Islam-Sikhism - Soteriology (Absurdities of Reincarnation)

INTRODUCTION

The belief in Reincarnation and Transmigration is in stark contrast to the belief of, what is commonly referred to as the "Semitic" religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islaam. In particular, Islaam holds that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) directed the Muslims to accept and believe in a Resurrection following death and in a Day of Judgment. The basic understanding, as taught by all of Allaah's Prophets and Messengers, was:

The belief in Reincarnation-Transmigration of the eastern religions in comparison to the Semitic religions is mutually exclusive, i.e. contradictory.
Hence, it can be concluded that both cannot be true, but only one is true.

This treatise will attempt to examine Sikhism's concept of Reincarnation-
Transmigration and show that it contains fundamental flaws that violates the universally accepted attribute associated to God of absolute perfection - the all-Just ('al-Adl). In doing so, we will show, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), that this concept is flawed and contradictory, violates the absolute perfection of God, and must therefore, by necessity, be rejected as false and untrue.

According to the concept of karma, our present life is the result of our past karma. Karma operates in this life and successive ones. The law of karma does not cease to operate after death. According to Sikhi:

Karma does not mean that everything is pre-ordained and that man has no free-will. He carries his past Karma in the form of character. It is his own actions that make him what he is. Guru Nanak says, "The record of my deeds cannot be effaced because God has recorded them." [1]

Keeping in mind that preordainment does not necessitate an absence of freewill, there is a major problem with this concept of one's life being determined by previous karma.

The first and most obvious is that since we are living this life, then our previous life was an unsuccessful attempt in achieving moksha, due to our sinful actions. From this comes a question that must be asked: What were the mistakes we committed that resulted in our failure to acquire liberation?

According to SGGS: "After union, the separation comes and after separation the union. After living the span of life, the death comes and after death the life. He becomes the father of many and the son of many, the disciple and preceptor of many. Their lives in the past and future are countless. Nothing is known what was in the past and what will be in the future?" (Salok M.1. P 1238)

Hence, according to Sikhism, our past life and actions are unrecollectable.
We are made to go through khand for past misdeeds we are in fact incapable of recalling. Based upon this, the next question one should ask is:

If one does not know what one is being punished for, then does not the possibility exist of repeating the same mistake?

The answer is not only an obvious yes; but, the problem is further compounded when we realise that since we do not know what evil deeds we committed, resulting in failure to liberate ourselves from the cycle of life and death, then how is it possible for us to learn from our mistakes in order that we do not repeat them, or worse still, commit worse transgressions?
Leading on from this, if we hold to the concept of "A person reaps what he sows" - "Jehaa beejai so lunai karma sandraa khet: The man sows so does he reap. Such is the field of actions." (SGGS 134) - it can safely be said that if one is born under circumstances that could be construed as unfavourable, then this is simply a case of reaping what was sown in a previous life or lives. For example, if a baby was born with a deformity or born into a family stricken by extreme poverty, which in either case would assure a life of difficulty and hardship, and as a result lead to an early death, the question that would immediately arise is:

Is it just on God's part to punish a person under such unfavourable conditions for past misdeeds that one has absolutely no knowledge of?

The answer to this question can quite easily be determined when we see children suffering and realise that this is merely just reward (punishment) for misdeeds committed in some unknown and unrecollectable past life.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KARMA AND THE SUFFERING CHILD

The problem with this relationship is that since it is inexorably linked to the notion of Karma, Reincarnationists habitually conflate the following two propositions:

(1) Everything has a cause: "The man sows so does he reap. Such is the field of actions." (SGGS 134)

(2) The effect it has on one's present life, including happiness and unhappiness, is determined by past deeds: "Beej bovas bhog bhogahi keeyaa appnaa pavaye: As are the seeds one plants, so are the fruits; he receives the consequences of his own efforts."
(SGGS 705) "Jaisaa kare so taisaa paavai. Aap beej aape he khavai: Man is rewarded according to his actions; as he sows, so does he eat or reaps." (SGGS 662)

These are quite distinct claims and neither implies the other. Subject to certain qualifications, (1) is plausible but (2) is not, and it is the latter which reincarnationists need for their argument.

