Guru Nanak was NEVER a Muslim

Introduction

Although the title of this paper may seem rhetorical to some, the fact is that there has existed a trickle of voices throughout the ages that have either sincerely queried over this question, dismissed it as absurd, or vigorously asserted an answer in the affirmative.

As indicated by a unique survey (right) we conducted supplementing this paper, the same is certainly true of today. In answer to the question: ‘Do you believe Guru Nanak was a Muslim?’ 72% (166) of respondents, from a total of 232 votes, said they did NOT believe him to be a Muslim, while 8% (19) were honest enough to claim ignorance. But, what was most worrying was that 10% (23) of respondents were certain he was Muslim, while an equal percentage thought he could be. The poll suggests that 20% (47) of respondents doubt Nanak was a kaafir (disbeliever). If this site were a sensationalist newspaper, the heading for this news would most probably read something like: “Almost a quarter believe Guru Nanak could have been a Muslim.”

There exists a mixture of ignorant and deluded Muslims that have erroneously concluded that Guru Nanak was either an overt Muslim or one who had converted to Islam, but, for one reason or another, never openly proclaimed or practiced it – choosing instead to conceal it. And the following excuse usually accompanies this latter opinion: his Muslim identity was, down the centuries, reinvented by some of his followers into the traditional Sikh identity we know of today. There are then those Muslims who go the extra mile in their attempt to audaciously prove and promote the notion, often to the extent of compromising the very basic tenets and principles of Islam, that Nanak was a Muslim.

From an Islamic perspective, giving any type of credence to such an idea will, in essence, occur due to two reasons:

Muslims who have knowledge of ‘aqeedah (creed and doctrine), as it was understood and implemented by Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) and his companions, and have a rudimentary knowledge of Guru Nanak’s life and teachings, will certainly be utterly bewildered to learn of fellow Muslims who hold such dubious opinions. It is for this reason that an in depth study be undertaken to comprehensively address this subject.

Muslim Misconceptions

Since the inception of the Islam-Sikhism, we have received a number of emails from Muslims sincerely inquiring into this query over whether Nanak was a Muslim.

Nadeem Bhatti in 2006 questioned:

While Mr Rahman queried:

Mohsin Malik simply asked:

Firstly, let us take the following rule of thumb: when an object is described or attributed to something, it does not always mean that it is an accurate reflection of the truth. For example, changing the label of a bottle of water with the label ‘Coke’ doesn’t change the content of said bottle to water. Hence, claims need to be examined to determine their veracity; the assertion that someone who is known to be a non-Muslim can be said to be a Muslim demands that the claim be critically assessed.

There have been two modes of historical association between Islam and Sikhism:

And it is through the use of this historical association that those attempting to bridge this religious gap between Islam and Sikhism have gone so far as to affirm Guru Nanak’s Islam. [1]

It is, therefore, imperative that if we are to correctly answer this question, a critical examination of the evidence that supports the above two modes of historical association between the two religions be conducted through the all-important lens of the Islamic ‘aqeedah (creed).

But before that, it is necessary to firstly know who a Muslim is and how one is designated and recognised as one.

The Duel Declaration of Islamic Faith

The Shahaadatayn, or the duel declaration of faith, is:

Since this is a “declaration” of faith, “it is the first thing sought from the unbelievers when they are invited to embrace Islam”, i.e. to articulate it, for the Prophet said:

Similarly, when the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) sent Mu’aadh as a proselytiser to Yemen, he instructed him:

An alternate wording is recorded by Imam Muslim in his Sahih:

This profound statement, however, needs to be broken down and elaborated upon further so as to arrive at a correct and accurate answer to the question of Guru Nanak’s alleged Muslim identity.

In his book Clarifying the Meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Aziz bin ‘Abdullah bin Baaz, explicated the Shahaadatayn as follows:

In this respect, Shaykh Ibn Baaz continues with his explanation:

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said in Sharhul-‘Aqeedatil-Waasitiyyah:

In regards to the Muslim’s belief in “the legislation of Allah”, Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan further expounds:

This clarification of religious figureheads duplicitously changing what God has legislated and finalised by declaring permissible what God originally made forbidden, and vice-versa, is important when we come to examine those who, despite being affiliated to Islam, were, in actual fact, in cahoots with the Sikh community.

This association with the non-Muslims (mushrikoon) also falls under one of Islam’s doctrinal principles (qawaa’id) called: al-walaa wal-baraa (allegiance and non-allegiance).

In his monumental treatise, The Three Fundamental Principles of Islaam, the great revivalist, Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab at-Tameemi, declared:

Commenting on this principle, Shaykh ‘Ubayd al-Jaabiree said:

In this respect, the Shaykh quotes Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab as follows:

The Shaykh concludes:

It goes without saying that the most dangerous type of loyalty is the first one; it is this category that is of utmost importance in respect to this subject.

