IslamSikhism.com World's 1st Sikh Da'wah Initiative
Inderjit Singh Dhillon aka I.S. Dhillon has boasted on many Sikh forums of being a champion interlocutor against the Muslims. He believes the universal law of non-contradiction is a man-invented concept that has no bearing on what he believes to be the truth.
In this response, we will endeavour to respond to his claims – God-willing.
Comments from our article The Impossible Waheguru – italics bold
It is impossible to conceive of that which transcends the rationale
this is right well done but then you are in aggreance with nature of an iunconceivable god but then you make an error:
What does Dhillon mean here? Unfortunately, the poor use of English makes it difficult to fully grasp what this man is attempting to say; is he saying that we agree with nature that God is inconceivable?!
Unfortunately, the problem here is the inability to debate and argue coherently and systematically.
In his hastiness to respond to our article, he fails to define such a broad term as nature, thereby committing the freshman fallacy, and he fails to forward an explanation of how we agree with nature in thinking that God is inconceivable!
thus, a meaningful interpretation is impossible to forward. Therefore, as we said above, in the case where God describes Himself, such descriptions are subject to rational scrutinisation.
Hang on have we not already said that in sikhism the gurshabad is the touchstone of self-realisation if this is the case then why are you arguing the negation of rational scrutiny of gurshabad? I will tell you why cos you keep seeing it has you read the Koran we don’t read the grushabad the gurshabad enlightens us!!!!
Unfortunately, Dhillon overlooks points that we asked him to consider. Let’s reproduce the text in full so the reader understands what we intended to say:
Firstly, if Dhillon affirms that the nature of God transcends the rationale, which he does, then he cannot say anything about God, not without contradicting what he affirms by making recourse to the same rationale to comment on that which allegedly transcends his rationale.
Secondly, how has he reached the conclusion that we are “arguing the negation of rational scrutiny of gurshabad”? We challenge him to show from the aforementioned article where we have committed such a negation. On the contrary, our entire website is an affirmation of rationally scrutinising SGGS.
Thirdly, it seems that again in his hastiness he has argued a point that has not been raised. We have not argued against the gurshabad enlightening Sikhs. Instead, we have asked how it is possible for paradigm-shift to be made away from the use of the rationale when attempting to interpret a necessary proposition of God. Furthermore, we are stating that it is impossible to comment on something that is claimed to transcend the rationale, and to do so is self-refuting.
Dhillon, as he has done in previous replies, has failed to realise the argument posed, and thus attempts at answering a strawman.
It is for this reason we refuse to post any past correspondences with him until that time where he specifically and directly attempts to address the arguments asserted without going off on a tangent.
Thus, to say that God transcends rationality, and conclude from that that He can do anything, is impossible and self-refuting.
Gurshabad is a living testimony that he can transcend rationality we did not translate any portion of gushabad to discover that it just happens every time we read it
Unfortunately, this is the state of affairs of many Sikhs who lumber about aimlessly, devoid of any divine guidance, and in desperate need of correctly using their God-given ‘aql: “And will they then not use their ‘aql.” (Qur’an)
It does seem that Dhillon is at least consistent in one area though: his incapability of being able to recognise the point of an argument. Pay careful attention Mr Dhillon: what we mean by those who “say that God transcends rationality, and conclude from that that He can do anything” is that once it is affirmed that God transcends rationality, it is impossible to say anything about God since doing so entails the very use of said rationale, which you say God transcends.
If God, as you said, does transcend rationality, then without making recourse to your rational mind, how have you come to the conclusion that He does? The fact that you open your mouth and articulate anything concerning God is only through the use of your rationale. Moreover, when you read anything concerning God in SGGS, e.g. He is nirgun-sargun, this can only be done with the use of your rationale. Hence, you are in a catch-22 situation.
Either you remain silent about God to prove that He is beyond the rational mind, which in and of itself is impossible since the very notion of God would not exist, or you say something and end up contradicting that which you affirm. Either way, you shoot yourself in the foot.
I am currently blowing my trumpet,
Rebut that!!!!
I.S. Dhillon
ps: in the most dire of intellectual circumstances you will not understand this rebuttal,
Indeed, if this is the “dire” state of our mind, then we praise Him for not giving us an intellect akin to yours.
if however you accept the untenable position of the post-modern paradigm then the penny will finally drop and you will become enlightened.
What post-modern paradigm are you talking about?!
We do not understand the above sentence. If our enlightenment is dependent upon accepting this post-modern paradigm, then how is this position untenable? If this paradigm you speak of is untenable/ invalid/ unsound, then how will enlightenment occur?
Is this what Sikhism teaches?
When you do reply please make it clear how i have interpreted any part of gurshabad to formulate the post modern sikh doctrine (let alone god) you will find i have not.
You have not interpreted nor quoted any text from the gurshabad; do you wish for us to make clear that which does not exist?!
If this is the type of refutations I.S. Dhillon produces, boasting on many Sikh forums of being a champion Sikh-interlocutor against the Muslims, then can we do anything except conclude that this man is merely blowing his own trumpet?
