Islam Answering Muslims - Part 3

Jan 30, 2005
This one and previous ones have been written by Sikh Answers. Worth Reading.

Answering Muslims – Part Three
Clearly there is not much value in repeating the facts presented by so many other websites, which expose Islam as a farce and barbarity. The number of errors in the Quran is huge. Muslims have tried to justify them and explain them away but to any neutral observer they are clearly foolish. . Muslims have tried to explain this by referring to the Sun’s revolutions but it just doesn’t work. The comparison is with the moon, which is clearly revolving. At any rate, there is no point in continuing because all this is covered by other websites.

“If you cannot prove the SGGS is from God, then admit it sincerely, rather than taking us round and round in circles. “
You cannot even prove the existence of God and you wish me to prove that Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is divine? Like I said, if someone has faith and is a believer, they can be convinced. A sceptic never can be. The message of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is proof in itself of divinity with message of tolerance and love. These things are both missing from the Quran. The truth of Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the experience. If someone engages with the Gurbani, the miracles that take place in that person's life and their consciousness are proof in themselves. This is why the focus of Sikh missionary work has always been kirtan and Gurbani.

The author says:
“As to the preservation of Guru Nanaks message, what proof do you have that it was preserved? Where are your testimonies from Sikhs and Non-Sikhs as to the method it was preserved, and how it was verified that it was Guru Nanaks own teachings? In addition to this, wasn’t the original SGGS destroyed, and another one written by Guru Gobind Singh. Therefore, you cannot claim the SGGS is the same one that Guru Nanak penned.”
What a foolish and ignorant statement. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is the most authentic scripture known to man. The original Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee wasn’t “destroyed” and written by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee as the author asserts. This statement exposes his total lack of research. The saroop given the "gurgaddi" was lost in the Greater Holocaust (Vada Ghalughara) but there were 4 saroops prepared by Baba Deep Singh. After then numerous copies were also prepared. The works of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee and the subsequent Gurus are still found in Pothis (small books) preserved with families like the Kartarpur Sodhis and also pothis like the Goindval Pothis. The first copy of Guru Granth Sahib was compiled by Guru Arjan Dev which still exists today. Furthermore, there are still numerous volumes of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee with the signatures of the Gurus on them. These Granths match with each other. Sikhs are perhaps the only faith today that has the actual handwritten scriptures from their faith’s founders.

Despite the explanation of how the Quran was compiled, it remains a fact that it was written decades after Mohammed died. That’s a long time to create, edit and record whatever the Arabs wanted. Even the historical record shows many different versions of the Quran that don’t match each other. Any search on the Internet reveals mounds of information on the topic.

The author repeats his “Sura like it” point over and over, blind to the fact that there are countless rebuttals to it. Once again, a simple search of the Internet reveals so many answers. At any rate, I won’t waste my time pasting the arguments here.

With regards the claims of Gurbani being a miracle, this is false. The dialect used throughout Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee was in existence far before it was created. In terms of the script, to invent a way of writing is no miracle. Otherwise, modern French, Italian and English are also miracles! I also believe the author is clutching at straws when they claim that a sequential numbering system, no more advanced than a local library, is a miracle.
Once again, it can be quite frustrating debating with someone with absolutely NO knowledge of Sikhi. The grammar system I refer to, is not the numbering system but the system of use of aunkarhs, siharis, etc. which are grammatical tools used to show exact meaning of every verse. It is not the numbering system. This system has not been found anywhere else before Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

“I would however be interested to hear the author indicate how philosophy and science predicted the romans being victorious over the Persians ( In Surah Romans)”
I’d like to ask how the author could explain how Guru Nanak Sahib Jee not only predicted the fall of the Mughal Empire but also gave the dates.

“Did you know that I built the suez canal? Or that I created gravity? If you don’t believe me, go and check. Travel to Egypt, see it for yourself. Try and jump up, you will fall down. They are my miracles! I take it you now see how ridiculous the authors claims are?”
If I went to Egypt and asked if the author were the creator of the Canal, surely no one would even know whom this person was. However if you travel to Hassan Abdal and ask who created the spring, everyone would answer “Guru Nanak”. Big difference.