Before we move on, it is imperative that we briefly explain the scholars’ repeated use of two integral words in this context, viz. tawheed and its mutual opposite Shirk. Shaykh Abdur Rahman as-Sa’dee defined tawheed as follows:

Tawheed is the servant’s knowledge, belief, and outward acknowledgement that the Lord alone has every Attribute of perfection. The servant also believes that there is no one who shares with Him in these Attributes, none similar to Him in His Perfection, and that He possesses the sole right to be worshipped by all of His creation. The servant then devotes all forms of worship to Him alone.

Included in this definition are all three categories of tawheed:

Shirk is the antithesis of tawheed. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen states:

While Shaykh al-Fawzaan adds:

Hence, committing “unrestricted shirk … causes a person to leave the Religion” [25] of Islam.

In summary, what we have outlined are the following points:

With these points in mind, we are now in a position to determine whether Guru Nanak was a Muslim.

An Historical Perusal

An article written by a Muslim academic titled: The Mission of Guru Nanak: A Muslim Appraisal, [26] has been widely published on various Sikh websites. Unfortunately for Professor Mushirul Haq, this appraisal has come at a price. It is apparent from the outset that the Professor is certainly no scholar of Islamic theology. In fact, his evaluation seems to advocate the untenable idea of religious plurality. He reasons:

His contention is that the common factor that pervades all religions is a message which, at its source, is divine. The implications are astounding because for this to be true, the Professor must reject the Shaahadatayn!

As covered earlier, the only logical conclusion when correctly understanding and applying the first part of the Shaahadatayn: “There is none worthy of worship in truth except Allaah” is, as the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) implied, the rejection of whatever else is worshipped besides Allaah. Since Muslims negate all forms of false worship except what Allaah has legislated in Islam, it stands to reason, thus, that Muslims necessarily reject all opposing claims of a message being divine, which includes Sikhism.

Furthermore, since the second part of the Shaahadatayn: “There is none worthy of being followed in truth except the Prophet and Messenger Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah)”, entails believing, following and obeying him, Muslims are obligated to accept his following proclamations:

Hence, since Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) was the last and final recipient of a divine message with no successor, Prof Haq is proven wrong.

The Professor’s leanings towards religious plurality are not only evident from statements such as: “As a matter of fact, monotheism is the real foundation of almost every religion”, but also discernible from subtle allusions similar to the following wherein he says: “[W]e may take the example of the so-called polytheists of Mecca at the time of Prophet Muhammad.”

If the Professor intends by the word ‘monotheism’ to be the Arabic equivalent of the word tawheed, then, as we have already shown, his statement is in actuality false. It is a must that a Muslim accept the belief that there is no other religion that establishes the unity, uniqueness and absolute perfection of Allaah through the three categories of tawheed (Lordship, Worship, and His Names and Attributes) except Islam. To say otherwise is to risk negating one’s belief in the theology-proper of Islam. Thus, Prof Haq’s claim that “monotheism cannot be taken as the sole property of any particular religion” clearly contradicts the Shahaadatayn.

It seems that what essentially exposes the underlying reason for the Professor’s adoption of the irrational notion of religious plurality is his statement: “Every religion in one way or the other affirms the existence of the one Supreme God.” In relation to the three categories of tawheed, Prof Haq could only have reached this vacuous conclusion by accepting the category of Tawheed of Lordship to the exclusion of the other two. Had he judged this affair in light of all three categories as he should have, he would have been steered towards the inevitable conclusion that every religion in one way or another affirms the existence of the one Supreme God, but not His Worship or Divine Nature.

The Professor bends over backwards in his attempt to show the “high ideals [that] Guru Nanak stood for” and “hence the striking similarities between his and Islam’s teachings”. He adds that when “passages from the Qur’an and the hymns of Guru Nanak are placed side by side, one can understand the reason of the Muslims’ regarding Guru Nanak as one of them”.

But once again, as our entire site has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, when one critically examines both the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of both religions, there is only a striking dissimilarity.

