformities? 

It is said in the Shabad Hazaarae, which is read by many Sikhs as Nitnem that the path is thinner than a knife's edge or a hair. 

And we thought ms514 suggested above that Muslims are "narrow-minded"?! 

If you walk this path, then you follow its rules.  

By this we take it that ms514 agrees with the general practice that we deem to be extreme, i.e. a Sikh woman suffering from Hirsutism. Are we to assume, therefore, that a woman unfortunate enough to have full length beard must accept this as part of Sikhism's rules, and must fully engage in society while remaining silent, content and at ease with her long flowing beard?! 

If women really think Islam is easy, then by all means, let them go explore it.  

The above preposterous reasoning should essentially be an insult to any rational minded, reasonable and balanced person. We say that Islaam certainly provides clear workable solutions for those who are open minded and sincere enough to explore alternative avenues vis-á-vis God's Truth. 

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 Qua'ran.  

We would, likewise, encourage people to look beyond their prejudices and preconceived notions; to realise that their may be more to these practices than meets the eye; to try and understand the wisdom and rationale behind these prescriptions and how they seamlessly fit into the holistic world view that is Islaam. Moreover, look to the theology-proper of God, the concept of reward and punishment, as well as the evidences that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Islaam is, indeed, the truth from the Creator of all that exists. 

And yes, there are great Gursikh men who have indeed married Gursikh women with facial hair. Funny how per the Qua'ran, God fashioned humans from clay and made the angels worship the creation and yet, the author here finds Sikhs honoring God's 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. 

This is, of course, premised on the assumption that the angels "worshipped" creation for obeying God's command in prostrating to them. As explicated above, the angels and human beings do not consider anything from creation (including themselves) as divine: Muslims prostrate towards the Ka'bah and the angels prostrated to man's progenitor, Prophet Adam, not because they held these creationary objects to be divine, but only out of submissive worship of God's command to do so.

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.  

"Spent time away"?! Let us not understate the issue so dismissively and callously. ms514 makes it sound like Nanak popped down to the local supermarket! 

As we reiterated to Bijla Singh in the article 'Did Muhammad Neglect his Wives' Rights?, Guru Nanak went AWOL for a combined duration of approximately "28 years of his remaining 38 years of life (1469-1538/9CE), "poor Sulakhani was, from the age of 26, without the company of her good husband" for almost three decades, with one udhasi stint across the Middle East lasting "at least 11 years".  

It almost seems to make women somehow needy and weak. Sorry, Sikhism has proven that women are much stronger than the author implies and that marriages are beyond just the physical presence at home.  

Yes; women in Sikhism were so strong that during the combined reign of the 10 Gurus (250+ years) they were not considered strong or worthy enough to be appointed as Guru! 

In terms of marriage, then perhaps ms514 is currently a young bachelor who is still anxiously awaiting the opportunity to directly experience the strong emotional joy, love, companionship, camaraderie and attachment that develops and arises between a husband and wife. This would explain ms514's cold and deluded response. Or perhaps ms514 is a dominant, phlegmatic and stolid male who, in his blind acceptance of the untenable concept of gender equality, expects women to have a mental disposition similar if not equal to his own. 

In the real world, however, and certainly in loving marital relationships, the vast majority of women expect mutual physical and emotional companionship and, given the nature and purpose behind the institution of marriage, would consider it unacceptable that their soul mate should leave them for decades on end to gallivant across the wilderness, no matter how noble the husband might deem the reason to be. The same, of course, would be true of the husband.  

Hence, this is not a case of patronisingly pointing to the supposed inferiority complexes of the fairer sex, but highlighting the fact that anyone who is seemingly abandoned for such long periods of time - as Nanak's wife Sulakhni was - would certainly acknowledge that such a situation defeats the entire purpose of marriage. 

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 Sahib's mission, the unbelievable depth of Guru Sahib's philosophy in Gurbani and the widespread appeal of Sikhism in the world.  

As to the argument's supposed stupidity, we leave that to the readers to judge. Suffice it to say that that single soul must have found it very difficult to reside in two bodies separated by such vast distances for such long periods of time. We wonder which body this stretched out soul chose!

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 Qua'ran? 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 women's rights when your own faith has some interesting things to say? 

No gamble at all since ms514 has failed to meet the challenge that we originally asserted. Here it is again for ms514's benefit: 

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

Neither has ms514 produced a single proof, nor are we so naive as to be sidetracked by his continued use of red herrings.

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 author's problem, not Sikhism's. Sorry bud, get over it. 

Again, this is a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting the premises of our original article Blind Equality; and once again ms514 has failed to furnish direct quotes to substantiate his apparent strawman. 

We quite clearly stated our contention in the Introduction to said article. Here it is again for ms514's benefit:

The basic contention revolves around the premise that 'gender equality' in all affairs of life is the measure by which fairness and justice is determined for the treatment of women in a given religion. Hence, the postulate is that exact fairness and justice can only be reached when this equal opportunity's policy is implemented in all spheres of life. 

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

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 Sahib's time.

There is nothing insulting about the point we are making as long as it is taken in context and not misrepresented as ms514 has again done.  

We could not care less how long Sikh scholars and theologians spend on redrafting and refining said Rehat Maryadas; the main contention of said article was not to find fault with the duration of time spent on them, but the following:

It would be illogical for premises of an argument to be deduced from an imperfect errant source if a perfect inerrant source is available. As such, it is impossible to claim that a more sound argument and solution will be produced from the limited/ errant reasoning as opposed to the unlimited/ inerrant reasoning. 

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

In light of this, we will show, insha'Allaah (God Willing), that what is championed as revolutionary rights for women in Sikhism are, in fact, nothing except exaggerations, empty boasts and half-truths when critically examined and dissected. On the contrary, rather than affording women revolutionary rights, Sikhism is silent on many key issues integral in liberating women from oppression, discrimination and injustice.  

Hence: 

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

ms514's response that these Rehat Maryadas were formulated to "refresh the code of conduct back to Guru Sahib's time" is a strawman vis-á-vis the main contention of our article. We hold that SGGS was "silent on many key issues integral in liberating women from oppression, discrimination and injustice", including forced marriages. This absence subsequently forced Sikh intellectuals to fill the gap centuries later by formulating these Rehat Maryadas that had no divine origin. It is for this reason we stated at the end of said article: 

This is merely one example amongst many as to why Sikhism is a nonviable world solution due to the presence of such shortcomings committed by imperfect and limited minds.  

We further contend that this is not revelatory guidance from the all-Wise Creator, but rather a man-invented way of life that holds no solutions.

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. 

One word: pathetic! It is obvious that ms514 has absolutely no defence against his Gurus being cruel hunters who, for sport and pleasure, delighted in the barbaric act of terrorising animals to hone their martial skills.

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.  

If it is so ridiculous, one would expect ms514 to come up with something a little more robust and meaningful than this cryptic response. 

CONCLUSION: This is in no way a comprehensive rebuttal of the website.  

It is worse than not being comprehensive, it is an exercise in how to draw up strawman arguments and then proceed to refute these misrepresentations in order to give the false impression that said arguments have been dealt with permanently. It is simply disingenuous.  

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 

It would have been better for ms514, if time was a premium and a desire to defend God's truth was not important enough, to have desisted in embarrassingly rustling up such a half-baked "rebuttal".

BACK TO TOP