2. Are the Sikh Scriptures authentic?
The author makes ignorant statements about the Janamsakhis, which he began by calling “divinely inspired” (according to Sikhs) and now is blindly moving along continuing with the random statements. The Janamsakhis mention many of the same stories and facts, along with even non-Sikh sources. Just like any historic personality is discovered by examining different works and putting together the life story, so it is with the life of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. I’m not sure what is so difficult about understanding it.

”The author then claims that the only works in SGGS are those of Guru Nanak and his disciples. What a ridiculous claim. For example: -
“Macualiffe states that hymns ascribed to Farid are compositions by the latter, whereas others ascribe them to Farid Shakarganj. There are others who believe that the hymns were composed by different Sufis of the Pak Pattan centre, all using the poetic name Farid. As a result, no account would be complete without details of both of the Farid’s lives””
Macauliffe is ONE author and the first to start this theory that the Bhagats were not contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. I have already told you that Sheikh Farid Jee’s present descendant even confirms who’s Bani is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. The Puratan Janamsakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Janamsakhi, GNDU Valait Vali Janamsakhi and the Meharban Janamsakhi all record the meeting with Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. The vocabulary of the hymns is not from the 12th C and use words that no Muslim would use such as “Gur”, “Sadh” and “Prabh”.

Next you mention Jaidev: Jaidev Jee was a contemporary of Bhagat Namdev Jee and Bhagat Ravidas Jee who were both contemporary of Guru Nanak Sahib Jee. Bhagat Namdev Jee based on ancient Marathi Granths such as Namdev Jeevan Charitar (biography of Bhagat Namdev Jee), Namdev Charitar and Bhagat Rasaimat Sindhu all say that he met “Mahaprabhu bhagat Nanak Swami” at Kumar Teerath. This is of course all supported by Sikh sources like Panth Parkash and Meharban Janamsakhi which records their meeting along with the other bhagats at Ayodhya where a monument to this meeting still exists.

The author complains about “cut/paste” on our part when it comes to Islam and claims to have researched Sikhi. Perhaps some more research is in order before making such claims?

The author tries to press his point about heaven/hell with the word “consign” and then so considerately provides the American Heritage Dictionary definition for us. This is all well and good but he seems to forget that the original is in GURMUKHI and he is relying on translations. The word “chaalia” in the original Gurmukhi simply means, “to send”.

3. More About Reincarnation

“Now the author is being contradictory. In the previous response, they said that Sikhi is the ONLY way to God. Now they are presenting Sikhism as judging only your conduct! I suggest the author makes up his mind before continuing this debate.”
I’m glad the author has brought this up. Unlike in Islam, non-Sikhs are not cast into Hell. They cannot reach God for certain but they are judged on the basis of their actions. There is no judging simply on the lines of “Sikh/non-Sikh”.

When confronted with ULTIMATE injustice in Islam, the author resorts to:
“How can any of us understand Gods thinking or rationale?”
This answer would apply to any religion. The Hindus who believe in caste could say, “How can we question this system? It’s God’s!” Islam prides itself on being rational and sensible but cannot explain this dilemma as to why a baby is born and dies and where it will go?

“Why must I prove the Quran right? In any test, mathematical, scientific, or any other one involving ration and logic, a hypothesis is presented, and thereby when the hypothesis is proved incorrect, then a new hypothesis is sought. The Quran is the hypothesis, that is proven to be true, and there are no “Surahs like it” nor “contradictions” to prove otherwise. When the author produces a surah, or finds a contradiction, only then will a new hypothesis be required. Guru Nanak created his new hypothesis without disproving the old one!”
Why does the author continue to live in a dream world where Islam hasn’t been disproved? So many errors can be found and Muslims cannot answer them. For example, the Quran teaches reverse evolution. It says men were turned into apes because they broke the Sabbath. This was a popular legend in Muhammad's day (Suras 2:65; 7:163-166).

This article is once again about “errors” in Sikhi and so we will not go into Islamic fallacies with any depth. It’s been done already. But open your eyes. A simple Internet search gives you more material to refute than can be done in a lifetime.