As we shall see, Guru Nanak affirmed the contradictory theology of Nirgun-Sargun, which includes the Omnipresence of God (a notion that the Professor erroneously ascribes to Islam when he adjudges: “The features common between the two are, for example, belief in the One, Omnipresent and Omnipotent God…” and “Muslims believed in an omnipresent God.”). Islam on the other hand, rejects the doctrines of God’s Omnipresence, Pantheism, Monism and Anthropomorphism. Instead it teaches that the Most High God is “separate and distinct from his creation”. [27]

In his further eagerness to show a similarity between the two religions, the Professor ironically quotes a verse from the Qur’an which, if he had understood and interpreted it as Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) had originally taught, stands as a proof against him:

This verse has been distortedly translated and, more importantly, incorrectly interpreted. The Arabic word rendered as “the Outward” is ath-Thaahir, which, in this context, has always been understood by the early Muslims to mean “fawqa kulli shay – above everything”. [28]

The Professor should also know that the Soteriological beliefs of both religions are impossible to reconcile (as documented on our site); so in what way are there striking similarities when the fundamentals of each are mutually exclusive?

Although the Professor acknowledges that “at no time did he [Nanak] claim to be a Muslim”, it is inexplicable for any Muslim who correctly understands the tawheed of Allaah to contend that “if Muslims and Hindus had realized the essence of his message they could have regarded him as one of them”. The Professor thankfully does concede that “since Guru Nanak refused to be reckoned as either a Hindu or a Muslim, both the religious groups regarded him as one who was determined to weakening the roots of Hinduism and Islam”. And this is precisely how a person, who understands both the rudimentary aspects of the Islamic creed and the a priori rules of bi-valued logic, would be expected to react when encountering the antithetical teachings of Guru Nanak.

The Professor then opines: “Once he was satisfied of having himself been divinely commissioned he could not have associated himself with either the Hindus or the Muslims, because the association would have destroyed his mission. His mission was to bring the people back to the original teachings of their own religions.” This reasoning is somewhat paradoxical, though completely understandable given the Professor’s ignorance of tawheed. If Nanak’s mission was to encourage Muslims to return to their original teachings, it would have been self-defeating to associate himself with a religion which, in accordance to its original teachings, would have eventually inculcated in its adherents the precept of spurning Nanak’s associative attempts sans his complete renunciation of Sikhism and acceptance of Islam.

Moreover, his claim that Nanak “was to remind them that all the messengers and the prophets in history came only to lead people to the right path. These messengers never considered themselves belonging to one group. They were for all” directly contradicts the following tradition of Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) who said:

Worse still for the Professor, Allaah says in the Qur’an:

Hence, the 144,000 prophets sent to their respective communities over the long course of human history all taught and proclaimed the first part of the shahaadah: “None has the right to be worshipped in truth except Allaah,” thus making their religion one. Allaah declares unequivocally:

Hence, Darshan Singh Maini’s sentimental views that “the Guru [Nanak] had the highest respect for that pristine Islam which had risen in the 8th century like a flame of truth in the burning sands of Arabia. Its original message had a strongly humanist character” [30] is again, like those of the Professor, inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of Islam.

All this is especially true when one contrasts the following saying of Nanak to the Islamic ‘aqeedah:

Thus does the Professor, at least in this instance, correctly conclude:

A similar stance is also held by the new-age Ahmadiyya cult who falsely ascribe to Islam and call themselves Muslims. In the following video, the movement’s fourth so-called Khalifatul-Masih (successor to the promised Messiah), Mirza Tahir Ahmad, makes the preposterous claim:

He also affirms:

This is further made clear by Ahmadi “professor”, Abdul Jaleel, who proclaims on their website:

What has preceded, however, not only exposes the ignorance of the Ahmadiyya movement and its firgureheads vis-á-vis orthodox Islam, but also further cements (as though further cementation was necessary) the position of all Muslims towards them: the Ahmadis are no less upon disbelief (kufr) than the Sikhs they attempt to impress upon with their false Nanakian arguments.

Though the above emphatically puts to rest any suggestion of Guru Nanak’s overt Muslim identity, a poser could still be forwarded by a Muslim arguing that Nanak may have uttered the shahaadah privately while choosing not to disclose his conversion to anyone. Since this is a legitimate and valid theological position, it demands a response.

Was Nanak a Closet Muslim?

Guru Nanak declared … “I am neither a Hindu, nor a Mussalman. I accept neither the Vedas, nor the Quran.”

Shaykh Rabee’ bin Hadi Umair al-Madkhalee said:

If Nanak was a Muslim who did indeed have a hitherto unknown yet legitimate reason to conceal his conversion, then how long could this have feasibly lasted?

