Gurmukh Manmukh Muslim Kafir Sikh Udasi Mina Gurdas

Gurmukh-Kafir Manmukh-Muslim & Bhai Gurdas

This is a rebuttal to a post published by ChardiKala [1] (a member of the now defunct website on the popular discussion website, Reddit, in response to our paper titled: Manmukh, Kafir and the Infidel (we would recommend reading this beforehand to properly understand this rebuttal).

Although this individual correctly understood the article’s attempted purpose, which was to draw a parallel between, as he puts it, “the Gurmukh/ Manmukh divide in Sikhi being equivalent to the Believer/ Kafir divide in Islam”, at the same time, he also described our website as “disingenuous” and the editorial in question as “deliberately twisting Sikh writing” and “selectively picking Shabads”, before succinctly and correctly understanding the latter as follows:

The central thesis of this article is that ‘Gurmukh’ became a much narrower term from the time of the 1st Nanak to the 10th, while ‘Manmukh’ came to encompass many more people during the same time window. Essentially, the author attempts to argue that during the time of Guru Nanak, any (broadly) “good person” (Sikh or non-Sikh) could be classified as a ‘Gurmukh’ while any (broadly) “bad person” (Sikh or non-Sikh) was labelled a ‘Manmukh’. However, they contend, as time went on the latter Gurus added new meaning to Gurmukh so that only a certain subset of Sikhs qualified as Gurmukhs while the rest of the Sikhs and all non-Sikhs were automatically Manmukhs.

Before addressing the above, we are going to pick a bone of contention with the author, and a large one at that, for creating the false impression that our “central thesis” was entirely our own, while himself failing to properly deal with the copious citations of scholars and academics our paper was established on, almost all of whom happened to be Sikh and who would, thus, qualify as disinterested sources.

Of course, it is far easier to defend the accusation that we are “deliberately twisting Sikh writing”, than it is to accuse us of deliberately twisting the conclusions made by the author’s Sikh brethren who, unlike this unknown individual, are known for their qualifications and credentials.

Sadly, this sloppy approach at a refutation, where sources are just dismissively ignored, only happens to fit a general trend followed by our opponents that stretches back to when our website first started over a decade ago. How many times have we had to deal with Sikhs who publish disingenuous rejoinders that seek to misrepresent our editorials in this underhanded way?

In this case, rather than directly citing and addressing the arguments and conclusions from the many academic sources we quote throughout our paper, ChardiKala claims that we “employ two primary methods to reading Sikh scripture and other canon writing”.

Be that as it may, the first method, he says, involves us “twisting Sikh writing to make it appear as if it [is] saying something different to the original intent”; and the first and only example he bothers to reproduce is the following quote from Bhai Gurdas:

Without the Guru’s Shabad and sadh-sangat even good persons find no liberation. [2] (bold, underline ours)

What he conveniently failed to mention here is the context in which this appeared, as well as the fact that it is Prof. Jagtar Singh Grewal, a scholar and former vice chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University, who quotes this as part of a broader argument he is making. By quoting this in isolation, not only does ChardiKala ignore the specific argument in which Grewal is citing this, but, more tellingly, other citations of Bhai Gurdas too.

Before coming to this argument, let us consider the author’s attempt in justifying his underlying charge, that we twisted and distorted the above citation to meet our objective. After citing what he believes is the context – essentially seeking to highlight the falsity of various forms of worship, religious-oriented pursuits, and the dangers of hypocrisy – he reasons that the above was merely an example of satirisation on the part of Bhai Gurdas!

Reading the full Vaar it is apparent he is actually satirizing contemporary society’s idea of a “good person”, not downplaying the importance of being a ‘good’ person (whether Sikh or not) altogether. Merely performing outward rituals, performing penance and offering gifts don’t make you a good person if you turn around the next day to engage in vice all over again. He is criticizing the idea that you can have a filthy heart and expect to attain spiritual liberation by thinking you can make up for it by outward ritualism. He finishes off by telling us that even these “very good people” (he is being sarcastic here, Indian society actually thought you were a good person by the way you presented yourself to society, which Bhai Gurdaas disagrees with) cannot find spiritual acceptance from Waheguru without cleansing their hearts and minds with the power of the Shabad (more on this later).

Notice, however, that he does nothing to explain away the qualification for liberation penned down by Bhai Gurdas, which requires some association to the “Guru’s Shabad and sadh-sangat”. This point is crucial and will tie in with what we bring next when proving our overall thesis.