When asked why wine is forbidden in life but flows like rivers in the afterlife, the author simply replies,
“We are asked to follow a guidebook, the Quran, the reward of which will be whatever we desire in paradise. The reasoning? Only Allah (SWT) knows.”
A total cop-out answer! Of course Allah knows, but it makes no sense. If something is wrong, then a faith doesn’t just forbid it and make the adherent force himself to comply, a true faith eliminates the desire to commit the wrong. Sikhs don’t want wine in the after-life and aren’t to drink in this one. Wine is an intoxicant that deprives a person of senses and this is not a desirable thing. Islam simply forces the Muslim to suppress his desire with the promise that soon enough in the afterlife he can drink all he wants. Is this what Allah would want? Sikhi frees oneself from Maya (the illusionary world) and the Panj Chor (the five thieves) of Kaam (desires/lust), Krodh (anger), Lobh (greed), Moh (attachment/possessiveness) and Hankaar (ego/self-centeredness); on the other hand Islam polishes ones ego, desires, sexual lust, ghastly habits, attachment and possessiveness. How does one expect to reach God when instead he or she is entangled in worldly intoxicants, desires, lusts and pleasures?

4. “Gods Omnipotence”

The author has ignored the main question raised in this section. In Quran only “believers” will be rewarded and “non-believers” will be punished. Why? Because “non-believers” did not follow Islam. If author admits that everything is will of God then is non-Muslims not following Islam also a will of God? If yes, then why should they be punished? Everything happens according to the will of God and by the same will some follow Islam and some don’t. Therefore, non-Muslims should not be punished as it was will of God for them to not follow Islam.

“Where do the five vices originate? From God also?”
They originate from the separation from God, and the soul feeling independent and separate. Not from Satan. The five vices originate from Maya, which is an illusion. For example in water one can swim or one can drown. Water is not intrinsically evil; however it has the potential of both. Similarly the world has the potential of being seen as God’s Light and Glory manifest or can been seen as ocean of fire of desires. This depends on one’s consciousness and spiritual state. The more one meditates on Naam and gets closer to God the more he or she realises that all that exists is God and everything else is an illusion.

The author fails to, after repeated attempts, understand that God created all of creation and if all that existed was God, what is creation made of? Muslims believe man is made of mud and woman from man’s rib. Is this sensible? God is present in creation. His light is within it and he runs it. Everything had God’s light in it.

What is dirty and what is clean? We have set our standards but are they objective or subjective? Dirt is by default “dirty” but can Muslims use it for Wudhu? Blood is the most precious thing for human life and we would die without it, but why is it “unclean” for Muslims? Why would God make you very source of life "unclean"? Dung is of course dirty but countless people through the ages have used it as fuel to cook food. They have even used it to plaster walls. Camel urine is by no means “clean” so why did Mohammed tell his followers to drink it?

God is in His creation and His creation is within Him. His light is within all of it and He created all of it. His place is Sachkhand (as mentioned before) but His light shines brightly and can be seen by those who meditate on Naam.

5. Sikh laws

“Leaving governance in almost all respects to a government which does not refer to God for how it judges between the people?”
This is perhaps the height of blindness. The Gurus created Sri Akal Takhat, which is the Sikh supreme political body. They created institutions like the Panj Pyaaray and Gurmatas. What is more enlightened: creating laws specific to the 6th Century CE or institutions based on spirituality and truth to govern? Everyone recognises institution building is the superior way.
It is universally recognised as foolish to have punishments set in stone regardless of circumstances. It leads to injustice. It overrules rationality and compassion in favour of blind “justice” which often in reality is injustice.
The author then goes back to:
“I ask the author whether he is now capable of deciding what is right and wrong for mankind? Obviously not.”
When something doesn’t make ANY sense he goes back to “Because I think God says so!” This is not a logical or rational answer to any question. You cannot explain why God would freeze time and give law set for Arabs in the 6th Century CE.