According to Max Arthur Macauliffe, Nanak “was born, according to all ancient Sikh records, in the early morning of the third day of the light half of the month of Baisakh (April-May) in the year A.D. 1469” [34] and died “on the tenth day of the light half of the month of Assu, Sambat 1595 (A.D. 1538) at Kartarpur in the Panjab” (though some Sikhs put it at 1539). [35] There are two dates one could conceivably take to estimate a given period of time for Nanak to have outwardly practiced the religion of Islam. It could either be from the moment of his birth, which means that he had 68-9 year period, which is unlikely, or from the moment of his so-called enlightenment in 1499 C.E. when he “was thirty years old”, [36] (although the date 1496CE [37] and 1497CE [38] have also been suggested) which leaves him a good 38-9 years. We also know that Nanak spent approximately 28 of these 38-9 years on his udhasis (proselytising missions) with his partner Mardana, who was said to be a Muslim. These 28 years of travel took Nanak to places as far afield as Tibet and the Middle East (11 years); thus, one would expect that he would have joined his Muslim companion Mardana (assuming Mardana prayed) and/ or other Muslims in their respective locales, from whom he would presumably have had no reason to hide his Islam, to openly practice his duties of worship.

During such periods of normality, Shaykh al-Fawzaan states in al-Muntaqaa min Fataawaa (1/9-10):

If all things were equal and Nanak was a Muslim, the question which then begs to be answered is whether there exists any historical account of Nanak having manifested his Islam “outwardly”?

Was Guru Nanak ever circumcised? Did he eat halaal meat (something forbidden for Sikhs to consume)? Did he give zakaah (obligatory alms-giving)? And above all else: did he pray any of the five obligatory prayers and are there any witnesses to this?

These questions are, as we said, important vis-á-vis the outward practice of faith, as Balwant Singh Anand rightly acknowledges:

As Sikhism does not have an authentication process for historiography similar to Islam’s Sciences of Hadeeth, it is difficult to say how far the accounts of Nanak’s life are true and how much is folkloric embellishment. Hence, all stories recounted in our attempt to answer the aforementioned questions are being examined at face value.

An opportunity of worship vis-á-vis prayer did, in fact, present itself to Nanak very early on during the start of his mission and after his so-called enlightenment at the age of 30. But the decision Nanak took in this respect effectively lays waste to any excuses of him legitimately having hidden his faith to the point of suspending his prayers. Following his re-emergence from the river Baeen after having allegedly gone missing for three days, the story continues as follows:

At this point it is necessary to point out that this may be true of Nanak’s world view, but certainly not of the Muslims. Alas, the response, or lack thereof, has not been recorded by the chronicler; but if it had been, then, assuming it came from an erudite Qazi (or Qadhi – judge), it would most probably be along the lines of him explaining that faith (or eemaan in Arabic) increases through acts of obedience to Allaah and decreases through acts of disobedience. Based on this, a Muslim would still be a Muslim despite his faith having weakened.

There is a revealing point made by the Nawab at this point. He does not ask Nanak to join them in prayer on account of him being a Muslim, but on the basis that all religions are the same, thereby alluding to the possibility of Nanak not necessarily having to be a Muslim to join them in prayer:

A number of key points emerge from this story:

As for prayer in and of itself, Shaykh Bin Baaz said that it “is the most important act of worship after pronouncing Shahadah”:

Therefore, the intransigent ones that still insist Nanak was a Muslim, will have to reconcile between Nanak having purposefully missed the prayer and his excuse, which does not qualify as a legislative (shari’) reason except that it amounts to shirk, for having done so.

This incident also has Nanak claiming to be a recipient of divine revelation:

And this, as already covered, amounts to a clear statement of disbelief and the rejection of the second part of the shahaadatayn since Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) was the final recipient of revelation.

Macauliffe [45] also cites an account of Nanak’s supposed journey to Mecca and the Ka’bah (with some versions including an addition in which the Ka’bah is said to have relocated [46] its position in a direction contrary to Nanak’s outstretched legs: [47]

Not only is this again another proof for Nanak to openly practice Islam (prepared as he was dressed as a hajji) being in the holiest of holies, but the story [49] again says nothing of Nanak following Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) by praying towards and circumambulating around the Ka’bah, or kissing its Black Stone (hajr al-aswad).

Another point to be made, which could raise some doubt over the authenticity of the above account, is the statement of the fifth Guru, Arjun Dev, who said:

Since Sikhs maintain that the same Jott (divine light) subsisted in all 10 Gurus, it would only be consistent to say that since one Guru did not consider himself a Muslim nor did he deem it appropriate to visit Mecca for pilgrimage, the same would have to be true for all the others; unless it be tenuously argued that this prohibitory edict evolved later on during the development of Guruship. Otherwise, not only does this conspicuous stance raise the question of how Nanak’s journey as a Hajji (pilgrim) to Mecca could be reconciled with his successor’s apparent prohibition, but also reinforces the point being argued that Nanak did not consider himself nor could he have been a Muslim.

What is worse, however, is the repeated suggestion that Nanak knew the specific details of their hidden thoughts, which, as mentioned above, constitutes Shirk billah (associating partners with Allaah).