For the moment, even if, for arguments sake, we concede that he was satirising in some sense, there is no escaping the fact that those who partake in “praxis of continence, burnt offerings, feasts, penances and gifts… incantations and spells… worship of the fifty-two heroes, of the eight yoginis of cemeteries and of places of cremation leads to whopping dissimulation… pranayam exercises of the inhalation, suspension of breath, the exhalation, the niolr feat and straightening of kundalini the serpent power… sitting in the siddhasanas [] seeking myriad miracles… belief in the philosopher’s stone, the jewel in the serpent’s head and the miracle of life immortalising elixir… worship of idols of gods and goddesses, in fasting, uttering and giving blessings and curses” (should we go on?), will not find liberation without the “Guru’s Shabad and sadh-sangat“, no matter how good they might think they are. Now, without this qualification, are these perceived “good persons” Gurmukh or Manmukh in this context?

And we will reproduce what we originally argued to prove that this is precisely the context in which Grewal was citing Bhai Gurdas:

Grewal provides a comprehensive overview of Gurdas’ indomitable claims of Sikh superiority and ghettoisation. For Gurdas too, “[t]he consciousness of Sikh identity is heightened by the presence of sectarian mentalities”. [101] In this respect, his disdain and condemnation of the Sikh heterodoxy is apparent for “[t]hose who do not turn towards the Guru are bemukh. [102] The most foolish among them are the manmukh. However, the worst among them are the detractors (nindak), especially the slanderers of the Gurus”. [103] His stance is clear against the followers of Prithi Chand, Guru Arjan’s unruly brother, who became his “lifelong enemy”: [104]
The minas stand outside the pale of Sikhism in the eyes of Bhai Gurdas in terms of doctrines, beliefs, and practices. [105] (bold, underline ours)
And since these heterodox sects are excluded on the basis of doctrines, beliefs and practices that were similar in nature to the orthodox than those of other religions, it stands to reason, thus, that they would certainly be even further outside the pale.

Hence, “[t]here is no liberation without the perfect Guru. [106] … Without the Guru there can be no liberation”. [107] [108] For this reason:

The Sikh faith and those who cherish this faith are distinct from all other people known to Bhai Gurdas. This is one of his major preoccupations. In the first Var itself, the Indian religious traditions known to Bhai Gurdas are mentioned, followed by various manifestations of the Islamic system. The Hindus and Muslims are explicitly contrasted to draw the conclusion that they have missed the truth. The metaphor of the blind leading the blind is used for both Hindus and Turks. [109]

The highway of the Gurmukh is superior to all the twelve panths of the Jogis put together. [110] No other path can be compared with the Gurmukh-marg. [111] Bhai Gurdas is explicit on the uniqueness of the Sikh faith: there is nothing like it in the Indian religious traditions. [112] The Gurmukh-panth transcends the twelve panths of the Jogis; the shabad which the Gurmukh sings is not there in the Veda or the semitic books. [113] (bold ours)

Even the Jews and Christians are not forgotten and receive a special mention although “[a]ll are invited to become Gurmukhs who are different from them all”.
With such a fixed mental apartheid, the natural corollary is that the Hindus and Muslims “are not equal to the hair of a Sikh. This is true of Jews and Christians as well. [114] Significantly, Bhai Gurdas makes no distinction between orthodox Muslims and Sufis: they all struggle in vain”. [115], [116] (bold our)
In fact:
Without the Guru’s Shabad and sadh-sangat even good persons find no liberation. [117], [118] (bold, underline ours)
And so the conclusion he invariably draws is that:
[T]he only true relation in the world is that of a Sikh with another Sikh: the relationship of Gur-bhais is the true relationship. [119], [120] (bold, underline ours)

Looked at it in this comprehensive light, not only have we not taken the above and twisted it, but also shown that, in relation to our original contention that “the Gurmukh-Manmukh bipolarity not only originates with the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, but also acquired a narrower and more exclusivist definition with each successive Guru”, this evidence from Bhai Gurdas is actually evidence against ChardiKala, not for him!

Gurmukh-Manmukh in Bhai Gurdas’ Varan

Given that this chap’s attempt thus far is predicated on his apparent acceptance of Bhai Gurdas’ Varan (after the Adi Granth, this source document is perhaps the second most important one, at least from an exegetical perspective, for orthodox Sikhs – more so even than the controversial Dasam Granth), we are now going to present further evidence from said source to prove the following a fortiori argument:

If the earliest Sikh heterodox sects, viz. the Udasis and the Minas, were closer to Sikh orthodoxy than non-Sikh religions; then any condemnation of them would be more applicable to those further removed from Sikh orthodoxy.

