AND THE INFIDEL
Muslims have been criticised from
time to time for perpetuating a divisive "them-and-us"
mentality by use of the Arabic label
spelled Kaafir) in identifying all non-Muslims as a single group.
Kafir can be
used to describe those who have not accepted the First
Pillar of Islam: the
(True) Faith, which a person must believe in
sincerely and verbally profess without coercion before
becoming a bona fide Muslim and entering the religion of
Islam. This pillar is known in Arabic as the
Shahaadatayn and in its simplest form reads:
Ash-shahaadu allaa ilaaha
I bear witness and testify that nothing has the
right to be worshipped in truth accept Allaah (the
proper name of God in Arabic);
Wa ash-shahaadu anna Muhammad
And I bear witness and testify that no one has the
right to be followed/ emulated (as an absolute example
in humanity) except Muhammad - the (last and final)
Messenger of Allaah.
In its specific meaning, the word
Kafir can also describe those individuals who have wilfully and
haughtily rejected all that the
stands for and, thus, rejected Islam. Given that Muslims
believe the evidence presented by the Omniscient in
support of the truth of Islam is indisputable and
irrefutable, such a person is, thus, considered one who
has insincerely denied the truth while consciously
recognising and knowing it to be true.
In simple parlance, therefore, the
term Kafir, both in its general and specific application, can crudely be
translated as "non-Muslim" or "disbeliever".
Accordingly, then, important Arabic-English lexicons,
translate and define it as follows:
irreligious, unbelieving; unbeliever, infidel, atheist.
who denies, or
disacknowledges, the unity [of God],
and the prophetic
office [of Mohammad and others],
and the law of
God, altogether, accord. to common conventional
disbeliever; an unbeliever; an infidel; a miscreant;
... because he conceals the favours
of God: or because his heart is covered.
Hence, in its most basic
classification, Islam divides the world into two
distinct and separate spheres:
Dar al-Islam, or the
Islam to which the Muslims belong; and
Disbelief to which the
This inevitable process of
categorisation that arises out of a "them-and-us"
attitude was popularised by social psychologist Henri
Tajfel during his work on social identity theory where
he called the group to which a person psychologically
identified themselves as a member of the "in-group", and
the group to which an individual did not identify as the
In this regard, the use of the word
Kafir to identify the out-group is no different to nor any more or
less offensive and derogatory than, for example, the
terms Goy or
the Jews and
Infidel by the Christians, in identifying and
distinguishing them from those who have not accepted the
fundamental beliefs of their religion and/ or shared
their socio-cultural identity. Moreover, just as Muslims
consider non-Muslims in general to be outside God's
salvific rule, i.e. His Divine Love, and,
thus, spiritually unclean, the same is also true of the
Gentiles and Infidels. In the case of Christianity, for
example, those who do not believe in the fundamental
Christian doctrine of the Trinity
have been, since ancient times, labelled infidels to
mark them aside and set them apart from mainstream
Unfortunately, we have encountered
some Sikhs who have joined the bandwagon in criticising
Islam's use of the term
However, this condemnation has no justification
whatsoever and is only voiced out of sheer ignorance of
the fact that Sikhism too, as taught by the Gurus,
categorises the world into two basic groups where the
in-group (us) is labelled
the out-group (them)
It is this misunderstanding on the
part of such Sikh adherents that we are going to examine
in this paper to show that Muslims and Christians are
not alone in dividing humankind along such religious
lines. We will argue that the
bipolarity not only originates with the founder of
Sikhism, Guru Nanak, but also acquired a narrower and
more exclusivist definition with each successive Guru.
THE GURMUKH-MANMUKH BIPOLARITY
When turning to academic books to
better understand the differences between and the exact
reasons for the transition from one religious state to
the other, i.e. from
encounters two types of expositions on the subject. The
most common are superficial in their treatment with
overly generalised explanations that certainly appear
toned-down and moderated in comparison to those few
which deliver a more detailed and complete account. And
what essentially sets these unqualified and more honest
appraisals apart from their watered-down counterparts
are the citation of scriptural evidences and exegetical
commentaries which leave very little doubt that the
categorisation is a direct equivalence of the Muslim-Kafir
bipolarity. The discrepancy is so apparent, in fact,
that it strongly suggests the existence of an agenda
that cunningly seeks to portray a more homogeneous and
less intolerant and divisive picture of Sikhism.
An evaluation of the Sikh scripture
shows that the linguistic and religious meanings of the
two mutually exclusive terms,
Manmukh, gradually evolved during the tenure of the ten Gurus before
acquiring a standardised final form. This process of
change began after the reign of Sikhism's founder, Guru
Nanak. Although all ten Gurus accepted that the world
was made up of two distinct religious camps, Nanak's
understanding, as reflected in his writings in
Sri Guru Granth
Sahib (SGGS), are more implicit in nature than his
nine successors. However, in the post-Nanakian epoch,
this "them-and-us" paradigm acquired an altogether more
explicit meaning and form as Sikhism sought to meet two
The first was external in the form
of the Mughal Empire and the orthodox Muslim and Hindu
religious hierarchy who felt increasingly threatened by
an ever more unruly and rebellious Sikh bloc that was
not only showing all the signs of wanting to transform
itself from a prosperous "state within a state", which
was growing both in terms of its socio-political and
socio-economic influence and number of converts, into a
fully independent and autonomous kingdom, but had also
come to adopt a violently militant stance.
The second was internal and took
the form of powerful sectarian groups who formed
independent rival camps that attempted to destabilise
the orthodox community by rejecting the Guruship of
Nanak's successors and seeking to usurp it for
themselves. Sikh historiography demonstrates that some
of these competitors met with quite some success too. In
producing competing scriptures to the SGGS, which were
then used for worship in liturgical practises similar to
those of the Gurus, these groups are said to have
attracted a very large gathering
of converts and, thus, caused a lot of stress and
problems for their opponents.
Thus, it was in the midst of
such a chaotic socio-religious and socio-political
milieu that Nanak's successors found it imperative to
protect and retain their converted flock by gradually
indoctrinating them into accepting both the 'Doctrine of
Exclusive Salvation' via the Gurus, as well as the
(Sikhs) out-group (non-Sikhs) bias.
Before we examine the more explicit
stance of the post-Nanakian Gurus, let us begin by
taking the relatively implicit teachings of Guru Nanak
the Gurmukh-Manmukh bipolarity.
Following his so-called
in 1499 CE (although the date 1496CE
 and 1497CE
 have also been suggested) when he
was "thirty years old",
 one of the
first things Guru Nanak is said to have uttered
and repeated at various junctures of his mission is that
he was neither a Hindu nor a Muslim. Jagjit Singh states
in this regard:
Guru Nanak declared that he was
neither a Hindu nor a Mussalman. To pointed questions at
different places, he replied, "I am neither a Hindu, nor
a Mussalman. I accept neither the
Vedas, nor the
"If I say I am a Hindu, I am lost altogether; at the
same time, I am
not a Mussalman."