In addition, we are told that Nanak also rejected the theological acceptance of the seven samawaat (heavens/ skies) – information that is an integral part to having correct belief in what Allaah has informed Muslims of vis-á-vis the unseen world (al-ghayb):

While in Baghdad contradicting the Muslim priests views that there were only seven upper and as many lower regions Guru Nanak shouted out his own prayer saying.

As far as we are aware, there is no other historical evidence of Nanak’s observance of prayer or his open declaration of faith, let alone him having practiced any of the many other outward manifestations of faith that would be a necessary corollary of his obedience to Allaah and His Messenger.

There are, however, other historical accounts attributed to Nanak wherein the founder of Sikhism openly declares himself not to be a Muslim. For instance, Jagjit Singh states:

More emphatically, in reply to a question posed by the people inquiring into which of the two religious paths – Hinduism or Islam – Nanak followed, he answered:

While Sher Singh damningly recounts how, while refusing to have faith in Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah), Nanak instead encouraged faith “only” in God – a statement that categorically negates the second part of the duel declaration of Islamic faith:

The question still remains to be answered as to how Guru Nanak’s alleged Muslim identity will convincingly be proven? More fundamentally, however, is how a person endeavouring to do so will be able to explain away many of Nanak’s more tendentious antithetical teachings and statements the worst of which include the contradictory concept of God that is Nirgun-Sargun; reincarnation; and claims of having received divine revelation from God.

His acceptance of the bipolar nature’s of God as Nirgun and Sargun are found, for example, in the following verses of the SGGS:

As regards reincarnation, then the following are only a small selection of verses that clearly establish Nanak’s affirmation of said notion:

Further evidence is found in Nanak’s belief of karma and its association with past lives:

Since a person cannot commit mistakes before being born, this proves that a past life, or as the following verse puts it: “janam janam ke paap”, must have existed for the accruement of bad karma.

When all is said and done, however, what all this boils down to is whether there exists any credible and convincing evidence of Guru Nanak having articulated the Shahaadatayn? Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

Since there does not exist any evidence of Nanak having ever declared the Shahaadatayn, and while there exists copious evidence of him having held and taught concepts of kufr (disbelief), Guru Nanak could not have been anything other than a disbeliever (kaafir).

Finally, Prof Haq stated in his aforementioned article:

This claim brings us to the next section of our research. In order to cover all angles in our assessment over why some Muslims have mistakenly entertained the idea that Guru Nanak was a Muslim, we have to examine those individuals who ascribe themselves to Islam and are revered by all Sikhs, viz. Kabir, Farid, and Mardana.

SIKHISM’S MUSLIM CONNECTIONS

“O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitaanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those other than you (outside your religion or upon other than the right way) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely.” (Qur’an 3:118)

Darshan Singh Maini observes:

It is unsurprising that Sikhs find a commonality and connection with the Sufis of Hindustan. We would add that like Sikhism, Sufism also carved out its own identity with its own sui generis (literally: of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics). This identity, however, came about through the rejection and violation of the Prophet’s Sunnah, which in Arabic is called bid’ah. This sinful act – considered second in severity after the worst sin of all: ash-Shirk – was most succinctly and comprehensively defined by Imam ash-Shaatibee as follows:

The principle for worship in Islam is that it is: mana’ (forbiddance) unless there is an authentic proof from the sharee’ah to say otherwise. This means that God cannot be worshipped except in the way He has legislated; thus, Muslims cannot invent ways of worship not legislated by Allaah and His Messenger or practiced by his companions. For this reason, the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) said:

In specific regards to the Sufis, Shaykh Ihsaan Ilaahee Dhaheer said in his book Sufism: Its Source and Origin:

While Shaykh Abdur-Rahmaan al-Wakeel said in the introduction of the book The Downfall of Sufism:

It is, thus, unsurprising that Sikhs have inclined towards some of these Sufis whose innovated beliefs ultimately originate from non-Islamic sources.

Mardana – The Bard of Nanak

The person is upon the religion of his friend,
so let each one of you look to see whom he befriends. [65]
– Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah)

In Islam, immense importance is given to the company one keeps. It is the crowd one interacts with that determines one’s socio-religious stance and standing.

In relation to one’s religion, and according to the above cited prophetic tradition, the Pious Predecessors (as-Salaf as-Saalih), as well as the scholars of Islam, take the principle that a person is upon the religion of the one s/he befriends and accompanies.