Bhai Gurdas has the most to say of the relationship between Muslims and Hindus and the Gurmukh-Manmukh dichotomy in the very first Pauri, or section, of Var 33, appropriately titled ‘Gurmukh-Manmukh’, wherein he states: “Whether Muslim or the Hindu, the manmukh among the gurmukhs is the utter darkness,” [3] – alternatively translated by Surinder Singh Kohli: “Among the Hindus and Muslims, there are Gurmukhs as well as self-willed steeped in ignorance.” [4]

This raises the question of how one is to recognise a Manmukh among Muslims. An answer to this is revealed in subsequent Pauris, with the second one (titled ‘Hindu-Muslim’) noting the existence of four sects (majahab or mazhab) within Sunnism: “Hindus created four castes (Khatri, Brahmin, Vaish, Shudra) and Muslims four sects (Hanifis, Safis, Malikis, and Hambalis),” [5] before Pauri 4 concludes:

That Lord is one; but different ways have been created by Hindus and Muslims. The path of Sikhism [Gursikh] is superior to both because it accepts an intimate relation between the Guru and the Sikh. The double-minded are always perplexed and thus they suffer. [6] (bold ours)

Var 38 also speaks of the superiority of the Gursikh in more emphatic terms, with Pauri 10, contemptuously titled ‘Gursikh is above a Hindu and a Muslim’, declaring:

Muslims and Hindus have started a separate religious order each (ways of life). Muslims call it Mazhab while Hindus call it Varnas. Muslims call their holy persons as Pirs and Hindus call their spiritual guide as Guru. They lure and attract disciples pretentiously and impart their ideology to them. The Hindus meditate on word ‘Ram Ram’ while Muslims remember God as ‘Rahim’. Both are seized by their pride and ego. For Muslims, pilgrimage to Mecca and for Hindus to Ganges and Benares is holy and provider of emancipation. The Muslims call their fast Rozas while Hindus call them varat. They (Muslims) prostrate at the time of saying their prayer (Namaz) or worshipping respectively. Both of them cannot match even a trichome [hair] of a Gursikh who has given up his pride and ego completely. [7] (bold ours)

Emphatically titled ‘Gursikh is above all religions and sects’, and making specific mention of the “six schools of philosophy and fourteen lineages (of the Sufis)”, Pauri 11 too repeats: “They all are not equal to one trichome of that Gursikh who has attuned himself with that great primeval Lord.”

Pauri 12, titled ‘Gursikh is above other indigenous and foreign religions’, continues in the same vein proclaiming that the “sects of Sunnis, S[h]ias and Rafazis”, as well as the “[f]ollowers of Jesus and Moses” who, being “confounded in their own pride… are not equal to even a trichome of those Gursikhs who have sold themselves at the hands of the Guru”. [8]

This sense of superiority is then extended to include Bhai Gurdas’ Guru as a condition for salvation, for in his very last Var 40 Pauri 8, which is titled ‘No liberation without Guru’, he reveals:

There have been numerous Pirs (Muslim saints), Prophets, Auliyas (godly persons), Gaus, Scholars and religious leaders in the past; there have been many Sheikhs, Masaikhs, Sadiqs (contented ones), poor and humble, brave martyrs; there have been numerous Qazis, Mullahs, Maulvis, intellectuals and servants of Lord…. None of them can get liberation without the True Guru without whom their attachment and ego gets inflated further. Because without holy congregation (Sadh Sangat), the ego and pride keep one under their evil surveillance. [9] (bold ours)

Pirs (Muslim saints), Prophets, Auliyas (godly persons), Gaus, Scholars and religious leaders… numerous Qazis, Mullahs, Maulvis…. None of them can get liberation without the True Guru…. – Bhai Gurdas

So, going back to the question of who these double-minded Muslims are that cannot match a single hair of a Gursikh, and require a Guru for liberation; then, Bhai Gurdas answers that they adhere to the fundamental pillars (arkaan) of Islam: Kalima, Salah, Siyam, and Hajj; recognise the four madhaahib: Hanafis, Malikis, Shaf’ees and Hanbalis; and necessarily include the learned elite.

Now, we don’t know about ChardiKala, but these people sound suspiciously like the vast majority of Muslims who have ever existed. And so, this brings us to our next question: how do these Muslims compare to the aforementioned Sikh heterodox sects according to Bhai Gurdas?

These dissident groups, their dastardly characteristics, and the consequences of their nefarious machinations are detailed extensively in Var 36, with the Mina sect explicitly mentioned by name in the very title of the first Pauri:Mina munh kala’, or the ‘Dissembler blackened face’, where the popular pejorative idiomatic term “blackened face” can be understood as meaning: disgraced, shamed or discredited:

The True Guru is the true Sovereign, the faces of the Minas (unfaithful) are blackened [muh(u) kale]. [10]

Shamsher Singh Puri, who published a translation with commentary to said Varan, recognises:

The word Mina (English—Inveigler, Deceitful, Schemer, Insidious) is believed to have been used by Guru Ram Das Ji for his eldest son Baba Prithi Chand who had turned his back on him and was scheming to thwart his father’s decision to handover Guruship to (Guru) Arjan Dev-his youngest son. With this background, Bhai Gurdas Ji is advising all Sikhs not to be insidious since such persons are always disgraced and face degradation ultimately.