The idea that Karma is a "Law", if it can be defined as such, which operates autonomously, i.e. automatically produces the appropriate results like any other law in the natural domain, nobody can cheat the law and that it is as inexorable as any natural law, on the face of it sounds reasonable.
However, let a further examination determine how just this "Law" really is.

Going back to the example of the child born with a deformity or one that suffers terribly and then dies, we can examine the implications in light of the following:

1. The child's suffering is directly related to sins committed in previous lives.

2. The child's parents are likewise suffering the pain and anguish as a result of their own sins committed in their own respective past lives.

SGGS: "Daddai dos na deyoo kisai dos krammaa aapanyaa. Jo mai keeyaa so mai paayaa dos na deejai avar janaa: Do not blame anyone else; blame instead your own actions. Whatever I did, for that I have suffered; I do not blame anyone else." (SGGS 433)

Before we determine how just and humane this concept is, we have to realise certain factors.

Recalling that the parents and child have no recollection of their past lives in terms of sins and transgression to justifiably warrant them being reborn, we can, thus, see clear absurdities that lead us to inevitable conclusions of injustice when we consider the following:

(A) Personality and self-awareness developed over one lifetime comes to an end after we die.

(B) Upon being reborn, there is absolutely no trace of ones personality and self-awareness from any so-called previous life.

(C) Hence, if a completely new personality and a totally different self awareness exist, then various reincarnations, extending over a period of time, are no more significantly linked than the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time.

1. How is it possible to justify the suffering of a person as a deserved
punishment for previous sins when one has absolutely no recollection of the transgressions committed in a past life?

2. Is there any difference between this and accusing a newly born child, who has no means of determining the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, of possessing a sinful nature before it has acquired the faculties of reason - similar to the Christian notion of Original Sin?

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. From this absurdity, can it therefore be said that Hitler will suffer for his sins in the next life? No! Since there is no continuity between the person of Hitler and that of the individual who has to endure, presumably, the severe hardships incurred by Hitler's karma.
The only conclusion one can arrive at is that not only will an innocent person be unduly punished, but Hitler himself will go unpunished for his crimes against humanity because he ceased to exist! As a result, it is not possible to justify punishment for past actions (deeds) that are neither connected to one's present existence nor recollectable, let alone being able to justify it for an innocent child. Moreover, this child, for all intents and purposes, is innocent of those unrecollectable yet incriminating actions since it has absolutely no means of learning from them.

In Islaam, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that the pen for the recording of actions and deeds in life, including the judgment, is lifted i.e. suspended, in such cases where one has either not developed the means or lost the ability to rationalise, i.e. the use of sound reasoning and moral judgment:

"The pen has been lifted for three: the insane until he regains his sanity, the child until he reaches puberty (age of discernment), and the sleeper until he wakes up."

And yet, under the Karmic worldview, this child is not only held accountable for unrecollectable actions, but must also be deemed and described as a guilty sinner! The ramifications are of course shocking to say the least and in light of this, we can do nothing but come to the harrowing conclusion that in relation to the suffering child, God must be described as unjust.

In Islaam, the suffering of the child is not due to previous sins. On the contrary, it occurs due to factors external to it and beyond its control by the decree of Allaah. It cannot be said that the child is being punished since punishment is only meted out upon the one who commits sins and transgressions. As for the suffering of a child then this could either be due to punishment meted out upon others with whom it is associated to, e.g. parent's being punished for their transgressions and evil deeds, the consequences of which directly affects the child, or Allaah is testing the parents to see how they will react in the face of their child's suffering. In both cases the child is considered innocent from any personal blame.

It is from the distinguishing characteristics of God's absolute justice that He punishes the guilty after they have been informed clearly of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, with evidence established against them. This is certainly true for Islaam as Allaah says in the Holy Qur'an:

"...And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning). And when We would destroy a town (population), We would (firstly) send a definite order (to obey Allaah) to those among them who live at ease. Then afterwards they would transgress, thus the word (of torment) was justified against them.
And We would then destroy them utterly." (Qur'an 17:15-16)

However, this does not hold true for the Karmic theory, which assigns guilt, blame and punishment for unrecollectable past woes unbeknown to the unfortunate victim. Hence, the potential for rectification, by learning from these previous errors, does not exist.