In reply to a question posed by the
people inquiring into which of the two religious paths -
Hinduism or Islam - Nanak followed, he answered:
"There is no Hindu, no Mussalman;
which of these paths can I follow? I follow God's path.
God is neither Hindu nor Mussalman. I follow God's right
Guru Nanak's reply clearly
complete break with his Hindu past. Guru Nanak
unambiguously that he was rejecting both the Hindu and
the Muslim paths, and instead, was following God's
right path, because God was neither Hindu nor Mussalman.
In other words,
the Guru rejects the Hindu and the Muslim paths, not
because of the shortcomings of their followers, but
mainly because God is non-sectarian. ... A Hindu Khatri
complained to the Delhi Sultan that "he does not
recognise the authority of either
While Sher Singh recounts how Nanak
refused to have faith in Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be
peace and blessings of Allaah):
When a Qazi asked Nanak to have
faith in one God and His one Rasul - prophet, he said:
why to have faith in the latter who takes birth and
dies, believe only in the One who is Omnipresent.
Although these pronouncements could
be construed as implicit in nature
doctrine of exclusive salvation, nevertheless it does
not logically follow that Nanak's refusal in ascribing
himself to either religion necessarily implies that
salvation was unattainable through both or that it could
only be achieved through Sikhism.
IK JOTI -
DOCTRINE OF THE SAME SPIRIT
Nonetheless, it is possible to
resolve this ambiguity and uncover Nanak's true stance
by making recourse to a fundamental aspect of the Sikh
faith known as the 'Doctrine
of the Same Spirit' (ik joti).
Prof Piar Singh states that this doctrine is such "an
old and widely accepted belief of the Sikh faith" that
it "lies at the
root of the Sikh transformation over a long period of
some two hundred years and is deeply embedded in the
elucidates on this doctrine further by way of analogy:
Nanak left his body and transmitted his light to another person who
became Nanak II, Angad by name. There is a classical
illustration about the transmission of this light from
one Guru to another. It is by way of an answer to a
query: Did not the fountain of light - God - lose a portion
of it, when He gave some to Nanak? The answer is an
analogy from the lighting of candles. Just as we light
one candle from another burning candle and in the
process the burning candle without losing any light of
its own, lights the other; similarly this transmission
of spiritual light went on in the case of the Gurus.
Now when Nanak II was thus lighted by Nanak I, he was
asked to carry on the training of the nation under his
own supervision, not so much by precept as by his own
example. He in his turn transmitted that light to a
third Nanak with similar instructions. This continued
for ten generations.
doctrine, therefore, upholds is that while Sikhism
dramatically evolved to adapt to the changing
circumstances that naturally arose over the course of
two centuries, all ten Gurus were still seen to be one
and the same person who agreed perfectly with each other
without any possibility of contradiction. Sher Singh
The idea of Nanak being the same in the persons of all the Gurus,
was also witnessed in the very days of the earlier Gurus
by Muhsan Fani already quoted in this book. "They (the
Sikhs) believed that
when Nanak expired, his spirit became incarnate in the person of
Angad-Angad at his death transmitted his soul into the
body of Amar Das-and so on-in short they believe that
with a mere change of name Nanak the First became Nanak
Again once the Sixth Guru wrote a letter to Fani about
which he says:
The Guru Har Govind in a letter to the author of this
work gave himself the title of Nanak, which was his
right distinc-tion. I saw him in the year 1033 of the
Hijra (A. D. 1643) in Kiratpur".
The belief is also confirmed from
the Granth. Satta and Balwanda, the two musicians of the
house of Nanak, composed a war [sic] in praise of the
earlier Gurus, in which they say, that not only the
second Guru had the same light which the first Guru had,
but also the mode of life and activities of Anged were
the same. Further they say that Nanak simply changed bodies from one to the
Another contemporary of the Guru,
Bhai Gurdas in
his writings emphasises the same point. He traces this
trans-mission of light from God to the First Guru and
from him to the Second and so on to the Sixth Guru
in whose days he breathed his last.
The reader may like to know the views held by the Gurus
themselves on this point. Nanak's hymn has already been
referred to in a note of this section. Guru Gobind Singh
made the whole thing very explicit in his autobiography
entitled "Bachitra Natak" - the
wonderful drama. In it he says:
The holy Nanak was revered as
Angad was recognised as Amar Das,
Das became Ram Das,
The pious saw this but not the
Who thought them all distinct;
rare person recognised that they were all one.
Ram Das was blended with God,
He gave the Guruship to
Thus he continues to say that all
the Gurus were one. (bold, underline ours)
In summary, Sher Singh concludes
that "[t]his evidence ... shows that the Gurus in all
activities ... considered themselves to be one with Nanak.
... [T]he Sikh Gurus believed, all in all, as one and the
same individual continuing the same soul with different
Since this transferable light was
considered divine in nature, i.e. God's light, the idea
that any of the Gurus could have been at variance with
each other would not only be deemed a heretical belief
in Sikhism, but would constitute a theological
With this in mind, let us move on
to the remaining nine Gurus to understand how they
interpreted and applied the terms
Manmukh and how this was related, if at all, to the doctrine of
ABROGATION OF NANAK'S
Even as early as the second Guru,
Angad, we have a more explicit and concretised
application of the two terms. J.S. Grewal reveals:
Guru Angad's attitude towards those
who have not turned to the Guru is important to note.
The blanket term manmukh is used for them. ... On the
whole, Guru Angad has everything good to say about those
who turn to the Guru (Gurmukh), and he has nothing good
to say about the manmukh who follows his own
inclinations, but there is no condemnation of the
manmukh who too is a part of God's creation. To condemn
others is to go against the divine will.
The in-group (Gurmukh)
constitutes all those who have turned to the Guru while
the out-group (Manmukh)
are presumably those who have not accepted his Guruship.
Here already, a clearer and more distinct picture has
been drawn in relation to loyalty towards the Sikh
Gurus. However, as will be seen in the changing psyche
of the later Gurus and Sikhs, these
be condemned and criticised with the harshest of words.
This segregation is given even
further clarity during the reign of the third Nanak,
Amar Das, who, according to Surjit Hans, "comprehended
the world in terms of
'us' and 'they'" (bold, underline ours) where
Gurmukhs, the ones oriented toward
the Guru are 'us'; and those who constitute the world of
manmukhs are 'they'. 'The manmukh does not know; he only
follows the fashion of the world'.
'One who does not meet the Guru must suffer. The manmukh
is severely punished'.
It is better to
break relations with the manmukh who is attached to maya.
... None can realize God without serving the Guru; the
manmukh is shouting himself to death.