What is interesting to note is the use of the sandalwood tree analogy below:

Bamboo can never acquire fragrance no matter how close and absorbed it may stay to a sandalwood tree… The True Guru [Satguru] is the True Emperor while the inveiglers are only disgraced.

This analogy is utilised on various occasions throughout the Varan including describing the “ungrateful” Manmukh in Var 37, Pauri 23.

Moving on to Pauris 2-6, then “the Mina (unfaithful) is punished being false and wicked”; [11] the Mina “cannot create a holy congregation [Mina sachchi sangat nahin bana sakda]”, i.e. the Sadh Sangat; and because of “evil actions, liberation can never be attained and ultimately one becomes wretched”. In the end, reminds Pauri 4, the “Mina ant nu jam pur jaega – Dissembler will ultimately go to the hell”, with Bhai Gurdas warning:

  • O dissembler! If you have totally forgotten that Lord who has bestowed body and soul upon you, you will go straight to the abode of Yama.
  • [S]imilarly the way of brazen-faced dissemblers [minia] leads towards hell [narak].

Respectively titled ‘Association with the dissembler is bad as well as painful’ and ‘Dissembler’s association disappoints’, Sikhs have, likewise, been cautioned in Pauris 5 and 7:

  • Prostitute looks very beautiful but she ensnares the mind (and ultimately man stands finished). Similarly, dissembler’s [minia] company causes suffering for their friends.
  • One who keeps association with dissemblers [Kohli translates: sangati minia, as “sect of the Minas”], ultimately goes (from this world) disappointed.

Further still, the “Mine are accurs[ed] by the Gurus”, or so says the title of Pauri 8, which counsels with strong analogies before advising an ignominious punishment for such miscreants:

Crows and cuckoos however mixed cannot be one. … How can a crane and a swan be equated by the same measurement? Similarly the apostates are picked up, separated and stigmatized. What is the hall mark of dissemblers? They are like counterfeit coins of a fake mint. Shoe beating is given on their heads and they are cursed by the preceptor. [12] (bold ours)

The use of counterfeit coins of fake mint is another intriguing analogy, not least because this imagery is also used to castigate the Muslim kings and emperors in Var 26, Pauri 31, who, despite minting their own coin and being sworn in by “Qazis and Mullahs”, are deemed inferior to Sikhs, because, as both Puri and Jodh Singh render: “There is only one mint (Sadh Sangat/ holy congregation), one sermon (Nam) and the [true] throne (spiritual seat).” [13]

In fact, this singular perspective is actually brought into sharper focus when continuing our evaluation of Var 36 and Pauris 9 through to 16, wherein Bhai Gurdas provides a more comprehensive outlook of his exclusivist vision when speaking on liberation.

In Pauri 13, titled ‘All the means for liberation are useless’, Bhai Gurdas states that just as “a house [] is useless without [a] door, one cannot attain liberation without Guru”, before emphatically declaring in Pauri 14: “No liberation is attained without Guru and bondages are shattered only after meeting the Guru.”

This theme continues in Pauri 15 where Bhai Gurdas, in affirming that “without Guru, no liberation is achieved and the Guru-oriented gurmukhs become immortal and make others so too”, implies that such individuals are ipso facto Manmukhs who “without the Guru”, repeats Pauri 16 (unequivocally titled: “Liberation [is] impossible without Guru”), “is not liberated and suffers transmigration”!

But, look how these “sluggish dissemblers”, as they are labelled in Pauri 9, “who without merit call themselves Guru”, are tactlessly described in Pauri 11:

Impotent are they who have no Guru [Guru bin hujara hai]

Wearing five garments one may assume the garb of a male person. He may have beautiful beard and moustaches and a slim body. Wielder of a hundred weapons he may be counted among prominent knights. He may be an adept courtier and widely known throughout the country. But without masculinity, of what use is he to a woman? Who would bow before those who are without merit and get themselves called Guru? [14]

When speaking of the “miserable plight of the apostate” in Pauri 32 of Var 26, or as Puri translates the title ‘Rebellious of [the] Guru [Guru ton aki]’ – a reference to Guru Hargobind and the “many fake and hypocrite Gurus” he had to deal with some of whom “were from the house of the Guru” – then it should be obvious, self-evidently so in fact, that what Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) taught was far more removed from Sikhism than anything the leaders of the Udasis and Minas established from the Gurus’ households.