AN EXAMINATION OF REAL-LIFE SCENARIOS

Can the defender of Karma admit that some suffering is outrageously severe or must he say that all suffering is a priori just and necessarily deserved merely because it occurs?
[Philosophical Quarterly, 1965, p. 151, Steinkraus]

In light of what has preceded, let us examine other real life scenarios by attempting to interpret them under the umbrella of the so-called Karmic Law.

1. What can we say of the incineration of six million Jews by their Nazi exterminators? In accordance to the theory of Karma, they merely "reaped" what they had "sown". That is to say, their physical and
mental torture, starvation and eventual murder was no more than what they deserved based upon the notion that their suffering and eventual demise is connected to transgressions committed in a past life. In answering the question posed above: "Can the defender of Karma admit that some suffering is outrageously severe or must he say that all suffering is a priori just and necessarily deserved merely because it occurs?" we are forced to conclude that suffering in life, no matter how severe and torturous, is directly proportional to the degree of transgression and evil committed by these Jews in a past life. Since the most important factor here is an inevitable reaping of past crimes, the manner in which this occurs - what can be referred to as: The Karmic Effect - is seemingly irrelevant. This creedal Fatalism [2] accepted by Sikhism forces one to an amazing conclusion:
No matter what transpires in life, it is wholly justified and inevitable.
By this rationale, 'The Karmic Effect' for the Jews, i.e. their Nazi exterminators, was merely a consequence of what they had sown.
Hence, from the viewpoint of the Jews, the action of these Nazis was an inevitable consequence of what was destined to occur. In other words, the Jews got what they deserved! Do not be surprising if one is accused of being "Anti Semitic" after forwarding such an explanation!

However, the farce does not end there. Many more mind-boggling absurdities arise that question whether the theory of Karma is just:

2. Returning to the suffering child. In light of the explanation cited earlier from SGGS: "Do not blame anyone else; blame instead your own actions. Whatever I did, for that I have suffered; I do not blame anyone else" (SGGS 433), consider giving the following heartless explanation to the child's parents: "It all makes sense - your child deserved her fate; she sinned in a previous life, and the severity of her suffering is directly proportional to the severity of the sins she committed. What is more, you yourself are, likewise, suffering and there is no doubt that you are being punished for some serious transgression either in this or an earlier life or both. You can see that, as always, justice prevails!" Upon receiving such an heartfelt explanation, how many would not look to take a baseball bat to the cranium of such an individual!

3. What conclusions would be drawn if we attempted to explain away the deaths of thousands of people due to a natural disaster? Let us take the example of the great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976 in China, which lasted between 14-16 seconds, leaving a death toll of approximately 242,000 people. Were all these men, women and children, who died so suddenly, simply deserving of such a fate?
Perhaps they were even a catalyst for the disaster itself! Can we not ask whether nature too is subject to this deadly Karmic Effect?
Was this disaster meant to occur so that these people payoff the past-debt? And was death the ultimate and necessary price for those unrecollectable actions they had sown?

If one were to hold to this incredulous Karmic theory, the absurd and inexplicable conclusions reached for any given scenario in life would not only be morally untenable, but also extremely distasteful, objectionable and wholly unjustifiable.

The difference between the fatalism of Sikhism and Islam's understanding of Divine
Preordainment is explained beautifully by the great scholar Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, in his book: "The Divine Pre-Decree and Ordainment of Allaah":

O Brothers, know that the Muslim ummah (nation) is divided into three groups with respect to Allaah's Pre-Decree:

The First Group: They went overboard in their affirmation of Allaah's Pre-Decree, denying that the human being has any ability or choice in the matter. They hold that "A person has no ability or choice - he is controlled and has no free will, just like a tree when it is blown by the wind." They do not distinguish between a person's action that occur as a result of his choice and an action of his that occurs without him choosing so. No doubt, these people are astray, because what is known from the Religion by necessity, and from the intellect and customs, is that a human being knows the difference between an action he chooses to do and an action he is forced into doing.

The Second Group: They went to extremes in their affirmation of a person's ability and choice, such that they negated Allaah having any part in Willing or Choosing or Creating what action a person does. And they claimed that a person is independently responsible for producing his action. This is such that a group amongst them went too far, saying: "Allaah does not know what actions His servants will do until after it occurs from them." These people have also gone to extremes and shown great radicalism in affirming a human being's ability and choice.