For Grewal, the reason why "[t]he
Gurmukh of Guru Amar Das stands opposed to the manmukh"
The manmukh offers devotion without
the True Guru; but
without the True
Guru there can be no
His life is a waste. ... Thus, in every conceivable way
the manmukh represents the opposite of the Gurmukh.
Without a single trait of the Gurmukh, he is all that
the Gurmukh is not. ... In fact, the manmukh, being the
opposite of the Gurmukh,
(bold, underline ours)
Salvation itself is now conditional
to the True Guru, i.e. God. But, what is important to
note at this point is that the True Guru cannot be
reached accept through the Guru himself for "the whole truth is revealed by the true Guru. Without the true Guru;
no one can find
God ... The
manmukh who does not turn to the true Guru wastes
his life because only by meeting the true Guru can one
find the truth lodging it in his heart".
So while "[i]n Guru Nanak, manmukh
is one who is oriented towards maya. In Guru Amar Das
manmukh becomes a
wider category to include all those who fail to
become his Sikhs" (bold, underline ours).
With this third Nanak, suddenly:
Even the pejorative description of being guruless no longer refers to
those who could not find suitable teachers but those who
did not seek
refuge with the
'There is no guru but the Satguru. The guruless man
remains without honour'.
earlier possibility of a godly man who is not a Sikh is
withdrawn. Other religious dispensations are
condemned not because they are socially 'irrelevant' but
because of their
failure to accept the Sikh Guru. One should remember
God who created 'the way of Guru-orientation'.
One has to be a
Sikh if one wants to be a bhagat, a devotee of
(bold, underline ours)
This point cannot be over
emphasised enough: if there did indeed exist a more
relaxed criterion and a wider entry for salvation, this
abrogated by the third Guru who slams the door shut
so that no one can receive God's mercy and grace accept
through him and all subsequent Gurus.
The verses included by the third
Nanak in SGGS conspicuously and abundantly allude to
this point of abrogation:
The bestowal of salvation lies with
God alone, and men can find salvation only at the place
of the Guru (gurdwara).
'One should run for the Guru's sanctuary'.
'God works his grace when He makes men meet the Guru who
gives man nam'.
... The basic position of Guru Amar Das on the question of
Guruship is expressed in a hymn which may be summarized
here. ... Only the ones awakened by the hymns of the
Guru are saved. Those who do not turn to the Guru waste
their lives. ...
The institutional pattern of grace
is clearly stated.
The theological doctrine of grace thus finds its
correlate in the institution of Guruship. Of the three
moments of the institution, God is not to be directly
experienced. He can be experienced through the bani
which springs from the Guru and is to be had from him
'Only the Guru satisfies spiritual
hunger; other denominations cannot do it'.
The above, of course, culminates in
nothing save a concretisation of the in-group out-group
bias. This psychological separation is furthered by how
the entire system of worship and rituals of the two
major religions, Hinduism and Islam, are condemned as
meaningless and irrelevant by the Guru.
As an example, the compositions of
Amar Das lead Grewal to observe that the "obvious
implication of the invitation to the pandit to adopt the
Sikh way of life is the futility of his practices".
In about fifty lines of ashtpadis
in Rag Ramkali, Guru Amar Das enumerates nearly all the
features of yoga and all the features of the Sikh way of
life to invite the jogi to adopt the Guru's path. ... Guru
Nanak's invitation to the jogi to adopt the true path is
the bani of Guru Amar Das it is made
And since the rituals of worship
are considered irrelevant, ergo, the religion itself is
considered as such; and for this reason:
[T]he two major religious
traditions of India, the Brahmanical and ascetical, are
rejected by Guru Amar Das. Less frequently though, the
Vaishnava bhakti is bracketed with them. We are left
with the Islamic tradition. ... Guru Amar Das addresses
the 'Saikh' [sic - Sheikh - Islamic scholar] .... He
should forget 'here and there' and recognize the shabad
of the Guru; prostrate himself before the True Guru ....
There is hardly
any doubt that Guru Amar Das invites the representatives
of Islam to follow the Guru's path.
Similarly, Hans candidly asserts:
The Sikh view of the lack of worth in others was a corollary of their
belief that only Guru Nanak had established a religion
relevant to the require-ments of the times. 'A light has
appeared in the world of kaliyuga, and the Guru-oriented
would cross the ocean of existence'.
This idea is expressed in several other verses of Guru
'Even the gods were deemed to be looking for devotion
propagated by the Guru'.
The cure to the ills of the debased age was found by the
If celibacy, self-control and pilgrimage were
spiritually efficacious in former yugas, nam is the only
resource in modern times.
'God is immanent even in kalyuga. He manifests Himself
as nam in the Guru-oriented.
denominations, covered in the category of manmukh,
cannot find a way to God.
The Sikhs now interpret social reality in a new way and
invite the brahmin and the shaikh to be servants of the
(bold, underline ours)
then that Fauja Singh rightly describes Sikhism
as "a missionary creed like Islam".
The defensive posture of some Sikhs, therefore, in
arguing that Sikhism stands in opposition to the
aggressive and proactive missionary efforts of the
Christians and Muslims seems weak in light of the
evidence that stands before us.
As alluded to above, the main
motivation behind the adoption of this increasingly
inflexible and intolerant stand was in reaction to the
openly hostile position taken by both non-Sikhs, who
wanted an end to this new religion, as well as the Sikh
heterodoxy, who greedily sought the position of Guruship
for themselves. In this respect, Hans recognises:
They are not merely those who are
indifferent to the Guru's shabd; they are the traducers
of the Guru and his Sikhs.
Manmukhs of all descriptions, some of them rich, were
hostile to the Sikhs.
Some had made it their business to oppose the new Faith.
There were others who had turned their backs on the
The Sikhs seem to have set their critics at nought,
though some of the opponents of the Guru appear to have
support from the administration.
To the opprobrious epithet 'manmukh' was added another:
'bemukh', the one who turned away from the Guru.
The coining of the word by Guru Amar Das is indicative
of desertion on an appreciable scale. A whole
composition (Gauri, ashtpadi, 9) is devoted to the
subject of desertion.
Hans sees this "increased frequency
of the idea of 'accepting things decreed by the Guru' in
the compositions of Guru Amar Das" as a sign of the "gathering strength of the Sikhs":
The unambiguous popularization of
the idea also made the nomination of a successor by the
Guru unchallengeable. No Sikh worthy of the Guru could
accept a rival claimant to the gaddi of Guru Nanak.
This newly found confidence was
such that as "the
Sikhs were consolidating their position in greater
numbers", the term
Gurmukh was "transformed into a new principle of the
universe" where the earth, water, air and fire are now
even "[t]he immanent God bodies forth like a gurmukh in
God Himself honours the gurmukh and makes him take up
Himself of the Guru.
'The ordinance of God to be a devotee like a gurmukh
runs through all the four yugas'".
This elevated to the point that "[t]he earlier work of
God in history is
subsumed under the Sikh principle. 'The whole
world bows to the gurmukh'.