Titled ‘The Ego [Haumai] of the Guru’s Progeny’ (haumai being one of the five major vices in Sikhism), Bhai Gurdas delineates said family tree in Pauri 33 as follows (both Puri’s and Kohli’s translations are cited below for a more complete understanding):

  • Puri
  • Kohli
Baba Sri Chand, elder son of Guru Nanak, was a celibate from childhood. He raised a sepulchre (of Guru Nanak) on the bank of river Ravi and made it his seat of operation. Guru Nanak’s other son, Lakshmi Das was a householder. His son, Dharam Chand began to assert himself as grandson of Guru Nanak under pride of lineage. (He too did not shed his ego). Dasu, the elder son of Guru Angad Dev, established a seat for himself at Goindwal, while Datu too declared himself a divine person. Despite being unworthy, both started attracting Sangat to their presence. Mohan became demented and Mohari, the second son, lived in a lofty house to project himself as noble and great. (Both sons of Guru Amar Das ji) Prithi Chand, the eldest son of Guru Ram Das turned out to be a cheater [Mina]. He indulged in cunningness and sent false messages to the Sikhs. Mahadev, another son of Guru Ram Das became arrogant, was led astray by Prithi Chand and made to run from pillar to post. They all were like bamboos who though lived near sandalwood like Guru could not become fragrant. [15]
Sirichand (the elder son of Guru Nanak) is celibate since childhood who has constructed the monument (in memory) of Guru Nanak. Dharam chand son of Laksami Das (second son of Guru Nanak) also made display of his egotism. Guru Angad’s one son Dasu was made to sit on the seat of Guruship and the second son Datu also learnt to sit in the siddh posture i.e. both the sons of Guru Angad Dev were pretender Guru and during the time of third Guru Amar Das they tried their best to attract the devotees of the House of the Guru. Mohan (son of Guru Amar Das) got afflicted and Mohan (the second son) lived in a lofty house and started getting served by the people. Prithi Chand (son of Guru Ram Das) came out as dissembling scoundrel and using his oblique nature spread his mental sickness all round. Mahadev (another son of Guru Ram Das) was egotist who was also led astray. They all were like bamboos who though lived near sandal – Guru, yet could not become fragrant. [16]

Now, if the close members of the Gurus’ households have been described so scathingly, and since “[s]lander of anyone is bad but the slandering of the Guru is the greatest evil”, [17] then what of those who consider all ten Gurus to be disbelievers in the absolute sense of the word?

Hence, when it comes to properly understanding and more faithfully interpreting Bhai Gurdas’ exclusivist position on religion, salvation, liberation and damnation, the following from Puri (Var 36, Pauris 14-16) is far closer to what is true and real than ChardiKala’s attempt at watering things down:

This pauri is a sharp rejection of the then prevailing practices among followers of other religions as a means of salvation. …

During Guru-period, a large number of religious sects, godmen and self-proclaimed granter of salvation had misled gullible and humble seekers of the truth. Guru Sahib had condemned all those means and Bhai Gurdas Ji has taken same theme in this pauri. It has been repeatedly asserted that Guru alone can lead one to emancipation since he himself is a realized soul. …

Through these illustrations, Bhai Gurdas Ji has emphasized once again that a True Guru who himself has been liberated, alone can help and guide others to salvation. All other means suggested and propagated by unwise and stupid people cannot lead one to achieve ultimate aim. [18] (bold, underline ours)

Adi Granth on the Sikh Heterodox Sects – the Udasis & Minas

Now that we have a thorough understanding of Bhai Gurdas’ black and white stance in this regard, we can begin to explore ChardiKala’s second contention: “Selectively picking Shabads in a way which furthers their own narrative.”

He suggests that “the author selectively chooses Shabads from each Guru attempting to show that the message in the Shabads of Guru Nanak on this topic is different to the message in the Shabads of successive Gurus”, with our “implicit message” being that “Nanak considered ‘Gurmukh’ to be a broad term which applied to generally good people (including non-Sikhs) while ‘Manmukh’ simply referred to generally bad people (Sikhs and bad non-Sikhs)”.

He, thus, forwards a number of arguments in his defence, beginning with:

Firstly, the idea that Guru Nanak never stressed the importance of having a Guru lead you to Waheguru is incorrect. The article claims that the latter Gurus, by putting emphasis on the necessity of the Guru in a spiritual journey, were narrowing the definition of a ‘Gurmukh’ so that it only included Sikhs (who followed the Sikh Gurus) and that this was a deviation from Guru Nanak’s message. This is false.

Whether Guru Nanak stressed any importance or not in “having a Guru” is entirely beside the point, because, as it so happens, this has absolutely no bearing on what he calls our “implicit message”, but which we call our primary argument, which could not have been more explicit! The whole idea behind the original editorial was to show that the Gurmukh-Manmukh dichotomy is a direct equivalence of the Muslim-Kafir juxtaposition. Our contention has been that the conditions for being a Gurmukh took on a narrower understanding and became, with each successive Guru subsequent to Nanak, progressively more restricted, such that by Ram Das’ tenure, a Sikh Guru would have been required to qualify as a Gurmukh.

