We received the following from Project Naad. The astute reader will quickly realise that far from attempting a refutation, Project Naad tacitly concedes defeat by choosing to ignore the arguments set in the article Nirgun-Sargun Conundrum. Instead, they opt for an approach that defies rationality and is, thus, guaranteed to fail; and Allah’s protection is sought from such confusion.
The God of Nirgun And Sargun: With Attributes and Without Attributes
This essay attempts to correct misunderstandings or false statements made by Muslim scholars regarding:
- Applying the universal Law of non-Contradiction to the Infinite God
- The Nirgun-Sargun concept of God in Sikhism
- The authenticity of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji: the Sikh Holy Scripture
It should be noted that the majority of this article has been compiled in response to articles which were published on the following website. The red text highlights extracts taken from the Islam-Sikhism website or other Islamic websites.
Sikhism respects all religions and supports the concept of ‘Sarbat Dah Bhalla’ which means ‘Good for all’. Sikhs do not have any ill will towards any community as all human beings are sons and daughters of one God.
“See the brotherhood of all mankind as the highest order of Yogis; conquer your own mind, and conquer the world.” – (Guru Granth Sahib, Page 6)
3 Inherent Problems With Islam-Sikhism Rebuttal
Before I start to provide you with an answer I would like to bring to light a few inherent problems with your argument. Your argument is based around the nature of God. Such an argument is in itself preposterous! How can one hope to understand God when we fail to understand ourselves?! Unfortunately, our egotistic selves are absorbed by questions and we waste time on needless tasks, instead of spending what little time we have to develop our relationship with God. Nevertheless, as Aquinas showed, logic and reason can be used to reinforce our belief in God, so let’s crack on.
We quoted in the introduction of the said article a principle formulated by the scholar Ibn Taymiyyah for a very important reason. We knew it was only a matter of time before a Sikh asserts the aforementioned self-defeating argument, i.e. God is beyond our understanding and inherently problematic to argue the nature of God.
To remind Project Naad, Ibn Taymiyyah said: “If one does not have knowledge of what one is worshipping, then what is one worshipping?”
How can one worship an entity whose nature one cannot argue, especially when a proposed nature is shown to be inherently problematic?
Firstly, what is ‘knowledge’ and what is ‘argumentation’? Answering this question alone will completely demolish Project Naad’s arguments.
The definition of knowledge as articulated by the scholars of Usool (fundamentals) in Islam is:
To comprehend the reality of something as it truly is with yaqeen (certainty).
Related to this are the levels of understanding, which are six:
- Knowledge (al-‘ilm) – to understand the reality of something, as it truly is, with certainty.
- Slight ignorance (al-jahlul baseet) – the absence of full understanding.
- Aggravated/ compounded ignorance (al-jahlul murakkab) – to understand something in a way contrary to its true reality.
- Delusion (al-wahm) – to think that one understands something despite the presence of that which should cause one to realise one’s error.
- Doubt (ash-shak) – to think that one understands something yet is aware of something contrary to it which one thinks has the same possibility of being true.
- Preponderant belief (dhan) – to understand something despite the presence of something that is contrary to it, but which is less likely to be true.
Argumentation on the other hand “embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. It is concerned primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on premises. It also encompasses the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal. This art and science is often the means by which people protect their beliefs or self-interests in rational dialogue, in common parlance, and during the process of arguing”. 
In light of the above, to argue the nature of God is a necessary part of attempting to understand Him as per the plethora of concepts of God – in this case contradictory – accepted by humankind. Hence, how can we possibly claim to have knowledge of God when we question, nay reject, the position of those who come to conclusions, through the process of logical reasoning and rational dialogue, over the truth of their Lord. Is this not the definition of argumentation?
If Project Naad honestly believes that to argue the nature of God is “preposterous” and a “needless task”, how can they claim to have knowledge of God and/ or claim it is true? The fact is that Project Naad’s attempted rebuttal of our arguments and defence of Sikhism’s theology-proper merely exposes their “preposterous” position.
As for the statement: “How can one hope to understand God when we fail to understand ourselves,” then this is seems like pseudo-spiritual ad-hominem clap-trap since a failure to understand “ourselves” does not effect the validity of an argument.