The great scholar from the second generation of Muslims (at-Tabi’een) Muhammad ibn Sireen (d.110 A.H.) said:

Al-A’mash said:

The great scholar from the companions ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood said:

While the companion Abu ad-Dardaa said:

When we examine the life of Mardana, we find that he spent a large portion of his latter days accompanying Guru Nanak:

We can appreciate why Trilochan Singh, after having initially called him a Muslim, describes him as a Sikh disciple! Holding to the aforementioned principle of companionship and acknowledging the fact that we are in no position of excommunicating from Islam, it would be difficult to see how Mardana was not a Sikh. The sad fact is that Mardana shamefully accompanied Nanak in propagating the disbelief of his doctrine; what type of Muslim who fears Allaah’s Anger and punishment would accompany such a person and partake in such an activity?

Mardana’s choice, however, was not based on his ignorance of Islam; rather it seems that after having been presented with the opportunity of following Nanak on his udhasis, he accepted it with full knowledge of the consequences:

Even on his death bed, Mardana issued potential statements of disbelief, such as, calling Nanak “Master” and yearning to be his “true disciple”:

So blind was Mardana’s devotion to his “master” that not even the emotional appeals of his wife and daughter, who in Islam had infrangible rights over his company and support as a husband and father, could dissuade him from setting out on his long journeys:

The scholar Mu’aadh bin Mu’aadh said to Yahyaa bin Sa’eed:

And Mardana’s son, Shahzada, would certainly not have been oblivious to his father’s religious standpoint:

What was the consequence of this exposure? Following his father’s death, it turned out for him to be, at least in this instance, the lamentable case of ‘like father, like son’:

Little wonder he smiled, having ensnared an entire family towards the practice of kufr (disbelief)!

So in conclusion, what do we recognise Mardana to be: a Muslim or a Sikh?

After all, this is a man who, in terms of al-walaa wal-baraa, showed clear muwalaat (loyalty) and mudhaaharah (aid and assistance) towards a disbeliever. And we know what the verdict is for the one who shows complete, unrestricted, general tawallee (loyalty with underlying love and pleasure): kufr (disbelief) that expels from the religion of Islam.

Ibn Battah narrated from Yahya Ibn Sa’eed Al Qattaan who said:

Ibn Battah then commented:

If the logic of Sufyaan’s position was extended to Mardana’s case, the conclusion one would draw is that since Mardana accompanied the Sikhs, he was a Sikh.

Ibraheem bin Maysarah (d.132 A.H.) said:

What would, therefore, be the state of the one who honours a disbeliever?

Baba Farid

Whenever you accompany the people,
accompany the best of them.
And do not accompany the lowly,
so that you are destroyed with those who are destroyed.
– An-Naadhim, Qurratul-Uyoon

Farid ud-Deen Masud Ganj-i-Shakar (1175-1265 C.E.) [80] is a well known mystic from Pakpattan, South Asia. Sikhs hold him in the highest regard, just as they do their 10 Gurus, because he is one of 15 Bhagats (devotees) whose teachings were chosen and incorporated into their holy scripture: Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Baba Farid, as he is commonly known as, had 112 of his couplets (saloks) and four hymns included.

However, when one critically examines this Sufi’s life and the Chishti Order (silsilah) he belonged to, the reason soon becomes clear as to why it was that Guru Nanak developed an affinity towards him and his teachings. More importantly, looking to his past will also help determine this Sufi’s status as a Muslim; that is to say, whether he was from the people of tawheed and sunnah or from the people of bid’ah and misguidance.

As we have already mentioned, part of the correct understanding of the three categories of tawheed is the affirmation of a literal distinction between the Creator and the Created, the atemporal and the temporal, i.e. a rejection of Omnipresence, Pantheism, Monism and Anthropomorphism.

When we look to the leading proponents of the Chishti Sufi Silsilah, such as its founder Khwaja Syed Muhammad Moinuddin Chishti, [81] Qutubuddin Bakhtiar Kaki, [82] Nizamuddin Auliya, [83] Baba Farid, et al., we find that they did not affirm that Allaah, in terms to His Essence (bi thaatihi), is separate and distinct from His creation (baa’inun min khalqihi), nor that He is literally above all His creation in a way that befits His divine majesty. On the contrary, their Order affirmed the antithetical doctrine made famous by the infamously prominent Sufi Muhiyyud-Deen Ibn ‘Arabi called Wahdatul-Wujood [84] (Unity of Existence).

Gort et al. state:

Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, wrote:

Khwaja Hsan Moinuddin Chishti was the first missionary to reach the subcontinent, where he established the Chishtiyya Sufi tradition … ‘the most important religious influence on Indian Islam was the teaching of Ibn al-Arabi and the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud, the unity of being’ (Lapidus 1988: 449), which was spread by both the Chistis and Shattaris. [86] (bold ours)

Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions observes:

While B. S. Anand states:

Before we move on, it is necessary to assess the position of Baba Farid vis-á-vis the great Islamic scholars’ stance towards those who held a doctrine antithetical to the orthodox position that Allaah is separate and distinct from His creation.