And just in case ChardiKala somehow manages to overlook our rebuttal’s central argument, then let us repeat here too for his sake:

If the earliest Sikh heterodox sects, viz. the Udasis and the Minas, were closer to Sikh orthodoxy than non-Sikh religions; then any condemnation of them would be more applicable to those further removed from Sikh orthodoxy.

To further prove this point, and to demonstrate how flimsy ChardiKala’s accusation of us selectively quoting is, we are going to turn to Balwant Singh Dhillon’s book: Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition – Myth and Reality, and his appraisal of the very same sects that Bhai Gurdas was forced to contend with, except that he does so by turning to the SGGS.

In his assessment, Dhillon provides references to plenty of Shabads from the Adi Granth wherein these latter Gurus directly tackled, while concurrently providing their followers with a clear blueprint on how to deal with, the threat of the Udasis and the Minas.

The Udasis, Dhillon begins, was a “schism created by Sri Chand” after “Guru Nanak had decided in favour of Guru Angad”. In this respect, he cites the following verse:

His sons did not obey His Word; they turned their backs on Him as Guru. These evil-hearted ones became rebellious; they carry loads of sin on their backs. (SGGS 967)

While being told that “Guru Amar Das exhorted the Sikhs not to follow the Udasi way of life… [and] to be aware of the pseudo-guru and his ‘false’ writings”, Dhillon further quotes:

Without the True Guru, other songs are false [kachi hai bani]. The songs are false without the True Guru; all other songs are false. The speakers are false, and the listeners are false; those who speak and recite are false. [… Says Nanak, without the True Guru, other songs are false.] (SGGS 920)

“Guru Ram Das’ compositions are replete,” Dhillon tells us, with the usage of “technical words, namely, Nindak, Bemukh, Kuiyãr, Manmukh, Dusha, etc., in relation to the activities of his rivals” who, he adds, were “not limited merely to a detractor or an evil person but stood for a person who is an enemy of the Guru”, with Sikhs being “advised not to associate with him”:

Those who are filled with vicious slander, shall have their noses cut, and be shamed. They are totally ugly, and always in pain. Their faces are blackened by Maya. They rise early in the morning, to cheat and steal from others; they hide from the Lord’s Name. (SGGS 1244)

As evidenced below, these detractors had “exposed themselves to disrepute”, “lost their creditability”, were “spiritually bankrupt”, “hopeless fellows”, with “no purpose”:

Those who do not become Gurmukh and earn the wealth of the Lord’s Name, are bankrupt in this age. They wander around begging all over the world, but no one even spits in their faces. They gossip about others, and lose their credit, and expose themselves as well. That wealth, for which they slander others, does not come into their hands, no matter where they go. Through loving service, the Gurmukhs receive the wealth of the Naam, but the unfortunate ones cannot receive it. This wealth is not found anywhere else, in this country or in any other. (SGGS 852-3)

In fact, these “slanderers (Nindak) and evil-doers” (SGGS 850) “ultimately would meet with ignominy” to the extent “that even for four generations the detractors would not be able to achieve unison with God“, with Dhillon having this page in mind:

Anyone who tries to compete with them is a fool (Murakh); his face shall be blackened here and HEREAFTER. [… Throughout the four generations of the Gurus, from the beginning of time and throughout the ages, no one has ever found the Lord by back-biting and undermining. Only by serving the Lord with love, is one emancipated.] (SGGS 733)

We are then informed that at some point “Guru Ram Das had responded positively towards rapprochement with them” by promising anyone who “comes seeking the Guru’s protection”, after having slandered him, that the “True Guru” won’t just forgive his past sins and unite him with the Saints’ Congregation, but such a person “instantly [] attains celestial peace”, provided “one [] obeys and believes in the True Guru” (SGGS 854-5).

But, this “experience failed”, because these “detractors continued to conspire against the Guru”:

The faithless cynics go and bow before the Guru, but their minds are corrupt and false, totally false. When the Guru says, “Rise up, my Siblings of Destiny”, they sit down, crowded in like cranes. (SGGS 312)

Dhillon contrasts these “detractors, [who] encouraged desertions from Guru’s side to their camp”, to the Guru’s loyalists:

The truthful Sikhs sit by the True Guru’s side and serve Him. The false ones search, but find no place of rest. Those who are not pleased with the Words of the True Guru – their faces are cursed, and they wander around, condemned by God. Those who do not have the Love of the Lord within their hearts – how long can those demonic, self-willed manmukhs be consoled? (SGGS 305)

In response to the “exploitation” of his followers, Dhillon tells us, “Guru Ram Das had to decree that except the Guru, the Sikhs should not take commands from anyone else” (bold ours), furnishing the verse below as proof:

But those who want the GurSikhs to work for them, without the Order of the True Guru – the Guru’s Sikhs shall not come near them again. One who works diligently for the Guru, the True Guru – the GurSikhs work for him. One who comes to deceive, who rises up and goes out to deceive – the GurSikhs shall never come near him. (SGGS 317)

Thus, “the Sikhs were advised to shun away from the company of such fellows”, since “Guru Ram Das remarked that the deserters and their associates were destined to ruin” as “wretches and hopeless fellows”:

Those who were cursed by the Perfect True Guru, from the very beginning, are even now cursed by the True Guru. Even though they may have a great longing to associate with the Guru, the Creator does not allow it. They shall not find shelter in the Sat Sangat, the True Congregation; in the Sangat, the Guru has proclaimed this. Whoever goes out to meet them now, will be destroyed by the tyrant, the Messenger of Death. Those who were condemned by Guru Nanak were declared counterfeit by Guru Angad as well. The Guru of the third generation thought, “What lies in the hands of these poor people?” The Guru of the fourth generation saved all these slanderers and evil-doers. [If any son or Sikh serves the True Guru, then all of his affairs will be resolved.] (SGGS 307) [19]

What do we learn, therefore, from these shabads? Precisely this: the Udasis and the Minas were:

Slanderers (Nindak) and evil-doers; evil-hearted ones; rebellious; ugly; spiritually bankrupt; hopeless fellows; faithless cynics; demonic, self-willed manmukhs.

Consequently, these Udasis and Minas, according to SGGS:

“Carry loads of sin on their backs”; their “songs are false [kachi hai bani]”, “listeners are false” and “their minds are corrupt and false, totally false!” They “shall have their noses cut, and be shamed… always in pain. Their faces are blackened by Maya” and they “wander around begging all over the world”. Unlike the Gurmukh, these “unfortunate ones cannot receive it [Naam]” and “ultimately would meet with ignominy… for four generations… would not be able to achieve unison with God” – “their faces are cursed, and they wander around, condemned by God” – their “face shall be blackened here and hereafter”.

And so what does Guru Ram Das counsel?

“[T]he Guru’s Sikhs shall not come near them again… GurSikhs shall never come near him”. In fact, “the Creator does not allow it. They shall not find shelter in the Sat Sangat, the True Congregation; in the Sangat, the Guru has proclaimed this”!

Even though they may have a great longing to associate with the Guru, the Creator does not allow it. They shall not find shelter in the Sat Sangat, the True Congregation; in the Sangat, the Guru has proclaimed this. – SGGS 307 re Udasis & Minas

With all this in mind, will ChardiKala come out and claim that all these Shabads have been cherry-picked by Dhillon? Will ChardiKala proclaim that the Udasis and the Minas were actually Gurmukhs in reality? Will he suggest that the Gurus weren’t really criticising the Udasis and Minas for failing to follow them?

And what will his answer be to the question of who, in his view, is worse in their doctrinal beliefs towards his Gurus: these heterodox Sikh sects or Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him)?

If it is true, according to SGGS, that “without the True Guru; all other songs are false. The speakers are false, and the listeners are false; those who speak and recite are false”, and anyone “who tries to compete with them is a fool (Murakh)”; then, unlike practically every Muslim, at least the Udasis and Minas did not reject the Gurus and their scriptures in toto.


In the end, ChardiKala appears confused about our central contention. This confusion is no better demonstrated than his strawman of Bhagats like Kabir, who long preceded the Gurus, but “talk[] about the importance of having a ‘Saadh Sangat’ and a ‘True Guru'” as evidence against the argument that a Manmukh is someone who chooses not to follow a Sikh Guru.

If ChardiKala recognises that our argument is, as he himself quotes us saying, “that ‘Gurmukh’ became a much more selective term after Guru Nanak while ‘Manmukh’ became broader and began to encompass many more people than during the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji”, then how do the Bhagats, most of whom preceded him, fit into this equation?

ChardiKala lamented that we are not “interested in having an honest discussion or presenting Sikhi’s real position and then commenting on it”. To the contrary, if this man’s failure in directly addressing the many arguments we cited from disinterested scholars and academics in our original paper proves anything, it proves his own lack of honesty in this exchange.

This time, however, we believe that he simply cannot hide behind this excuse again, particularly given the evidence we have presented in this rebuttal from these two sources:

  1. Direct quotes from Bhai Gurdas proving that the Udasis and Minas are not just archetypal Manmukhs, but also the ultimate yardstick by which others must be measured when determining their status as one.
  2. Direct quotes from SGGS in response to the threat of these heterodox sects as cited and understood, not by us (and ChardiKala would do well to underscore this point), but by a Sikh academic by the name of Balwant Singh Dhillon.