Our overarching contention is that it is preposterous of God to reveal an ‘understanding’ of His nature that is irrational and absurd.
As an introductory note, I would like to point out that the application of the universal law of non contradiction in a situation regarding God, especially when considering the God of classical theism (which is the case), is not wholly applicable.
This is where Project Naad shoots itself in the foot even before taking its first step.
Firstly, it is impossible for us to forward a precise answer without the term ‘classical theism’ being defined.
Having said that, however, we must understand that this entire argument is in relation to a “situation regarding God”. Hence, in order to determine the applicability of using this law in relation to God, the very law itself must be applied necessarily; otherwise proving how applicable “the universal law of non-contradiction [is] in a situation regarding God, especially when considering the God of classical theism (which is the case)”, would be impossible due to it being both true and false at the same time, which of course is absurd. Thus, the above statement is essentially self-refuting.
God created the creation and everything in it. God existed before logic and reason. We do not have the grounds to say that God abides by laws which we as humans have thought up, so applying such a law to an argument adds nothing. After all, this ‘universal’ law can only apply within the universe, inclusive of everything within the creation, how can it apply to something which is beyond the universe itself?
Firstly, to claim that we “do not have the grounds to say that God abides by laws which we as humans have thought up, so applying such a law to an argument adds nothing” is begging the question since Project Naad presuppose these laws to be “thought up”; and thus, wrongly conclude its inapplicability to arguments related to God.
Secondly, it is shocking that one can seriously assert that these laws (in this case the law of non-contradiction) is inapplicable because it presumably adds nothing to an argument. It seems Project Naad has failed to read the hopeless and untenable position I.S. Dhillon fell into when attempting to defend a similar stance.
But amusingly, however, Project Naad refutes its own position in the same paragraph when it states: “After all, this ‘universal’ law can only apply within the universe, inclusive of everything within the creation”.
We stated in the article Logic and the Law of non-Contradiction that:
Since we are inexorably bound by these laws, all propositions that violate these laws are necessarily meaningless. Hence, how can we make sense of a god, or anything for that matter, that transcends these self-evident laws? It is in preserving our God-given rationality that we must apply these a priori laws to things, both inclusive and exclusive of the universe, for them to make any sense.
What Sikhs like Project Naad are proposing is that we join them in believing an impossible God. Why? If, for arguments sake, we entertain the idea that these laws are not applicable to God, then, when it’s claimed that God is, for example, all-Just, the possibility of Him being not all-Just, i.e unjust, at the same time might also be true, which, of course, is a clear contradiction!
But, as we explained in said article:
In the Islamic worldview, this is considered: “Burdening a soul with more than it is capable of bearing” let alone burdening it with that which is impossible to bear. From His infinite Mercy, Allah says:No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can bear. (Qur’an 2:233) 
We as Muslims wish to follow the clarity of truth, not the confusion of falsehood clearly espoused and practiced by Project Naad and those of a similar mind set. Do they expect us to believe in an impossible God?
The absurdity of the above argument also renders all possible thoughts related to anything as meaningless since anything beyond reason is in itself meaningless.
To begin with, any meaningful interpretation of a given proposition can only be made by the use of one’s rationale.
And since the proposition is tangible, it is subject to rational scrutinisation, which allows one to determine its truth or falsity.
Also, to effectively argue on the nature of God implies that we fully understand God because without a full understanding of something how can we hope to build an argument which is wholly inclusive?
What does Project Naad mean by “fully understand God”? At present, these Sikhs are expecting us to accept a concept of God that calls for the rejection of all necessary laws needed by all reasonable people to understand Him and everything else rationally.
We would like to know how one can effectively argue a point that exists independently of one’s ability to reason?
This can be illustrated by quantum physics.
Quantum physics seemingly violates logic and the universal law of non contradiction.
This is because the same particle can exist in two places at the same time, and can exist and not exist at the same time. Things can come into existence spontaneously not following cause and effect relationships. This is based on empirical evidences. Just because this aspect of science could be regarded as seemingly contradictory to logic and reason does not make it meaningless, and nor does it make the law of non contradiction untrue. It could merely be that we do not yet fully understand quantum physics and that the bigger picture will fit better. Whether we achieve this understanding remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, it is not possible to fully understand God.