I find it frightening that the author views social, economic and judicial issues as mundane, issues that have defined the world and have led to countless wars and inequalities.
They are mundane from a spiritual point of view in verses directed solely at uniting the soul with God. It is best to give principles to handle these kinds of issues as opposed to setting blind and inflexible punishments.

Then the author quotes the Hadith:
"It is reported by Wa'il Ibn Hujr that a woman went out in the time of the Prophet to go to prayer, and a man who met her attacked her and got his desire of her. She shouted and he went off, and when a company of the _Muhajirun_ came by, she said: "That man did such-and-such to me." They seized him and brought him to Allah's messenger, who said to the woman, "Go away, for Allah has forgiven you," but of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said, "Stone him to death."
How disgusting! What was the woman “forgiven” for? What was her error? To forgive means that some error was committed. The author may refer to his handy "American Heritage Dictionary" and see the definition of "forgive":

To excuse for a fault or an offense; pardon.
To renounce anger or resentment against.
To absolve from payment of (a debt, for example).

She was raped! What was her fault or offense? Once again the barbaric attitude towards women is highlighted.

The author then says,
“With regards adultery, theft, etc, or any societal crime, Allah(swt) will forgive the person for that crime if they take the punishment for it in this life, and repent sincerely.”
So the rapist is actually being done a favour by stoning them so they can now not have to face the consequences in the after-life? So rapists are actually in the Islamic Paradise? Very interesting. I suggest a system of reforming people when alive makes more sense but of course rationality is taboo since the reply will be “God says so!”

6. Just War

It was made clear in the last responses that killing of innocent people is prohibited in Sikhi. Only defensive war is to be fought. It could be for a country, religion or property. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Jee has said clearly in the Zafarnama: “When all other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword." Defensive war simply means defending yourself, your freedom, country, and honor. Killing of innocent people (civilians) of the other side is prohibited and so is dishonouring women and taking them in as slaves. All women with the exception of one’s wife are forbidden to a Sikh.

a. In Sikhism, how do you define a civilian?
b. In Sikhism, what do you mean by defensive? To protect the homeland, or to protect the religion?
Civilian is clearly not defined in the Muslim way, which considers all citizens of “enemy” nations to be combatants and thus justify suicide bombings on public buses, schools and markets. The questions being posed are questions that can be decided by any intelligent and rational person. What is an attack? How can this attack be defended? Islam seems to promote the absence of though. If a problem arises, immediately check what was said in 600 CE and there’s the answer. Sikhi gives adherents principles and institutions to apply them and allows for people to choose the correct course of action.

On the other hand, Mohammad declared war against “non-believers”.

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ; but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for God is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:5)

“Fight those who believe not the Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them (8:12)

7. God Creating Himself

The author says “There is no point in continuing this discussion if the author will not acknowledge their mistakes. It quite clearly states in the SGGS that God created himself!”
In the Mool Mantar (opening verse of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee) it is clear that God is “Self-Existent”. Gurbani is clear that no one can create God.
Even if we take your incorrect and narrow interpretation of the verse, if God created God, what does that mean? It’s a circular statement that can only mean God is primordial and fundamental. The “mool” or origin is only God.

8. Sikhi and Women

The author once again ignored the points and did not provide any answer. Although men and women are equally capable of getting to heaven but the reward in paradise is not the same. Women do not get 72 virgin men and slave boys and do not get served wine. In previous discussion verses from Quran were provided to make this point clear.

Divorce issue in Sikhi has been covered in previous answers. The author failed to provide any reference to prove that divorce is not permissible in Sikhi. It was stated clearly that in such case the couple can present themselves to Panj Pyare and based on the situation, decision will be made. The author failed to answer our questions regarding treatment of women in divorce process.

“It seems the author is ignoring my comments. I have already stated that women can enter mosques unrestricted, and this is a cultural barrier that forbids it, not an Islamic one.”
It was your namesake Umar who did not want women coming to the Mosques. “A history is reflective of people’s beliefs, principles and religion.” One could argue till death that women are allowed x, y or z in Islam, however history is witness to the fact that Muslims and the Quran believe and treat women to be impure and polluted and have been denied the same rights as males.