Imam Abu Hanifah (d.150 A.H.) was uncompromising in this respect and considered it disbelief (kufr):

This too was Abdullah Ibn Mubarak’s (d.181 A.H.) position:

Even Shaykh Abdul-Qadir al-Jilaani (d. 561 A.H.), whom a vast number of Sufis falsely claim to follow and regard as their own, refuted this idea saying:

While the Shaykh of Imam al-Bukhari, the compiler of the magnum opus Al-Jami’ as-Saheeh, Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Firyaabee (d.212 A.H.), declared:

The Shafi’ee scholar, Imam Ibn Khuzaimah (d.311 A.H.), said:

In taking all of the above into consideration, it would not be too difficult to predict what these illustrious scholars would have made of Baba Farid’s apparent affirmation of Wahdatul-Wujood:

This cannot in any way be construed or interpreted as affirming the ‘aqeedah of the Pious Predecessors. To say that Allaah is in the creation and the creation in Allaah is to categorically negate Allaah’s ‘uloo (absolute elevation) and His distinction and separation from what He has created. And this interpretation is likewise clear to Harbans Singh:

Shaykh Bin Baaz said in answer to a question that sought an Islamic ruling over a Muslim father who told his son that “Allaah is present everywhere”:

The level of Baba Farid’s deviation from the truth, however, does not stop there. In further investigating the historical accounts of his life, one is taken a back by the filth of shirk and bid’ah he and his Chishti colleagues were steeped in.

An example of one heretical form of worship he was famed for was his extreme acts of penance. One such penance, which he had seemingly made his own, was called the “inverted prayer”:

Based on the “determination… [and] tenacity he exhibited in his ascetic practices” B. S. Anand is “inclined to believe that he did perform this chillah“. Anand, in fact, cites Slokas 90 and 91 from the Adi Granth itself as “indirect evidence” for this:

To Anand, it matters not whether this was a legitimate act in Islam (why would it?), what is significant, however, is his interpretation that such “extreme” worship is given credence in his holy scripture. For him, it is enough for asceticism to hold “negative virtue” if it is not “counter-balanced by the attachment to the Lord”. It is sufficient to validate Farid’s asceticism because it is “coupled with a positive vibrant affirmation of the Lord ‘I live and die for thee’ … which were always on his lips” [103]

Is there any proof from the Qur’an or Sunnah or the example set by the Pious Predecessors, or scholars who followed them in perfection, of hanging from a tree or well for days on end? Those thoroughly familiar with the biography of Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) and his companions will know that this type of extreme worship was neither advocated nor encouraged. What is certain is that if this worship was not approved by Allaah, then the alleged celestial voice would have to have originated from none other than the devils! This is consistent with what Allaah says in the Qur’an concerning the liars and sinners:

Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) discouraged extremism in all its forms. He said, repeating thrice: “Doomed are those who go to extremes.” [104]

The reason for this discouragement – especially of going to extremes in worship – was because it would lead to unnecessary hardship that would invariably cause fatigue, which could then potentially culminate in burn-out. Imam an-Nawawi commented on the meaning of the above tradition saying it meant:

The Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) came to facilitate ease and guide humankind towards a balanced way of life. He said:

Shaykh Naasir-ud-Deen al-Albaani explicated the meaning of a tradition, related by Anas ibn Maalik and narrated in the Saheehayn (Bukhari and Muslim), wherein three people – who were “new to Islaam” – erroneously concluded after being informed of the following worshipping habits of their Prophet: standing in prayer at night, fasting during the day and marrying women, that his level of worship was “little”. The reason being, as al-Albaani elaborates, was “because of what had settled in their minds that the Prophet must pray the whole night and that he must fast all the time and that he was a monk and did not go near his wives. So they were shocked to find something that was not in compliance with their notions”. And the reason for this false assumption was that “Allaah had forgiven all of the Prophet’s past and future sins”. This distorted notion caused them to “assume that they were obligated to exceed in worship and that they must surpass what they heard about the Prophet’s worship” resulting in the following pledges being made: The first person said “I will pray all night and won’t sleep.” The second: “As for me, I will fast all the time and never go a day without fasting.” And the third: “I will not marry women.” This was a form of extremism on their part where they thought they knew better, which arose because of their failure in strictly following the example of their Prophet.