We appreciate the fact that Project Naad has used the term “seemingly” to qualify their argument since we have published a paper titled: The Waheguru Wave-Particle Duality, which exposes the inherent flaws in adopting this self-defeating argument.
This predictably drab example drawn by Project Naad is merely indicative of its novitiate approach. It has committed a category error fallacy by confusing the categories of logic and epistemology.
In the case of quantum mechanics, it may be that the truth-value of a proposition may not be known to us epistemologically, but this is not the case in terms of logic. For example, take the proposition: “There is life on Andromeda”. This proposition is true or false in terms of logic and there is no third alternative; but, epistemologically it is unknown. Nevertheless, logically it is either true or false.
Similarly, any proposition asserted by a particle physicist can only be proven as true by making recourse to the self-evident laws of bi-valued logic.
If Project Naad disagrees, it is more than welcome to try and prove otherwise.
As the Shiri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Reveals: “How can my tongue describe Your countless virtues? They are uncountable, and forever indescribable”, “By thinking, God cannot be reduced to thought, even by thinking hundreds of thousands of times” and “If anyone presumes to describe God, he shall be known as the greatest fool of fools!”.
We say what Allah says in response:
In summary, logical reasoning can be used to help one reinforce their beliefs in God but its usefulness in providing an insight into the nature of God is questionable.
Therefore, applying logic to revealed truths such as God being Sargun and Nirgun is not fully legitimised. The argument will be discussed below in more detail.
4 Detailed Argument Against The Impossible God
4.1 The Islam-Sikhism Website on Not Being Able to Know Truth of God:
‘These Sikhs postulate that Truth is God, and God transcends rationality; but, since man is bound by rationality, man is incapable of consciously knowing the Truth (God); and up until man transcends the conscious (rationality) to become one with God, the Truth will remain elusive.’
4.2 The Project Naad Response to Not Being Able to Know Truth of God:
God can be described to be the Ultimate Truth. This is not to say that God is only truth. The SGGSJ tells us that one of the virtues of God is ‘Sat Naam’. God’s name is Truth. It is this concept which you have failed to understand and why the argument you have put forward is flawed.
The fact that God is described as truth does not mean that we cannot know basic truths about the nature of God as revealed by SGGSJ without being connected to God.
For example, the God of Classical theism is described as being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.
One could argue that these attributes of God are illogical. How can something exist in more than one place at one time?
The answer is simple, and one which is accepted widely by believers in God. God is not restricted by the same laws which we are subject to. After all, God is the one that created everything! For example, God is not subject to time as everything in the creation is.
Firstly, it is a fallacy to employ an argumentum ad populum since the validity of a given argument is neither proven or disproven by the number of people supporting it.
Secondly, it is important to note that Project Naad has not attempted to refute the inherent contradiction that is the Nirgun-Sargun concept of God. On the contrary, what they have attempted to show is that God is not subject to the bi-valued laws of logic that proves said contradiction, by attempting to argue the futility of its use.
Since we have relayed the ground work for meaningful argumentation, we will now expose the inherent absurdities theists fall into when attempting to make sense of God and/ or other concepts at the expense of these laws. Logically:
God is not subject to or bound by any laws in this universe.
The laws of bi-valued logic are part of this universe.
Thus, the laws of bi-valued logic are not applicable to God.
Thus, any concept of God postulated independently of these laws is impossible to prove and conceptually meaningless.
Project Naad, however, readily acknowledges that “God is the one that created everything”, and yet are unwilling to extend that logic to accept the fact that God endowed us with the ability to reason, under the inviolable umbrella of these established laws, to make sense of both Him and His creation.
God transcends this dimension as well as all other dimensions.
Do we transcend this dimension? If we do not, then we are bound by these universal laws in understanding God. But since Project Naad is bending over backwards to show that the laws of this universe are not applicable to God, who allegedly “transcends this dimension”, can Project Naad prove that a concept that holds God, for example, to be both transcendent and non-transcendent at the same time, is true?
It is for this reason, among others, that God is referred to being the Ultimate Truth. God is constant.
But since God transcends these laws, we can only conclude that He is also not-constant, and not the Ultimate Truth.
If Project Naad insists, however, that He is beyond the application of these laws, we respond by asking how we can rationally make sense of anything that is claimed to ultimately be beyond our comprehension?