A woman is closest to God’s face, if she is found in the core of her house. And the prayer of the woman in the house is better than her prayer in the mosque’ (Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din by Ghazali, Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut, Vol II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah, p.65. Reported by Tirmizi as a true and good Ahadith)

B. Believing Women to be second-class citizens

The true test of the attitude towards women can come through how they have been treated. Religious Muslims clearly hold women as inferior and don’t even allow them into many mosques. They don’t have the right to vote and their testimony is equal to ½ that of a man’s. Contrasting that to Sikhi where women have always been treated and considered as equals. They have always lead congregations and shared equal rights and responsibilities. No Sikh scholar has ever argued that women are less than men in any way. If Islam held the same belief, why has it NEVER been the reality?
The author quotes again,

“Those impure men are engrossed in sexual desire; they consult their women and walk accordingly. One who walks as the True Guru tells him to, is the true man, the best of the best.” – SGGS, Page 304, Lines 12 – 15

Despite the author’s every attempt to twist and turn the verse, it’s clear it refers to a man who is acting according to the wishes of his wife due to lust. The author failed to understand the implied meanings. The Shabad quoted has a theme. It talks about a spiritual journey of a human being to God. It talks about two kind of human beings: Gurmukh (those who live according to the teaching of Guru) and Manmukh (those who are engrossed in Maya and worldly pleasures). Characters and way of life of both are described. Theme of the Shabad is something like this: A human being (Gurmukh or Manmukh) is like a farmer who plants the seed of his actions in the field (his life). Gurmukh obtains seed of Naam and forgiveness by planting which he obtains salvation but Manmukh on the other hand follows his own path of lust, anger and greed. A manmukh for lustful pleasures gives up his own thinking and surrenders to a woman who decides what is best for him. To lose one’s own decision-making power due to lust is wrong and the verse makes it quite clear. Nowhere does it say that women are unequal or their opinions should not be considered. Only the Guru knows the spiritual path and every human should seek the guidance of the Guru to attain salvation which is clear from the last lines.

I am astonished by the accusation of the author who belongs to a religion, Islam, which considers women “deficient in intelligence” so much so that two female witnesses are required in place of one male.

In this Dark Age of Kali Yuga, O Nanak, the demons have taken birth. The son is a demon, and the daughter is a demon; the wife is the chief of the demons.” – SGGS Page 556, Lines 7- 8.
How is this objectionable? The verse is referring to those who have not obtained Naam and instead of following the path of morality and ethics engage in immoral and unethical behavior. Therefore, people without any moral principles and ethics are called “demons”. This in no way is insulting to women as it refers to a son as a demon and the daughter as a demon. Where is the discrimination? This is a verse in reference to *******ed families in an age of evil. It refers to both the males and females in negative tones. What is so shocking?

“O bride, decorate yourself, after you surrender and accept your Husband Lord.” – SGGS, Page 788, Line 7
Back to that complicated concept we call “context”. It is a common practice in India for a wife to wear jewelry and makeup to please her husband. The verse above is a metaphor in which the wife is the human soul and husband is God. The translation itself makes it crystal clear “your husband Lord” which means that the husband is God not a physical human being. In the following lines it is clearly stated that flowers and ornaments are of no use which implies that it is not physical beauty which appeases God but spiritual beauty. Therefore, the human soul should put jewelry of submission (following the Hukam of God), love of God and Naam and only then will the husband (God) be pleased. Usually when there is a reference to “husband” and “bride” it is a reference to the soul meeting with God. The fact that (religious) Sikh brides don’t wear jewellery and don’t use things like betel is fact enough that this is a metaphor for the soul and God.

The same metaphor is used throughout Gurbani in which God is taken to be a husband and a soul is the bride.

In this world, there is one Husband Lord; all other beings are His brides. (591)

Then the author makes reference to:

“They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together. They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies.” – SGGS Page 788, Line 11.
This separate verse is perhaps specifically for people like him who try to misconstrue the metaphor of the expectant bride and husband-Lord to apply equally to human situations. This separate verse makes it clear that the husband and wife are to be respected equal. This verse has been used by the Sikh community to refer to ideal of human husband/wife relations. By application the Sikh community considers husbands and wives as equal. Words “two bodies” refers to two human beings. God has no body and is not a human being.