(bold, underline ours)
The superiority that the Sikhs felt
was such that they "considered themselves as men apart
from the rest" to the extent that anyone "who failed to
devote themselves to God and to serve the Guru lost
Their "internal cohesiveness ... nourished by Guru Amar
Das" caused them to think "very poorly of the rest of
the world. He who does not meet the Guru is considered
to be an egoist (manmukh) who suffers much for that".
It is, therefore, unsurprising to
learn that the next Guru in line, Ram Das, also
continues to strengthen the newly developed superiority
complex for while "[i]n Guru Amar Das,
dispensa-tions outside Sikhism are manmukh.
According to Guru Ram Das
can be gurmukh.
That is why the
word gursikh subsumes the category of gurmukh.
The change in the status of the word points to the
greater cohesiveness of the Sikhs".
(bold, capitalisation, underline ours)
For Hans, it is only "[i]n the
pontificate of Guru Ram Das, [that] the split between
'they' and 'us' was complete".
And so under his reign:
Most of the time Guru Ram Das is
addressing only the Sikhs. An exclussive [sic] attention
to them could make it possible for him to introduce a
number of institutions. At the same time there is almost
a black and white, heavenly and hellish division between
the Sikhs and others in terms of their perception of
reality. 'Those who fail to serve the Guru remain
chained to their karmas, and to the transmigrational
cycle. Their speech is tasteless [sic]. They cannot have
God's nam in their hearts. They are under the sway of
the god of death, and they shall be dishonoured in the
'Some are unfortunate from the begin-ning of things.
They cannot come to see the Guru'.
The fourth Nanak's use of language
in his censure of the
stark and harsh in comparison to his predecessors with
any reservations of not condemning non-Sikhs thrown out
the window. "The level of insult to the 'others' keeps
on rising," declares Hans, adding:
'If a person does not hold on to
God in his heart it would have been better if his mother
had been barren'.
... [T]he followers
of other religions are termed manmukh.
In Guru Ram Das
the term manmukh is extended to cover those who do not
convert themselves to Sikhism.
... They are stupidly ignorant manmukhs.
Condemnation of the 'others' is
expressed in various ways. ... These violent men will be
born as 'dogs,
pigs and donkeys'.
... They are
bloody-minded hopeless empty heads.
... They are so full of deceit and sin, that one cannot
even feel sorry for them.
inauspicious to meet people who have not met the
Guru, and have no regard for God.
It would have been better if they
had not been born, or their mothers had been widowed.
... People beyond the Sikh pale are 'existential
Only the Guru can make them know God, the father.
The Sikhs are advised
not to associate
(bold, underline ours)
The in-group has taken on a
As for the heterodox Sikhs who
continue in their obduracy:
The rivals are called manmukh by
Guru Ram Das. The use [sic] the word manmukh also means
they are as bad as the other denominations, probably
worse because this was the new meaning added to it by
Guru Ram Das. They are called 'ingrate wretches.
And so "[t]he Sikhs have a distinct
identity" that leaves little doubt, if Sikhs are going
to be consistent with the 'Doctrine
of the Same Spirit', that the Gurus polarised the world
into two basic camps: one known as the
Gurmukh (the Sikhs) and the other known as the
During the tenure of the fifth
In the broadest context of his
times Guru Arjan makes the position clear in explicit
terms: 'The Gusain (of Hindus) and the Allah (of
Muslims) is my one God. I have parted from both the
Hindu and the Turk. I do not go to the
hajj and I do
not go to a tirath
for worship. I worship the one and no other. I do not
worship (any idol in a temple) and I do not perform
namaz. I bow
to the formless one in my heart.
We are neither
Hindu nor Musalman; our body and its breath are
dedicated to Allah-Ram.' This distinct way of the Sikhs
is a gift of their Guru.
It is only in correctly
understanding the true context of exclusive salvation
via the Gurus and the
bipolarity that allows one to correctly understand
what Guru Nanak really meant when he declared, years
before his fifth manifestation Guru Arjan, that "there
is no Hindu and no Muslim".
When we move beyond the Gurus
themselves and look to the attitude and position of
their followers, there is no need to look beyond
arguably one of the most prominent and important
students of the Gurus, the original scribe of the SGGS
and the amanuensis of Arjan Dev, and a Sikh scholar
whose work, according to Mohan Singh, "is deemed to hold
the key to the Sikh spiritual treasury and to make the
best and purest Rahat-Nama (the code of conduct)": Bhai
According to renowned historian,
Bhai Gurdas (1551-1637) was born
about twelve years after the death of Guru Nanak.
As such, he was taught by three
viz. Ram Das, Arjan Dev and Hargobind, and is, thus,
described by Sher Singh as "the first theologian of the
Bhai Gurdas' contribution towards
correctly understanding the Sikh scriptural corpus is so
significant, in fact, that Sher declares:
Bhai Gurdas's work is, in fact, an
orthodox analysis of Sikh beliefs. It is written in the
same spirit in which we find orthodox expounders of
every religion proving the superiority of their own
faith over every other. ... On the whole his work is the
best attempt at the orientation and glorification of the
And on this basis, "Bawa Budh Singh
in his 'Hans Chog' calls Gurdas, the St. Paul of the
When we turn to Bhai Gurdas' most
celebrated work, his
H.R. Gupta says "were written during the first two
decades of the seventeenth century",
 we find therein
nothing except a summation of the above ideas of said
Gurus that vividly portrays the mind-set of one who has
been hopelessly and completely indoctrinated into
accepting the in-group out-group bias.
Grewal provides a comprehensive
overview of Gurdas' indomitable claims of Sikh
superiority and ghettoisation. For Gurdas too, "[t]he
consciousness of Sikh identity is heightened by the
presence of sectarian mentalities".
In this respect, his disdain and condemnation of the
Sikh heterodoxy is apparent for "[t]hose who do not turn
towards the Guru are bemukh.
 The most
foolish among them are the manmukh. However, the worst
among them are the detractors (nindak),
especially the slanderers of the Gurus".
 His stance is
clear against the followers of Prithi Chand, Guru
Arjan's unruly brother, who became his "lifelong enemy":
stand outside the pale of Sikhism in the eyes of Bhai Gurdas
in terms of
doctrines, beliefs, and practices.
(bold, underline ours)
And since these heterodox sects are
excluded on the basis of doctrines, beliefs and
practices that were similar in nature to the orthodox
than those of other religions, it stands to reason,
thus, that they would certainly be even further outside
Hence, "[t]here is no liberation
without the perfect Guru.
 ... Without the
Guru there can be no liberation".
For this reason:
The Sikh faith and those who
cherish this faith are distinct from all other people
known to Bhai Gurdas. This is one of his major
preoccupations. In the first Var itself, the Indian
religious traditions known to Bhai Gurdas are mentioned,
followed by various manifestations of the Islamic
Hindus and Muslims are explicitly contrasted to draw the
conclusion that they have missed the truth. The
metaphor of the blind
leading the blind is used for both
Hindus and Turks.