And we have utilised these two sources to prove our overarching contention:

If the earliest Sikh heterodox sects, viz. the Udasis and the Minas, were closer to Sikh orthodoxy than non-Sikh religions; then any condemnation of them would be more applicable to those further removed from Sikh orthodoxy.

Since there is little doubt on the part of the “key to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib”, Bhai Gurdas, that these sects were, indeed, Manmukh, it stands to reason a fortiori that there is more of a reason for non-Sikh religions to qualify as Manmukhs.

And this is precisely what we set out to prove originally, that the evidences before us “leave very little doubt that the Gurmukh-Manmukh categorisation is a direct equivalence of the Muslim-Kafir bipolarity”.

It is an undisputable fact that part of the Kalimah Shahaadatayn, or the duel declaration of faith, is to affirm that none has the right to be followed in truth except Prophet Muhammad (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), which involves the inviolable condition that he is the “seal of the Prophets” and the last messenger of God, with direct revelation from God having entirely come to an end with his finality. Therefore, anyone’s claim of being a recipient of such revelation, let alone proclaiming an entirely new theology, faith and religion, must be rejected as false. It is for this reason that our Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) warned, when revealing a number of signs indicating the imminent approach of the final Hour and the Day of Judgement, that “30 deceitful Dajjals (literally: lying Imposters) will appear, each one claiming to be a Messenger of Allah”. [20]

Of course, Guru Nanak and his successors claimed far more than just that, establishing a religion that has practically nothing to do with the theological, soteriological and eschatological beliefs and concepts of Islam.

[1] Variations of this have also been published on two Sikh forums here and here.
[2] J.S. Grewal (2011), History, Literature, and Identity: Four Centuries of Sikh Tradition, (Oxford University Press, India), p. 125.
[3] J. Singh (2013), Varan Bhai Gurdas – Text, Transliteration and Translation – Vol 2, (B. Chattar Singh Jiwan Singh, Bazar Mai Sewan, Amritsar), p. 395.
[4] G. Singh (2007), Bhai Gurdas: The Great Sikh Theologian – His Life and Work, (Publication Bureau Punjabi University, Patiala), p. 257.
[5] S.S. Puri (2009), Varan Bhai Gurdas Ji – Vol 2, (Singh Brothers, Amritsar), p. 1533.
[6] J. Singh, op. cit., p. 272.
[7] S.S. Puri, op. cit., p. 1783.
[8] J. Singh, op. cit., pp. 396-7.
[9] S.S. Puri, op. cit., p. 1863.
[10] G. Singh, op. cit., p. 276.
[11] Ibid.
[12] J. Singh, op. cit., pp. 338-42.
[13] S.S. Puri, op. cit., p. 1269.
[14] J. Singh, op. cit., pp. 343-50.
[15] S.S. Puri, op. cit., pp. 1269-73.
[16] J. Singh, op. cit., pp. 139-40.
[17] S.S. Puri, op. cit., p. 1623.
[18] Ibid., pp. 1689-93.
[19] B.S. Dhillon (1999), Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition – Myth and Reality, (Singh Bros, Amritsar), pp. 49-52.
[20] Afflictions and the End of the World, (accessed: 31 Dec 2019).

Check Also

Uncloaking Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s Guru Nanak

A comprehensive historical rebuttal of the Ahmadiyya conspiracy that Guru Nanak was originally a Muslim.

Manmukh, Kafir, and the Infidel

The Gurus too split the world into two basic groups: Gurmukhs (Sikhs) and Manmukhs (disbelievers), with salvation only possible through Sikhism.


  1. Anyone who has lived along sikhs for some time can easily observe their disrespect towards other faiths. Neutrality is only shown on social media as a diplomatic strategy .

    • Well, Bhai Gurdas certainly wasn’t diplomatic when it came to the Udasis and the Minas. Just laid it out plain and simple for them and the rest of the world to know exactly where Sikhism stood with these deviant groups.

      • Eagrly waiting for article on teg bahadur assassination. Sikhs claim to fight against injustice but since gurus onto banda bahadur and sikh misels the fight was only for gaddi(power)

    • This comment is very wrong. Sikhs respect other faiths. I used to attend a multi faith group regularly with my mother. I have grown up in the Sikh faith. I have been very interested in Jesus Christ & his teachings.

      • You mean Christianity? If so, I hope you’re not interested in Trinitarianism which teaches that God became a man. That wouldn’t be sensible or logical to adopt.
        What you should, instead, look to is the concept of God. Which theology is straightforward, logically coherent and consistent, and thus closer to truth? Insha’Allah (God-willing) you’ll then be in a closer position to seeing the truth for what it is, and falsehood for what it is. May Allah guide the sincere ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.