Even if we take it that this verse too applies to the soul and God, there are so many other verses exalting women in the Sikh scripture that the author has conveniently ignored and refused to address.

“At birth a Sikh girl is immediately "our darling" to her mother and father. Later, she becomes admired by her brothers and sisters and favoured by her relatives. On attaining to "the bloom of youth" she is wedded with costly gifts and presents. Now, respected by her husbands family and deemed lucky in her new household, she regarded as the equal of her spouse in both virtue and wisdom. She becomes as a doorway to salvation. Such is the verbal portrait of a Guru-inspired And blessed, faithful Sikh woman.”
- Vaar (5.16), Bhai Gurdaas jee

“From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married. Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come. When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound. So why call her bad? From her, kings are born. From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.” (473).

Every Sikh authority holds Sikh women to be equal to Sikh men. There is equality in worship and in every other way. If Islam holds men and women to be equal, why are they not treated that way anywhere in the world? Why are there no female Imams (priests)? Why are there no female rulers of Islamic states? Why are women not allowed to touch or read the Quran during the time of month they are menstruating? Despite his every attempt the author fails at trying to show that Sikh women are considered less than men.

The author has presented numerous meanings of the original Arabic word but he is ignoring the fact that when Quran was translated the meaning wasn’t just randomly chosen but the one that fit best according to the context. The abusive verse of Al Nisa is taken directly from the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali which is accepted by numerous other translators some of which are Pickthal, Shakir, Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan, Muhammad Sarwar and Rashad Khalifah. Would the author reject all of the translations? It just shows how the author is trying to twist the meanings of Quran even after it is clear that beating wives is permissible and accepted translation by the Muslim scholars.
In the last response it was proven beyond the doubt that even if women are allowed to go to heaven their reward is nothing more than serving as a sexual object for the “believers”. Instead of addressing those verses the author chose to ignore them and presented another verse which serves his purpose. The verse has no reference of Hadith or Quran. If the verse is from an acceptable Islamic source then surely it proves how self-contradictory they are.

Here are some verses which prove that Mohammad considered women to be “deficient in intelligence” and “lack common sense”.

[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense. (Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 142)

The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Dr. Muhammad Matraji, Number 2658)

Menstrual cycle is a natural way of life but Islam considers it to be an illness which makes women “pollution”.

They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say it is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. (2:222, Pickthall)

They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses and do not approach them until they are clean. (2:222, Yusufali)

How more humiliating and shameful could it get? What kind of divine message is this? Are all mothers, sisters and wives suffering from a permanent illness? When a woman reaches menopause does she become “ill free”? If the blood of menstrual cycle is considered “impure” in Islam then what about the body in which the blood flows through? Blood being “impure” implies that women are impure since it is the same blood that flows in their bodies and therefore, they cannot “purify” themselves.

Let’s examine the status of Muslim women in hell and heaven. It has been shown above that in Islam women “lack common sense”. Majority of the women are dwellers of hell because they are not “grateful to their husbands”.

The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "I saw paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women." The people asked: "O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?" The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Because of their ungratefulness." It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds." (Ibid, Number 1052)

[Muhammad said], "O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women." The women asked, "O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?" He said: "O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray." (Ibid, Number 1462)

Even if women were to stop cursing, start thanking their husbands and being obedient, their prospects for the afterlife would still leave much to be desired. According to Muhammad, Muslim women can look forward to an eternity of standing in corners, waiting for men to come and have sex with them:

Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.” (Ibid, Number 4879)

This proves that the only reward for an obedient woman who is loyal to her husband in paradise is to have the opportunity to continue their sexual service to their husbands in "Paradise." If Islam was a religion of equality then why don’t the women have the same reward? Why don’t they get 72 virgin men and rivers of wine? Why don’t they get sex slaves as promised to Muslim men? Equality is nowhere in Islam.