The SGGSJ reveals, “[God is] True In The Primal Beginning. True Throughout The Ages.
True Here And Now. Nanak says, [God is] Forever And Ever True.” Therefore, God is the epitome of truth and not simply restricted to being only truth as your statement suggests.
Sikhism is about experiencing God and connecting the soul to the infinite Lord. It is true to say that one cannot fully know God. This is known as the epistemic distance, the knowledge gap between ourselves and God. It is not possible to know God completely as God is infinite, but this does not mean that we cannot know truth, and what is even higher than truth is truthful living. This is how a Sikh aims to live life.
While this suggestion is neither here nor there, the implications of it are comical because the theology-proper of Sikhism is impossible to prove. Hence, we find it fascinating that rather than attempt to prove otherwise, Project Naad all but accepts the contradiction, while inviting us to accept an impossible God!
Therefore, as truth and the Ultimate Truth is not quite the same thing one cannot contend that just because we cannot know God we can not understand truth. Hence your argument is flawed.
And as we have demonstrated, whether it be the words ‘truth’, ‘Ultimate Truth’ or ‘jack in the box’, nothing is provable if Project Naad suggests we believe in something that transcends all universal laws, and thus rationality.
4.3 The Islam-Sikhism Website on Authenticity of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji:
‘However, such a postulate is convoluted and self-defeating since we assert that Sikhism is contradictory not on that which is claimed to be transcendent, but that which is subject to observation: That which is proposed or stated; that is, the Guru Granth Sahib, which is a book of propositions. Hence, when a Muslim states that the Nirgun-Sargun concept of God is contradictory, it is not that the Creator is contradictory, but rather the man-invented theology-proper of Sikhism that is contradictory and false.’
4.4 The Project Naad Response on Authenticity of Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji:
Your statement about the SGGSJ being ‘a book of propositions’ is simply untrue. What you have failed to understand is that the written word, Bani, is revealed Truth.
In this instance either Project Naad does not know the meaning of the word proposition or it does, but chooses to feign ignorance. The stupidity of such a claim, i.e. that SGGS is not ‘a book of propositions’, is all too obvious.
If SGGS is “revealed Truth”, then it must contain propositions since only propositions are carriers of truth-values.
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines a proposition as: That which is proposed or stated. Since we know that truth is a property of propositions. A proposition is either true or false. Hence, propositions alone are carriers of truth-values. A proposition is the meaning of a statement that declares that something is true or false.
If SGGS is revealed Truth, how can it not be a book of propositions?
Written and signed by the Gurus’ themselves, it is unique. It is also free from contradiction. Any apparent ‘contradictions’ are due to a lack of understanding on the reader’s behalf. This is apparent in this case as the apparent ‘contradiction’ of the Nirgun-Sargun concept is in fact not contradictory and only appears so to those that do not understand the infinity of God. Hopefully after reading this response God will bless you with a better understanding.
How can we have a better understanding of something that transcends our understanding? Whatever postulations we or Project Naad make of God are irrelevant since they are impossible to prove because God is allegedly not bound by the absolute laws of bi-valued logic (not to mention the fact that not a single attempt has been made at refuting our arguments against the nirgun-sargun concept).
Guru Gobind Singh Ji Says: “O God! The day when I caught hold of your feet, I do not bring anyone else under my sight; none other is liked by me now; the Puranas and the Quran try to know Thee by the names of Ram and Rahim and talk about you through several stories, but I do not accept any of them. The Simritis, Shastras and Vedas describe several mysteries of yours, but I do not agree with any of them. O swordwielder God! This all has been described by Thy Grace, what power can I have to write all this?” As is shown here, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, as with all the other Guru’s and spiritual writers of the Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji were divinely connected to God and what they have written is equivalent to the Word of God. The same cannot be said for the Quran which was written many years after the death of Prophet Mohammad and never authenticated as the Truth by him.
The author here has merely displayed ignorance of Islam by claiming “the Qur’an which was written many years after the death of Prophet Mohammad and never authenticated as the Truth by him”; but, since this is a red-herring, we will suffice by mentioning only that Allaah Himself authenticates the Qur’an as the Truth from Him:
4.5 The Islam-Sikhism Website on Rationality and Revealed Truth:
‘To begin with, any meaningful interpretation of a given proposition can only be made by the use of one’s rationale. And since the proposition is tangible, it is subject to rational scrutinisation, which allows one to determine its truth or falsity. Thus, one does not need to become one with God to determine the truth-value of an alleged divinely revealed proposition.’