The Third Group: These are the ones who truly believe, and so Allaah has guided them concerning that which is disagreed upon from the truth. They are Ahlus- Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah [the people of the Prophetic guidance of Muhammad and those who follow him]. They have treaded the moderate path and the middle course, which is based on religious and logical proofs and evidences. And they say: The actions that Allaah introduces into existence are divided into two types:

First: The actions from Allaah that He causes to occur in His Creation. No one has any choice in regard to these actions, and they are such as when rain descends, when the earth produces vegetation, when life or death occurs, when health or sickness befalls and so on and so forth - from the many things that can be observed occurring within the creation. Without doubt, no one has any part in choosing or willing for these things to transpire, but rather it is only Allaah who wills that to happen.

Second: The actions that the creation, i.e. all of the various types of creatures that possess a willingness, do. These actions occur as a result their choosing and wanting to do them, since Allaah gave them the ability to do that, as He says:

"Among you is he who desires the worldly life and among you is he who desires the Hereafter." (Surah Aali 'Imraan: 152)

"So whoever wishes, then let him believe, and whoever wishes then let him disbelieve." (Surah Al-Kahf: 29)

A human being knows the difference between what occurs from him as a result of his own free will and what occurs from him as a result of being compelled and forced. So for example, when a human being climbs a ladder to get to the roof of a house, he ascends the ladder out of his own free will, and while knowing that he freely chose to do so. But when he trips and falls down from the roof, he knows that he did not choose to do that. So he can tell the difference between these two actions - that he freely chose to do the former, while he was compelled to do the latter. Every human being knows this.

...We stated previously that: The Divine Pre-Ordainment is a hidden secret, you have no way of finding out about it. So right now, you are between two paths - a path that will take you to salvation and success, and a path that will take you to destruction and regret. So right now, you are standing between these two paths with a free choice. There is no one in front of you preventing you from taking the right path or the left path. If you wish, you can go here, and if you wish, you can go there. So how can you take the left path and say: "This has been pre-decreed for me!" Isn't it more befitting for you to take the right path and say: "This has been pre-decreed for me!"

And if you want to go on a journey to some other country and before you lies two roads, one of which is paved, short and safe, while the other is unpaved, long and dangerous, we would find you choosing the short, paved and safe road and not the other one. So this figurative road is similar to it and doesn't differ from it at all.
However, it is the souls and desires that sometimes govern and take over the mind.
The believer must take over and control his desires. And when his mind judges, the mind, according to its correct meaning, should prevent a person from what harms it and lead it to what benefits and pleases it.

With this it becomes clear that people have a free choice when it comes to their actions, and that they are not coerced. And just as he has a free choice in the acts of his worldly affairs, if he wills he will put out this product or make that his business, then likewise he has a free choice with regard to the affairs of the Hereafter. In fact, the paths of the Hereafter are clearer by far than the paths of this worldly life, because the One who clarifies the paths of the Hereafter is Allaah, in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So the paths of the Hereafter are clearer and more lucid than the paths of the worldly life.

This shows that Islam does not hold in anyway that Allaah punishes mankind for actions committed in the past in which they have no choice. According to Islaam, people fall into trials and tribulation, or receive punishment after they have consciously chosen to disobey the commandments and violate the edicts of their Lord, i.e. they have knowledge of right and wrong and based upon this they continue to go ahead and do wrong, before they are subjected to any type of worldly punishment.

KARMA ABDICATES PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

On the face of it, the Karmic theory seems alluring since it merely shifts the immediate consequences of one's actions to past lives. However, when viewed holistically, this concept leads not only to apathy, but also a very real undermining of the meaning of the term: personal responsibility.

We have seen that all outcomes in life are inexorably linked to the actions of past lives. From this it was understood that blame cannot be assigned to a person or people who choose to do a particular action since these actions, and the results, are a direct consequence of actions carried out in previous lives.

This concept shifts any immediate blame from the one who consciously committed wrong to his/her alleged past life. Hence, the Karmic theory abdicates complete personal responsibility from that person and places it squarely upon unrecollectable past lives, which, as we saw, has no real tangible connection to one's present life.