Comparison by the author between a gardener and a slave is a foolish one. A gardener is not a slave or a property of anyone and does not work for just one person and does not consider him/her to be his master. The author very cleverly defends slavery on the basis that mistreatment is prohibited. Nonetheless, slavery itself is a wrong thing as no human is property of another human being. It was proven in the last response that owning of slave women is very much permissible according to 23:1-6 and 33:50. Not every slave has the right to be free. There are conditions applied. Even if setting off slaves free is obligatory then why is it permissible to take captives of jihad as slaves? This is a direct contradiction. On one hand, owning slaves is allowed and on the other hand setting them free is also obligatory? Why allow slavery to take place to begin with?

As mentioned earlier, if Mohammed were a real prophet of God, he wouldn’t have tried to slowly modify a wrong and evil belief like slavery he would have plainly condemned it. This is precisely what the Sikh Gurus did in reaction to the caste system.

"The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Feed those of your slaves who please you from what you eat and clothe them with what you clothe yourselves, but sell those who do not please you and do not punish Allah's creatures. (Abu Dawud)
The quote above leaves no doubt that only “pleasing slaves” should be set free and others should be sold.

The author pathetically says,
“Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So,we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed… (Also forbidden are women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women."
This is the wording collected by AT-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 , p. 422 ). This would seem to be the correct meaning, as muslims are prohibited to expose their private parts to any other person except their wives and slavegirls.”
Was this much of an improvement from the last edition? How noble of the Muslims that they don’t expose themselves to random people. Another wonder of Islam. But sadly the explanation given is further example of twisted Islamic thought. These poor captive women, whose husbands are still alive and well were used for sex by the Muslims and the author finds nothing wrong at all with this. He says they couldnt’ have been raped because Islam forbids it. Pray tell, would a captive woman with her husband also being held prisoner willingly give herself up to her captor? Would she happily enjoy sex with him? Disgusting. Absolutely depraved and barbaric. There are no words to condemn this kind of monsterous behaviour. Guru Gobind Singh instructed his Sikhs not to even dream of another woman besides their wives and here Mohammed is encouraging his followers to sexually abuse their captives. ‘Deen’ closest to God indeed!

Furthermore, the verse 4:24 “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hand possess” clearly refers to women taken as slaves during war. Hence slavery is very much permissible. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. Such slave women have no right or voice. Muslim owners are free to have sex with them as they become the property. Immoral acts such as slavery and sex outside of marriage is forbidden in Sikhi unlike in Islam.

The article regarding Aish is regarded as an apologist farce by Muslims themselves. It’s painfully evident that she was 9 when he had sex with her. Even if we accept the LIE that she was 15, is that all that much better? It still leaves Mohammed as a paedophile. What business does a 50+ year old man have, in having intercourse with a 15 year old? It’s sick. The excuse that “Oh, age of consent was 12 in the UK many years ago” is foolish. On one hand you have the UK which is not by any means divine and on the other you have the so-called final prophet of God. Why did he not know better?
Regarding the age of A’isha, here are some proofs from hadiths.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310)

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' (Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65).

Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. (Sahih Bukhari 5.236)

It is clear beyond the doubt that A’isha was six years old at the time of marriage. Refutation of the article provided by the author is here:

9. Many Paths to God

“So, if there is only one path to god, again I ask why are non-Sikh scriptures in the Guru Granth Sahib?”
Which non-Sikh scripture is in Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee? Care to name it?
Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works. This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954 (The Concise Dictionary of Islam, p. 229; Jomier, The Bible and the Quran -- Henry Regency Co., Chicago, 1959, 59ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 163ff.; Guillaume, Islam, p. 13).

One of the most documented and damaging facts about the Quran is that Muhammad used heretical "Christian" Gnostic gospels and their fables for material in the Quran. Encyclopedia Britannica comments: "The gospel was known to him chiefly through apocryphal and heretical sources" (15:648). This has been demonstrated many times by various scholars (Richard Bell, Introduction to the Quran, pp. 163ff. See also: Bell, The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment, pp. 110ff, 139ff; Sell, Studies, pp. 216ff. See also Tisdall and Pfander).