The highway of the Gurmukh is
superior to all the twelve panths of the Jogis put
 No other path
can be compared with the Gurmukh-marg.
 Bhai Gurdas is
explicit on the uniqueness of the Sikh faith: there is
nothing like it in the Indian religious traditions.
Gurmukh-panth transcends the twelve panths of the Jogis;
the shabad which the Gurmukh sings is not there in the
Veda or the semitic books.
Even the Jews and Christians are
not forgotten and receive a special mention although
"[a]ll are invited to become Gurmukhs who are different
from them all".
With such a fixed mental
apartheid, the natural corollary is that the Hindus and
not equal to the hair of a Sikh. This is true of
Jews and Christians as well.
Bhai Gurdas makes no distinction between orthodox
Muslims and Sufis: they all struggle in vain".
Without the Guru's Shabad and
good persons find no liberation.
(bold, underline ours)
And so the conclusion he invariably
draws is that:
only true relation in the world is that of a Sikh with another
Sikh: the relationship of Gur-bhais is the true
(bold, underline ours)
As for the Bhagats of the past "who
attained liberation: Namdev ... Kabir ... Dhanna ... Sadna
Ravidas ... Beni ... Sen. ... It is remarkable that Bhai
Gurdas thinks of the bhagats in connection with the
Sikhs (and not the Gurus). ... The bhagats who had turned
their consciousness towards God to eradicate haumai are
the only category
of persons equated with Gurmukhs",
this broader rule of salvation was abrogated by the
Gurus. Gurdas "draws clear boundaries between the Sikhs
of the Gurus and the rest of mankind, except the
bhagats. But even they are nowhere near the
hold a unique position in the world as
the only agency
Gurinder Singh Mann agrees
Guru Amardas considered the hymns
of the gurus to have a unique significance, and one
far greater than the hymns of the bhagat, which had to be carefully
selected before being inducted into the Sikh text. This
implied ranking is rooted in Guru Amardas's distinction
between guru and Bhagat:
Bjhagatu bhagatu kahai sabhu koi.
Binu satigur seve bhagati na paiai
pure bhagi milai prabhu soi, (M3, AG, 1131)
Everyone may call [himself] a Bhagat.
the true guru saintliness cannot be attained; it is with
good luck that we reach God [and attain this stage].
The Bhagat is one who is devoted;
"bhagathood" is therefore open to all and can be
attained by serving the guru who, in contradistinction,
possesses a special status by virtue of the divine gift
bestowed upon him with which he can help ordinary human
beings progress toward holiness. (bold ours)
Mann then moves on to the fourth
Guru, Ram Das, who in his
rag Sorathi "refers to the four categories of holy people (Bhagats,
Sants, Sadhs, and Sikhs of the guru) and categorically
states that the Sikhs are the most fortunate ones among
them (Sabhdu vade
bhag gursikha ke jo gurcharani sikh paratia, M4, AG,
 He has no doubt
that the Sikhs belong to a higher level of blessedness
than the one enjoyed by the Bhagats".
Mann then solidifies this critical
point by referring to Bhai Gurdas' stance on the issue:
Bhai Gurdas is not modest in explicating the hierarchical relationship
between the Bhagats and the Sikhs (Gurmukhs/Gursikhs).
 He writes about
the Bhagats (Var
10), the early prominent Sikhs (Var
11), and the Sikh code of conduct centered on their
devotion to the guru (Var
12). He believes that the Sikhs attained the same bliss
received by Beni, Dhanna, Kabir, Namdev, Ravidas, and
Sain. In other words,
only the most
prominent saints of the other traditions were on an
equal level with the Sikhs of the guru. This
narrative seems to emerge from the need to establish
that the status
of the Bhagats was lower or at best equal to that of
prominent Sikhs in the community and that they all
occupied a rung much beneath the place assigned to
When taking all the above into
account, is the incident related in the historical
document of Mohsin Fani, popularly known as
in which "a Sikh of Guru Hargobind broke the nose of an
idol to show how helpless the Goddess was and how
foolish were they who believed in her power"
And what of the
speech delivered by the last of the Nanaks, Gobindh
Singh, to "the great gathering of the Sikhs at
Anandpur Sahib soon after initiating the first five
members of the Order of the Khalsa ... on the historic
Vaisakhi day of the 30th March, 1699"? What is
noticeable in the following is that Gobindh Singh too
echoes the explicit stance of Bhai Gurdas before him:
"According to the Persian historian
Ghulam Muhi-ud-Din, the newswriter of the period, sent
to the Emperor (Aurangzeb) a copy of the Guru's address
(which) is dated the first of Vaisakh Samvat 1756 (AD.
1699), and is as follows":
I wish you all to embrace one creed
and follow one path, rising above all differences of the
religions as now practised. Let the four Hindu castes,
who have different rules laid down for them in the
Shastras, abandon them altogether, and adopting the way
of mutual help and co-operation, mix freely with one
another. Let no one deem himself superior to another.
Do not follow the
old scriptures. Let none pay heed to the Ganga and
other places of pilgrimage which are considered to be
holy in the Hindu religion, or worship the Hindu deities
such as Rama, Krishna, Brahma and Durga; but all should
cherish faith in the teachings of Guru Nanak and his
successors. Let men of the four castes receive my
baptism (of the Double-edged Sword). Eat of the same
vessel, and feel no aloofness from or contempt for one
The newswriter of the Mughal Court
who was present there on the occasion, when forwarding
this proclamation to his master, submitted his own
report: "When the Guru had thus addressed the crowd,
several Brahmins and Khatris stood up, and said that
they accepted the religion of Guru Nanak and of the
other Gurus. Others, on the contrary, said that they
would never accept any religion which was opposed to the
teachings of the Vedas and the Shastras, and that they
would not renounce at the bidding of a boy, the ancient
faith which had descended to them from their ancestors.
Thus, though several refused to accept the Guru's
religion, about twenty thousand men stood up and
promised to obey him, as they had the fullest faith in
his divine mission."
About eighty thousand men, say Ahmad Shah Batalia and
Bute Shah, received the Baptism of the Double-edged
Sword and joined the Order of the Khalsa during the
first few days.
Their names were changed, and "they were given one
family name 'Singh' for thenceforth their father was
Gobind Singh (so renamed after his own baptism), their
mother Sahib Devan, and their place of birth Anandpur.