It is an incredible proposition that this theory provides one with the excuse of shrugging off responsibility for any wrongdoing with the comforting thought that they were merely forced to enact actions in order to pay off some mysterious karmic debt.

We come to the question of whether Sikhism provides any indication of "levels of sin" that determines what the consequences would be for a person in the next life, e.g. a person who is a thief will come back as a rat.
This differentiation and categorisation is necessary since all actions, be they good or evil; differ in terms of the degree of good and evil. Hence, murder is recognised as being more evil than swearing. Hence, the punishment for murder is more severe. This understanding is important because it not only serves as a means of dissuading people from carrying out actions recognised to be major sins, but also reflects God's absolute justice. We as social human beings have recognised and implemented that the severity of punishment is directly proportional to the severity of the crime committed. If this is known to us, then it stands to reason that the One we recognise to be all-Knowledgeable and all-Wise has a greater right of knowing this. Further, it would be unjust on His part to have knowledge of this categorisation, and not inform us in order to bring about clarity and consistency.
We know that the precursor to Sikhism - Hinduism, affirms Reincarnation and Transmigration, and has established, for example, the following categorisation of "levels of sin" and punishment:

"The murderer of a brahmin becomes consumptive, the killer of a cow becomes hump-backed and imbecile, the murderer of a virgin becomes leprous - all three born as outcastes. The slayer of a woman and the destroyer of embryos becomes a savage full of diseases; who commits illicit intercourse, a eunuch; who goes with his teacher's wife, disease-skinned. The eater of flesh becomes very red; the drinker of intoxicants, one with discoloured teeth...
Who steals food becomes a rat; who steals grain becomes a locust... perfumes, a muskrat; honey, a gadfly; flesh, a vulture; and salt, an ant.... Who commits unnatural vice becomes a village pig; who consorts with a Sudra woman becomes a bull; who is passionate becomes a lustful horse.... These and other signs and births are seen to be the karma of the embodied, made by themselves in this world. Thus the makers of bad karma, having experienced the tortures of hell, are reborn with the residues of their sins, in these stated forms." (Garuda Purana 5 [Similar punishments are figured by The Laws of Manu 12, 54-69])

Does Sikhism provide this type of categorisation that differentiates "levels of sin" and its subsequent punishment?

a(n)th kaal jo lashhamee simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
sarap jon val val aoutharai
aree baaee gobidh naam math beesarai rehaao
a(n)th kaal jo eisathree simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
baesavaa jon val val aoutharai
a(n)th kaal jo larrikae simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
sookar jon val val aoutharai
a(n)th kaal jo ma(n)dhar simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
praeth jon val val aoutharai
a(n)th kaal naaraaein simarai aisee chi(n)thaa mehi jae marai
badhath thilochan thae nar mukathaa peetha(n)bar vaa kae ridhai basai
At the very last moment, one who thinks of wealth, and dies in such thoughts, shall be reincarnated over and over again, in the form of serpents.
O sister, do not forget the Name of the Lord of the Universe.
At the very last moment, he who thinks of women, and dies in such thoughts, shall be reincarnated over and over again as a prostitute.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of his children, and dies in such thoughts, shall be reincarnated over and over again as a pig.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of mansions, and dies in such thoughts, shall be reincarnated over and over again as a goblin.
At the very last moment, one who thinks of the Lord, and dies in such thoughts, says Trilochan, that man shall be liberated; the Lord shall abide in his heart.
(Bhagat Trilochan, Raag Gujri, p.526 SGGS)

The sheer absurdity of the above is apparent to see. Even if one's final thoughts before death is for the concern of his wife and children, as maybe the case for most if not all, this is considered blameworthy and will cause one to transmigrate as a pig or prostitute! Is it not possible for one to think of his Lord and also hope for the well-being of his family prior to death?
It seems unjust of God to hold one responsible for mere thoughts. How many things must race by for a person who is about to die? The aforementioned Hindu categorisation of "levels of sin" and punishment at least holds one responsible not just for mere thoughts, but for actualising those thoughts into action. Here in Sikhism, just the mere thought or intention is enough to condemn a person.
How Merciful (ar-Rahmaan), Generous, Kind (al-Kareem) and Just (al-'Adl) is Allaah who rewards the good-doers from His over-flowing bounties (thu-Fadhalil-'Atheem) and forgives bad deeds. The Prophet of Mercy, Muhammad (peace be upon him), said:

"Allaah has forgiven my ummah (nation) for thoughts that cross their minds, so long as they do not speak of them or act upon them." (Muslim 127)

"Allaah has decreed hasanaat (good deeds) and sayi'aat (bad deeds), then He explained it. Whoever intends to do a good deed, but does not do it, Allaah will write it down as one complete hasanah; if he intends to do it and does it, Allaah will write it down as (a figure) between ten and seven hundred hasanaat, or more. Whoever intends to do a bad deed, but he does not do it, Allaah will write it down as one complete hasanah; if he intends to do it and does it, Allaah will write it down as one sayi'ah (only)." (Al-Bukhaari 81)

THE ORIGIN OF BAD KARMA

According to the Karmic theory, our Karma is an accumulation of evil actions stemming from past lives and is responsible for suffering in this life.
However, a unique dilemma arises.

If we take the present life to be the 100th life and the suffering that occurs is from the 99th life and the Karma of the 99th life stemmed from the 98th life, etc. one would eventually come to life number one. Since there was no life before the 1st, the question we ask is:

According to SGGS, we began to believe our mind and body to be our own, which resulted in the cycle of birth and rebirths:

"kaachae bhaaddae saaj nivaajae anthar joth samaaee.
jaisaa likhath likhiaa dhhur karathai ham thaisee kirath kamaaee.
man than thhaap keeaa sabh apanaa eaeho aavan jaanaa.
jin dheeaa so chith n aavai mohi andhh lapattaanaa.
He created and adorned the earthen vessels (human bodies) and infused His Light within them. As is the destiny pre-ordained by the Creator, so are the deeds we do. The human began to believe that the mind and body were all his own; this is the cause of his coming (births) and going (rebirths). He does not think of the One who gave him these; he is blind, entangled in emotional attachment." (AGGS, M 5, p. 882)

When did this occur and what was the initial reason behind man acquiring this free-thinking aberration?

"jab kachh na see-o tab ki-aa kartaa kavan karam kar aa-i-aa: When nothing existed, what deeds were being done? And what Karma caused anyone to be born at all?" (SGGS p.748 Arjun Dev)

"Saasat no hotaa Bed naa hotaa karam kahaan te aa-i-aa:
When there was no Shastras and no Vedas, where did the Karma come from?" (SGGS p.973 Nam Dev)

However, this above explanation opens up a whole new can of worms. If the cycle of birth-rebirth was kick-started by those free-thinking humans, it stands to reason that this cycle of birth-rebirth did not exist amongst their ancestors. If this is true, then the question is:

What type of belief did they hold and did they only share the understanding of the Semitic religions of just one life?

Why did these pre-Karmic humans not achieve liberation from the cycle of birth-rebirth and become one with God?

Had this occurred, the existence of karma would not arise. Or perhaps even more profoundly, they would not have formulated the reincarnation-transmigrational theory and accepted the just revelatory truth of Islam.

CONCLUSION

We have seen from the above arguments how the notion of karma leads to absurdities and mind-boggling scenarios that point to two possible conclusions:

1. God is unjust for subjecting mankind to a countless number of lives, wherein so much suffering is endured, based upon the indefensible reasons derived from the Karmic Law.

2. God is all-just, but Sikhism is untrue and man-invented explaining why such insurmountable problems exist when attempting to justify reincarnation-transmigrations

May Allaah guide us all away from falsehood and towards the clarity and light of our Creator and His Truth so that our hearts become united upon a singular understanding and worship of Him; brothers and sisters upon a singular faith and creed.

[1] http://allaboutsikhs.com/mansukh/042.htm
[2] It should be noted here that fatalism cannot be applied to Islaam's belief in Divine
Preordainment.

SOTERIOLOGY - Karma, Equality & Sikh Discrimination

SOTERIOLOGY - 'Evidence' for Reincarnation DEBUNKED

REBUTTAL - Project Naad Defends The Theory Of Karma

The Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KARMA AND THE SUFFERING CHILD

AN EXAMINATION OF REAL-LIFE SCENARIOS

KARMA ABDICATES PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

THE ORIGIN OF BAD KARMA

CONCLUSION