4.6 The Project Naad Response on Rationality and Revealed Truth:
As has been outlined above, what is written within the SGGSJ and other Sikh scriptures such as the Dasam Granth are not simple propositions, they are revealed Truths.
However, what has been revealed can of course still be rationally analysed.
If any part of it can be rationally analysed to determine a truth, then it is a “proposition”, be it simple or complicated, as per the definition of the word “proposition”!
But, when concepts such as the Nirgun and Sargun nature of God are to be analysed caution must be taken as even though these are presented in a tangible format, i.e, ink, the concept itself is intangible as it refers to God. As God transcends rationality, rational arguing cannot definitively determine the truth or falsity of the concept.
And the insurmountable penny drops! “God transcends rationality”. Here we pose the same questions we posed to I.S. Dhillon, who of course failed to answer; we hope that Project Naad will take up the challenge:
We used our intellect to understand the meaning of the two words.
Hence, we comprehend the terms nirgun and sargun.
Through the use of our rationality we concluded nirgun-sargun to be a contradiction.
Thus, God cannot transcend rationality since He made use of our ability to reason by informing us of knowledge concerning His Divine Self.
How can it then be said that God transcends rationality when He revealed knowledge of Himself that would be subjected to rational scrutinisation?
Not only is Project Naad’s statement self-refuting, but SGGS, which apparently contains knowledge of God, also refutes this position.
The only way this absurd proposition is true is if God did NOT reveal any knowledge of His Divine Self.
What reasoning can help to do is to show whether the concept is logically consistent with human observed rationality. But even if the answer is that it is not consistent, it does not mean the concept is false. At most all one can conclude is that it is not logically consistent within the human capacity of reasoning.
And what other capacity of reasoning can we turn to if not human reasoning?
We are bound by our reasoning; there is no escaping it; and nothing can make any sense whatsoever without reasoning and rationality.
Nevertheless, it will be shown that God does indeed transcend rationality and therefore God does not necessarily have to work within its rules.
Also, whatever the answer is, it is independent of the idea that God is beyond rationality. Remember that Truth and God are inherently related but not exactly the same things. Therefore just because a divinely revealed truth can be proved to be logically consistent does not mean you have become one with God, as you have also suggested.
Where did we claim that a logically consistent divinely revealed truth purports to one becoming one with God? Incidentally, the idea of becoming one with God is alien to Islamic theology; but finds its roots in Hindu anthropomorphism.
Sikhism does not say you need to become one with God to know truth, as truthful living is part of a Sikh’s way of life, whatever level of spirituality they are at.
What seems to be lacking in your understanding though is God’s infinite nature.
No, just this puzzling suggestion that a person is expected to believe in a nature, be it infinite or otherwise, that transcends rationality.
Also, what is key is that when one does connect to the Lord these truths are revealed without the need for rational thought. This is referred to as the noetic aspect of a spiritual experience. Therefore to suggest that ‘the only way to get a meaningful interpretation is through one’s rationale’ is not true. It simply requires one to sit and meditate on the One Lord.
Firstly, the above is irrelevant since our argument is not based on private personal subjective claims; we are interested in determining the validity of objective claims to truth. Hence, our quarrel here is to do with Sikhism’s contradictory and errant theology-proper.
Secondly, is Project Naad expecting adherents to deludingly hold fast to an errant (contradictory) concept and hope that one day, in the not too distant future, this inconsistency (contradiction) will suddenly and mysteriously be remedied?
Allah from the very outset orders Muslims to have knowledge of Him when He says:
We are assured that the Truth is clear, as our Prophet said: “I have left you upon clear guidance; its night is like its day. No one will deviate from it except that he will be destroyed.” (Authentic) No where in Islam does Allaah and/ or His Messenger expect blind following of a mentally oppressive concept of God with this backward assurance that all will be made clear one day soon. We must want clarity and certainty of truth of our Lord in the here and NOW, not in the uncertain realms of the future.