Muhammad derived some of his ideas from Eastern religions such as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. All of these things were in existence long before Muhammad was born. The Quran records the following things that are ascribed to Muhammad but in reality were previously known stories now attributed to him for the first time (Sell, Studies, pp. 219ff.). For example:
• The story of a flying trip through seven heavens.
• The Houries of paradise.
• Azazil and other spirits coming up from Hades.
• The "light" of Muhammad.
• The bridge of Sirat.
• Paradise with its wine, women, and song (from the Persians).
• The king of death.
• The pea{censored} story.

Furthermore, many of the so-called “revealed” practices such as fasting, hajj and even the name “Allah” had existed long before Mohammad was born and were common among the pagans.

10. Why is Sikhi Not Evangelical?

No real point to address in this section.


How unfortunate that the invitation to “work with the Muslims to make the world a better place and for your soul to attain true tranquillity and peace in following Gods commands” is so empty.

According to the literal Arabic translation of Sura 3:106-107, on Judgment Day, only people with white faces will be saved and people with black faces will be damned. How unjust and racist is this. How God hate the creation He created? How can God favour one over another because of the colour of the skin he or she was born with and has no control over. This is one of many examples, which illustrates the tones of intolerance, irrationality and racism of the Quran that is evidently portrayed and exemplified by fanatical Muslims where they go and preach. “If you do not see God in all, you cannot see God at all.” Those who have hatred, detest, and intolerance for God’s Creation waste their lives separated from the Truth and divine love of God.

Objectively speaking, have Muslims made the world better? Wherever Muslim communities exist, there is conflict and bloodshed. Is this the “better place” the author speaks of?

Judging by the comments his fellow Muslims have made about him on other message boards, perhaps the author should work more on finding his own place in the Muslim world rather than inviting others to it:

“ Not only that he appears to have copied stories form other sites and not only did he not have manners to ask permmision form the site owners but he didnt even add a url link to were he got the story from and made it apear as his own. think better to learn adab before starting dawah. ?”
and also,

“I suspected it was a Zionist site posing as [Muslims]. They have a habit of joining one faith and destroy the other in the name of the faith they temporarily joined and create vconflict between the two or more faiths. Once the damage is done, they leave them to fight it out amongst themselves.”

Such a loving reception for the author's initiative in the Muslim community! I can see why you’d want others to join.

True tranquillity can only be achieved by following the Guru’s path: Gurmat. This is not fiction but fact, which is evident in societies where Sikhs have lived and contributed to.

Jul 30, 2004
Admin of that site Brother Umar wanted to reply this post also at free time at a thread of the thread over there is locked by now.

If Admin and Bhai Bijla Singh Ji want,das can give him this link and he can come here put more worng things over here.He tried to open a thread over here also and Max Bhai Sahib nipped him there and then.

So let him have all his illogical fancy stock depleted as we as a Sikhs do not let an opponant have an impression that he was not given a good chance to fight before he was killied.

so das thinks that ego of Umar Bhai is not as yet broken,As Sikh we need to break it and try that he confess Sikhism and becomes an aset to world and Islam also.As with present state of mind he could be a danger to peace for not onlt rest of world east or west but also fellow Muslim who do not follow his idealogy.

so if das is premitted Das will let him come here and let him face the real music as so far he has only interacted with Sanatan Sikhs like das who are often soft on Islam but here we have good lots of missionaries also like Bhai Manbeer Singh Ji,Bhai Plamba Ji,S.Akashdeep Singh Ji and our repected Gyani Sahib Ji.

so das awaits the nod. and he will bring borther umar here and let us make him Brother Umar Singh(as Bhai Randheer Singh Ji got baptised with a Maulivi).
Jan 30, 2005
I do not believe he will change his mentality as he ignored most of the points that were raised on Islam. He doesn't seem as open minded and rational. I don't think there is any point in taking this discussion further with him. People can read both sides and decide which one makes more sense.


Dec 14, 2005
I tried to debate with umaar but he was too chicken and so has ignored my posts on the sikhawareness site, he is already suffering in hell lets not it worse for him.