The baptism symbolised a rebirth, by which the initiated
renounced their previous occupations (krit
nash) for that of working for God; severed their
family ties (kul
nash) to become the family of Gobind;
nash) for the creed of the Khalsa;
gave up all
nash) save that sanctioned by the Sikh faith;
and stopped believing in superstition (bharam
nash) for belief in One God. Five emblems were
prescribed for the Khalsa. They were to wear their hair
and beard unshorn (kesh);
they were to carry a comb (kangha)
in the hair to keep it tidy; they were always to wear a
knee-length pair of breeches (kach),
worn by soldiers of the times: they were to carry a
steel bangle (kara) on their right wrist; and they were to be ever armed with a
In addition to these five emblems, the converts were to
observe four rules of conduct (rahit)
not to cut any hair on any part of their body; ... not to
eat an animal which had been slaughtered by being bled
to death, as was customary with the Muslims, but eat
only jhatka meat, where the animal had been despatched with one blow
 (bold ours)
The above account cited by Harnam
Singh Shan shows, in essence, a completion of two
centuries worth of indoctrination and proactive
missionary work which eventually saw the old rituals of
Hinduism and Islam, including the unique external
appearance that identified members of each faith,
totally erased and replaced by the distinctive rituals
of Sikhism and the external features and attire
represented by the "five emblems" of the baptised Sikhs
as members of the Order of the Khalsa.
evaluation of The
Sikh Worldview, specifically the "Role of Later Nine
Gurus", Daljeet Singh likewise acknowledges:
In the time of the Second Third and Fourth Guru, four important steps
were taken. Through the creation of 22
districts of religious administrations, the Sikh society
was organised into a
But, the most important and difficult part of the task
was the creation of new motivations and the acceptance
of the new life-affirming religious ideals of Guru
Nanak. For these were radically new in their approach,
implications and goals. ...
The Third Guru created new institutions which had the dual purpose of
the Sikhs away from the old Hindu society and of
conditioning them in new values, ideals and practices.
... The object of all this was to establish a separate
historical identity of the Sikhs and wean them away from
the traditional society, iits centres of pilgrimage, and
its religious practices and rituals. ... [T]hey to be
trained in the essentials of a new religious system ....
This separateness was made total by Guru Gobind Singh's
Nash doctrine of five freedoms -
Dharam Nash, Bharam Nash, Kul Nash, Karam Nash and
This means freedom from the bonds of old religious and
traditions ... The Tenth Master made a complete break with
the earlier traditions and societies.
Under the sheer
weight of evidence presented above, it is virtually
impossible to find plausible excuses for those Sikh
academics who completely fail in making mention of the
true and intended meaning of said dual-terms. Either
they are genuinely ignorant or purposefully misleading.
As regards the former, then this should raise serious
questions against their academic credentials for being
oblivious of something so fundamentally obvious. As for
the latter, then this suggests the presence of something
altogether more sinister and deliberate.
ought to be a necessary modus operandi in any field of
academic study, it is simply inexcusable for any Sikh to
knowingly forward, for whatever reason, the abrogated
Manmukh. And yet the number of Sikh academics and
writers who fall short in this regard can only really be
explained by the presence of an agenda in which the
guilty party deceptively seek to portray a sanitised
image of Sikhism so as to show it standing for greater
tolerance and inclusivity than it truly does.
Daljeet Singh, a prolific writer and dedicated Sikh
apologist, is one typical example of such malpractice.
He recognises, without proposing a third category, that:
In the Guru Granth two types of human beings have been mentioned, the
Manmukh and the Gurmukh.
Yet, despite this
acknowledgement, at no juncture during his
evaluation does he elaborate on what this demarcation
truly stands for and its final implications. He fails to
do the same in his short appraisal titled:
Gurmukh: The Guru's Concept of Evolution of Man,
wherein he equates the
Manmukh to an
Similarly, Nirbhai Singh covers the
subject extensively throughout his book
 and yet again
at no stage throughout his 413 page work has he come
remotely close to explicitly making the aforementioned
Gurmukh-Manmukh bipolarity clear. Instead, he often resorts to Guru
Nanak's hermeneutics and presents a highly generalised
assessment where "man" or "everyman is potentially
gurmukh (genius)" in comparison to the "Gurmukh of
Avtar Singh provides an elaborate
three-level hierarchical breakdown of both the
gurmukhtar and gurmukhtam)
and the Manmukh
man-mukhtar and manmukhtam),
which he attributes to Guru Arjan Dev via the author of
Bhakataratnavali, a contemporary of the tenth Guru, Gobind Singh.
 But, once
again, at no point does he provide the complete picture
necessary for an honest, complete and accurate coverage
of the subject.
The evidence cited in this paper
supports our contention that with each successive Guru,
Sikhism moved towards the adoption of an ever more
narrow and rigid worldview that eventually dichotomised
the world into the two bipolar communities of the
This conclusion and the research
presented in support is precisely the meaning defined by
those behind The Sikh Encyclopedia website:
Guru Nanak applied the term manmukh
to those persons who were egoridden materialistic, and
hypocritical. They pose to be religious, but are in
reality proud and evilminded [sic]. His successor Gurus,
besides the above typology, applied the term to persons
who calumniated the Guru, opposed his teachings and
doctrines and kept away from the sangat (fellowship of
Bhai Gurdas had the Gurus'
calumniators in mind when he discoursed on manmukhs in
his Vars. After
the institution of the Khalsa, those kesadharis who did
not receive pahul were, in a sense, considered to be
manmukhs like those who took pahul but then did not
abide by stipulated conduct. Apart from this latter day
usage, the term in its original conceptual signification
refers to one who believes in duality (dvaitbhava) and
who led by his self will
Guru`s guidance and wantonly indulges his impulses.
 (bold ours)
Nanak's understanding of the
Gurmukh-Manmukh bipolarity has been somewhat more implicit in nature
than his nine successors. Nevertheless, we were able to
uncover what his true stance would have been through the
Doctrine of the Same Spirit (Ik
Joti), which holds that since the spirit, or
pervading each Guru was divine in nature,
all ten would
have, therefore, had to have agreed perfectly with each
other without any possibility of contradiction. In other
words, the position held by both Nanak and his
successors would have necessarily been exactly the same.
Hence, by applying this concept, we were able to work
backwards by firstly determining the explicit
position of the post-Nanakian Gurus in order to then
arrive at an accurate and true understanding of Nanak's
This exclusivist teaching would
only serve to inculcate in its followers a "them-and-us"
mentality, or what social identity theory calls the
in-group out-group bias, as evidenced by the sectarian
stance of Bhai Gurdas.
The sheer strength of the evidence
also unveils the existence of an agenda peddled by
certain prominent Sikh apologists who either manufacture
an evaluation of the subject so dumbed down as to fail
to explicitly and clearly define said dichotomy; or make
no mention of it at all and present instead an
evaluation entirely confined to its earlier abrogated
It is ironic that the
bipolarity being a direct equivalence of the
Muslim-Kafir categorisation was at least obvious to "an out-sider
too in the middle decades of the seventeenth century;
the author of the
The traits of the Nanak-Panthis,
also known as 'Sikhs of the Guru', noted by him
distinguish them from all other people mentioned in his
work. The Sikhs did not make any distinction between
Guru Nanak and his successors, regarding them all as
one. Indeed, if any-one of them did not regard Guru
Arjan (the fifth
mahal) exactly as Guru Nanak (the first mahal) he
was deemed to be an unbeliever (kafir).