Meaning can be a very subjective thing. As the SGGSJ says, “O mortal being, vibrate and meditate on the Lord of the World. ||2|| If you do not vibrate and meditate on Him now, when will you, O Sibing of Destiny? When the end comes, you will not be able to vibrate and meditate on Him. Whatever you have to do – now is the best time to do it. Otherwise, you shall regret and repent afterwards, and you shall not be carried across to the other side. ||3||” I hope you understand that by merely asking questions, true understanding will never be obtained.
We hope that Project Naad and Sikhs in general understand that by refusing to think with one’s God-given rationale, clarity and certainty of truth will be a distant dream with the heart wavering upon delusion (al-wahm) and the mind established upon compounded ignorance (al-jahlul murakkab).
4.7 The Islam-Sikhism Website on the God of Nirgun and Sargun – With Attributes and Without Attributes:
‘For example, Sikhism’s concept of God is that He is both Nirgun (attributeless, formless, transcendent) and Sargun (attributed, personal, immanent, diffused in creation, manifest)  at the same time, which of course is contradictory.’
4.8 The Project Naad Response on the God of Nirgun and Sargun – With Attributes and Without Attributes:
This apparent ‘contradiction’ is, as has been explained above, due to a lack of understanding on your behalf. The Sargun-Nirgun concept helps to perfectly explain the infinity of the Lord. What must be understood is that God is beyond the concept of time. Therefore, is it perfectly reasonable to suggest that God can be Nirgun and Sargun at the ‘same time’. Also, God is limitless and not restricted to boundaries of logic that us mere humans are. We cannot hope to fully comprehend an incomprehensible being. Also, we cannot fully understand the nature of God through merely logic and reason alone. Therefore, how can one hope to intellectualise God?
Quantum physics is a great illustrator of how things may not seem logically consistent, and how something can be everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
This is not just something that is accepted by Sikhs. Ironically, even Islam could be argued to be contradictory on such a topic if a similar argument is followed. Islam suggests that God has 99 names. Some of these are shown below:
52 Al-Haqq The Truth, The Real
15 Al-Ghaffar The Ever Forgiving
81 Al-Muntaqim The Avenger
Al-Mudhell The Giver of Dishonour
48 Al-Wadood The Loving, The Kind One
73 Al-Awwal The First
74 Al-Akhir The Last
If we follow the nonsensical argument that you have followed it could be questioned how God can be both the Ever Forgiving and the Avenger at the same time?
Also, how can God be The Giver of Dishonour and The Loving? Moreover, how can God be both The First and The Last at the same time? Are these not contradictory statements as well? The truth of the matter is that God is limitless and beyond time so anything is possible. God is not limited to reason and logic.
Not that this is the subject at hand; but, once again this indicates Project Naad’s utter ignorance of Islamic theology. If the premises of your argument are based on the above suggested translations and flimsy assertions then we can only warn you of a rude-awakening.
4.9 Reductio ad Absurdum for Nirgun and Sargun Debate
I would like to end with a Reductio ad Absurdum argument created by the Project Naad Team. This is given below:
God is limited to human reason and logic
God is the greatest possible being
Having limits is not as great as being limitless
Therefore, God must be limitless
Hence, God cannot be limited by human reason and logic.
Of course this logical argument presupposes that God is ‘limited’ to human reason and logic; as we have demonstrated that on the contrary it is God Who has endowed us with the ability to reason, under the inviolable umbrella of these divinely established laws, to make sense of both Him and His creation. Hence, God’s greatness is only proved by us making recourse to these laws.
The inherent property of God is that God is unconstrained and to have a limit is logically inconsistent to the definition of God’s All Powerfulness.
By that rationale, would Project Naad be willing to concede that God can cease to be God, or cease to exist for eternity, or become temporarily eternal? If the answer is yes, then this is not befitting the divine qualities of an absolute Creator (neither does it make sense). If the answer is no, then God does have limits and is constrained to that which befits the divine qualities of an absolute Creator.
I hope after reading this article God will bless you with a better understanding so that you may experience the Lord as apposed to continually asking questions which will only get you so far in your spirituality.
The Project Naad Team
We look forward to your response. But we hope that stubbornness and arrogance, the chief obstacles that lead to falsehood, do not hinder your path towards submitting to al-Haqq – The Truth.