(bold, underline ours)
Of course, if this were true of the
Sikhs, then it would be more so for non-Sikhs.
One final point that
should be highlighted in this context is the
oft-repeated example of tolerance exhibited by the Gurus
in their cooperation with certain groups of Muslims.
Given what we now know of how the post-Nanakian Gurus
and their followers understood and applied the term
what they thought of all non-Sikhs, it should be quite
obvious that any such cooperation would have amounted
to, at the very best, a matter of political expediency.
This would be true of "Mian Jamal, [who] is mentioned
among the Sikhs who stayed beside Guru Arjan",
 as well as others
like the Sufi Qadiri heretic,
Mir, who disgracefully accepted the invitation of Guru
Arjan to lay the foundation stone of the Harmandir
(Golden Temple). Little did this heretical Sufi and his
followers know that in the eyes of Guru Arjan, his
amanuensis Bhai Gurdas and the rest of the Sikhs, they
would have been considered little more than
"bloody-minded hopeless empty heads" and "existential
bastards" for not accepting Arjan as a Guru in the
sense of the word.
Lexicon, vol. 7, p. 277.
The Trinitarian Doctrine erroneously teaches
that there is one God consisting of three
Persons: the first Person is called the Father; the second Person is identified as Prophet Jesus (Allaah's
blessings be upon him; far removed is he from
such a slander) as the so-called
and the third is a mysterious entity called the
Spirit. Though fully divine, all three are
said to be entirely separate Persons who agree
perfectly with each other. However, all three
are not considered three Gods, but one (see
Of course, Islam
completely rejects this mind-boggling and
mentally oppressive doctrine as man-invented and
falsely attributed to the Almighty, which none
of the 144,000 true Prophets and Messengers of
God ever taught. The attribution of this
doctrine to Jesus, son of Mary, will be
categorically rejected by him on the Day of
Judgement (see Qur'an 5:116-8) and those who
fallaciously believed in it will be cast into
hell-fire for eternity as punishment for the
enormity of their blasphemous claims (see Qur'an
This subject is more thoroughly explored in our
The Origin of Sikh Militancy and Rebellion.
A detailed account of this topic has been
covered in our article titled
Prof Daljeet Singh believes the year of
Nanak's enlightenment to be 1496 CE:
He was married in 1487 and was blessed
with two sons, one in 1491 and the second in
By all accounts, 1496 was the year
of his enlightenment when he started on his
(D. Singh, K Singh (1997), Sikhism: Its
Philosophy and History, (Institute of Sikh
Studies, New Delhi), p. 356.)
Both Harbans Singh and Mohinder Singh state:
According to the Sikh sources it was in 1497
that Nanak, then just 28 years of age, received
"the Divine call," his "Revelation" or his
(H. Singh, M. Singh (Ed.)
(1988), Prof. Harbans Singh Commemoration
Volume, (Prof. Harbans Singh Commemoration
Committee), p. 54.)
Surinder Singh Johar
He left Sultanpur in 1497 after his
enlightenment. "The Janamsakhis state
that Guru Nanak revisited Talwandi twelve years
after he had left Sultanpur. Having regard to
the fact that there is a custom among
Sanyasis of revisiting their birth-place
twelve years after their initiation, this
statement may be accepted as true."
Johar (1969), Guru Nanak, A Biography,
(New Book Co.), p. 140.)
S.S. Brar (2009),
The First Master Guru Nanak Dev (1469-1539),
Fn. 1: Janamsakhi, Bhai Bala, p. 292.
NOTE: Some Sikh scholars consider the author
Bhai Bhalla to be "fictitious" and, thus, hold
this biography to be "spurious". Trilochan Singh
believes it to be authentic but corrupted by the
heretical groups: "the Minas, or Meharban and
his followers. Then ... by the Handaliyas, and
then by the printers". See: H.R. Gupta (2008),
the Sikhs 1469-1708, Vol. 1, (Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi), pp.
Janamsakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Wali (Janamsakhi
Prampra, edited by Kirpal Singh, Antka, p.
D. Singh, K Singh (Eds.) (1997),
Its Philosophy and History, (Institute of
Sikh Studies, New Delhi), p. 220.
Fn. 19: Janamsakhi, Meharban Wali, pp. 10-12.
Fn. 24: Janamsakhi, Bhai Bala, p. 279. Latif, p.
D. Singh, K Singh (Eds.),
Fn. 4: S. R., I [M.A. Macauliffe (1993),
Religion Vol. I, (Delhi)], p. 102,
S. Singh (1986),
of Sikhism, (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak
Committee, Amritsar), p. 117.
These statements do, however, amount to clear
historical evidence in refuting the claims of
ignorant Muslims and agenda-driven non-Muslims
(especially the Ahmedis who are particularly
vocal in this regard) that Guru Nanak was a
Muslim. We have covered this subject in detail
in our article
Was Guru Nanak a Muslim?
P. Singh (1996),
Adi Granth and the Controversy, (Anant
Education and Rural Development Foundation Inc,
Michigan), pp. 153, 156.
Fn. 2: This illustration from candles was also
used by the Gurus: I Guru: G. P. 328; X Guru: G
.S., p. 28.
Bhai Gurdas also made use of the
same illustration; W. G., p. 437: 24-8-2.
S. Singh, op. cit., p. 42.
Fn. 2: Dabistan
- ii, p. 253.
Fn. 3: Ibid, p. 281.
Fn. 2: G. G., 967: Ramkali ki War:
di dohi phiri sachu Kartai bandh bahali. Nanak
kaia palt kar mal takht baitha saidali....3.
Joti samani joti mahi ap apei seti mikion....4.
Fn. 3: W. G., p. 433-37. War-24-I-X-Stanzas.
Fn. 5: S. R., v. p. 295.
S. Singh, op. cit., pp. 43-5.
J.S. Grewal (2011),
Literature, and Identity: Four Centuries of Sikh
Tradition, (Oxford University Press, India),
Fn. 50: Adi Granth, 28.
Fn. 51: Ibid., 361.
Fn. 53: Ibid., 638.
S. Hans (1988),
Reconstruction of Sikh History from Sikh
Literature, (ABS Publications, India), p.
Fn. 72: Adi Granth, 435.
Fn. 73: Ibid., 912.
Fn. 74: Ibid., 1278.
Fn. 129: Adi Granth, 33.
Fn. 130: Loc cit.
Fn. 131: Loc cit.
Fn. 134: Ibid.,
S. Hans, op. cit., p. 63.
Fn. 155: Adi Granth, 1056.
S. Hans, op. cit., p. 67.
Fn. 143: Adi Granth, 586-87.
S. Hans, op. cit., p. 66.
Fn. 75: Adi Granth, 145.
Fn. 76: Ibid., 229; 230; 424; 229; 365; 565.
Fn. 77: Ibid., 425.
Fn. 78: Ibid., 513; 666.
Fn. 79: Ibid., 797.
Fn. 80: Ibid., 1334; 1262.
Fn. 81: Ibid., 1285.
Fn. 82: Ibid., 850; 646.
L.M. Joshi (Ed.) (2000),
(Publication Bureau Punjabi University,
Patiala), p. 11.
Fn. 96: Adi Granth, 594.
Fn. 97: Ibid., 570.
Fn. 98: Ibid., 601.
Fn. 99: Ibid., 645.
Fn. 100: Ibid., 517.
Fn. 101: Ibid., 854.
Fn. 102: Ibid., 233; 920.
S. Hans, op. cit., p.
Fn. 83: Adi Granth, 117.
Fn. 84: Ibid., 117.
Fn. 85: Ibid., 64.
Fn. 86: Ibid., 122.
Fn. 87: Ibid., 91.
S. Hans, op. cit., p. 61.
Fn. 62: Adi Granth, 32.
S. Hans, op. cit., p. 60.
Fn. 71: Adi Granth, 361.
S. Hans, op. cit.
Fn. 100: Adi Granth, 95.
S. Hans, op. cit., p. 103.
Fn. 120: Adi Granth, 552.
Fn. 121: Ibid., 697.
S. Hans, op. cit., pp. 104-5.
Fn. 122: Adi Granth, 697.
Fn. 124: Ibid., 834.
Fn. 126: Ibid., 493.
NOTE: "Bloody-minded hopeless empty heads"
is translated by
Sant Singh Khalsa as
unfortunate and shallow-minded", while
Bhai Manmohan Singh opts for
unfortunate and shallow-intellected [sic]".
Fn. 128: Ibid., 450.
Fn. 129: Ibid., 574; 170.
Fn. 130: Ibid., 1263-64.
Sant Singh Khalsa and
Bhai Manmohan Singh, opt for the translation
"like the prostitute's son" instead of "existential bastards". Both nevertheless carry
the same meaning.
Fn. 132: Adi Granth, 82.
Fn. 136: Ibid., 1244.
S. Hans, op. cit., pp. 105-6.
Fn. 64: Adi Sri Guru Granth Sahibji, p. 401.
H.R. Gupta (2008),
the Sikhs 1469-1708, Vol. 1, (Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi),
S. Singh, op. cit., p. 176.
pp. 2, 3.
cit., p. 47.
Grewal, op. cit., pp. 129-30.
Bhai Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh.
Amritsar, 1962, Var #, Pauris, #, XXIII, 15.
111: Ibid., XXV, 4-5.
cit., p. 45.
Grewal, op. cit., pp. 129-30.
 Fn. 42:
Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh. Amritsar,
1962, Var #, Pauris, #, III, 4; VII, 20.
 Fn. 46:
Ibid., XXVII, 16-17.
Grewal, op. cit., p. 124.
 Fn. 77:
Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh. Amritsar,
1962, Var #, Pauris, #, V, 9.
 Fn. 78:
Ibid., V, 10.
 Fn. 79:
Ibid., VI, 19.
Grewal, op. cit., p. 126.
Bhai Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh.
Amritsar, 1962, Var #, Pauris, #, I, 18-21, 26,
34, 36, 49.
103: Ibid., VIII, 6-24.
Grewal, op. cit., p. 129.
 Fn. 64:
Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh. Amritsar,
1962, Var #, Pauris, #, V, 7, 10.
Grewal, op. cit., p. 125.
 Fn. 98:
Gurdas, ed., Giani Hazara Singh. Amritsar,
1962, Var #, Pauris, #, XIII, 19.
Grewal, op. cit., p. 128.
NOTE: The four categories in
SGGS are given as follows:
Blessed, blessed is the
good fortune of those Saints [sant], who, with
their ears, listen to the Lord's Praises.
Blessed, blessed is the good fortune of those
holy people [sadh], who sing the Kirtan of the
Lord's Praises, and so become virtuous.
Blessed, blessed is the good fortune of those
Gurmukhs, who live as GurSikhs, and conquer
good fortune of all, is that of the Guru's
Sikhs, who fall at the Guru's feet.
 Fn. 49:
12: 15 p. 146; the text reads as follows:
Bhagat Kabiru vakhaniai bandikhane te uth jai...
Benu hoa adhiatami
Sainu nich kul andari nai.
Peri pai pakhak
hoe gursikha vichi vadi samai.
na alakhu lakhai.
See also pp. 128-130 and
Sikh Scripture, (Oxford University Press,
New Delhi), pp. 117-8.
 Fn. 72:
Religion, op. cit. [Its Gurus, Sacred
Writings and Authors, Oxford-1909], Vol. V, p.
 Fn. 73:
Bute Shah alias Ghulam Muhay-ud-Din,
Tawarikh-i-Punjab. MS. Ludhiana-1848. pp. 405-406; Macauliffe, M.A..
Religion, op. cit., Vol. V, pp. 93-94; Teja
Singh. Prin. and Ganda Singh, Prof.,
History of the Sikhs, Bombay-1950, pp.
68-69; Kapur Singh,
Parasarprasna. op. cit., pp. 2-3.
 Fn. 74:
Religion, op. cit., Vol. V. p. 94.
 Fn. 75:
Batalia, Ahmad Shah,
Tawarikh-i-Hind, MS. dated 1818; Bute Shah,
Tawarikh-i-Punjab, op. cit., 406.
 Fn. 76:
of the Sikhs, Princeton-1963; 7th
impr.-1987, Vol. I, pp. 83-84.
Singh, K Singh (Eds.),
Manmukh, see pages: 8, 78, 195, 198, 211,
229-30, 237, 239, 247, 269, 309, 380 and 396.
For Gurmukh, see pages: 7, 8, 71, 78, 84, 115,
193, 195, 198, 211, 217, 229-30, 237, 239, 257,
306, 309, 312, 331, 342, 357, 364 and 380.
Dynamic Vision, (Harman Publishing House,
New Delhi), pp. 193, 309.
the Sikhs, (Publication Bureau, Punjabi
University, Patiala), pp. 190-2.
Manmukh, (The Sikh Encyclopedia;
accessed: 22 July 2012).
113: 'Dabistan-i-Mazahib', in J.S. Grewal and
Irfan Habib, eds,
History from Persian Sources, New Delhi:
Tulika/ Indian History Congress, 2001, pp.59-84.
Gupta cites the source slightly differently:
"They say whoever does not recognise Guru Arjan
as Baba Nanak his real self is a manmukh or
kafir." The Dabistan, 225. See: H.R. Gupta,
Grewal, op. cit., pp. 130-1.
BACK TO TOP