When the Prophet learned of this, he corrected them during a sermon (khutbah) by teaching them the path of true moderation:

In another tradition narrated in the Saheehayn, the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) said:

The Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) also discouraged accepting handouts. Instead he inculcated in his followers the noble habit of alms-giving:

The Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) taught the Muslims that they all have responsibilities, which included those who were responsible over the affairs and well being of others:

Contrast these instructions with the following incidents. Baba Farid’s extremism is said to have extended to such an extent that it even affected the health and well being of his loved ones:

How helpless could this man have been to display such cold, callous and irresponsible behaviour? And yet we are told that “Baba Farid led a life of piety and penitence”! [113]

According to Gurbachan Singh Talib, Sheikh Farid “slept with only a small worn-out blanket which could hardly cover his body”; an indication of his “utmost discipline and self-denial in the matter of food and clothing”. [114]

Moreover, Anand is uncertain as to why, despite “so many followers and the great popularity that he enjoyed, all income or gifts to the Khanqah“, “the last years of Farid’s life were spent in extreme poverty” to the extent that “towards the end, it appears, there was almost nothing in the house to sustain Baba Farid and his family”. And yet “this did not deter him from rigorously following his routine of prayers, fasts and penitence”! [115] The answer is obvious: extremism.

As for Baba Farid’s warped and perverted interpretation of the concept of ‘Submission to God’s Will’, then this could have most plausibly been the inevitable result of a person who chose to follow a Sufi path that had veered so far from the Sabeel (path) of Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah). Allaah says:

This contorted Sufi notion of submission to God’s Will has even been mentioned by Daljeet Singh during his appraisal of Sufism. He observes:

As scholars, such as Ibn al-Qayyim, [117] have pointed out, this conception of leaving everything to God’s Will has the potential of not only being wrongly applied to justify forbidden and sinful deeds, but also interpreted to mean the absence of accountability for neglecting Allaah’s commands and recommendations.

This entire view was perfectly summed up in the following Sufi poem:

This could quite plausibly have been the reason behind Farid’s extreme detachment from the world, which led to him shirking his rights and responsibilities: the belief in the absence of accountability. But, this is certainly not what Islam taught:

Sa’d ibn Maalik reported that the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) said to him:

And Ka’b ibn ‘Ijrah said:

An evaluation of a Sufi would not be complete without mentioning their alleged miracles (karamaat). These could include the appearance of “miraculous gifts (karamat) during the period of ritual prayer” or “the ability of the shaykh to foresee events and to predict the actions of others”. One of the murid’s (students) of Baba Farid was Nizam ad-Deen (whom we shall examine later, insha’Allaah) who narrated one of the most famous incidents involving his murshid (spiritual guide/ teacher) in this context:

Although the historical validity of these types of folkloric tales is near impossible to ascertain, it is sufficient for us to scrutinise it at face value. Suffice it to say, that this is impossible for any human to achieve without some external mode of help, such as, acquiring information from the help of a Jinn, which would constitute shirk with Allaah.

The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’ in Saudi Arabia said concerning those who seek help from a Jinn:

To say, however, that such knowledge was an exclusive attribute of Baba Farid allowing him to access portents of the unseen (ghayb), which could only be known by Allaah alone, is to claim equality with Allaah’s absolute divine attribute of Omniscience and would again amount to shirk.

Baba Farid and the early adherents of the Chishti Order also enjoyed what is known as sama’:

We are further informed:

There is, as you might have guessed, nothing in the annals of early Islamic history that comes even close to resembling these musical extravaganzas. Prophet Muhammad’s (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) worship, over the stage of his revelatory life of 23 years, has been recorded in meticulous detail and at no time did he enact or instruct his companions to acquire such an alleged spiritual state through this innovated (bid’ah) practice. In contrast, he forbade the use of musical instruments for men while only allowing women to use a duff (drum-like instrument) on three specific occasions: the two days of Eid, a wedding where segregation is strictly observed, and on the arrival of a traveller. [126]

Baba Farid it seems, however, gave little concern to adhering to the example of his Prophet.
From his most famous murid’s (Nizam ad-Din Awliya) recorded conversations, we are told of how addicted the teacher was to these sama’ sessions:

As for the company he kept, we find the same failings of shirk and bid’ah. Take his most celebrated student Nizam ad-Din Awliya. Sama’ was so important to this man that he went so far as to categorise rules for it without even taking into consideration the basic rule of worship: forbiddance unless there is divine legislative evidence to the contrary:

At “the core of the large song repertoire of sama… [was] the textual and musical composition” of Nizam ad-Din’s disciple “and Sufi poet par excellence” Amir Khusrau:

So central was the ritual of sama’ to these Chishtis that it even led unbelievably to the death of Baba Farid’s own Murshid Khwaja Syed Muhammad Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki. Despite being justifiably “opposed by the Ulama on this account”, “the Khwaja regarded sama (audition) as a means of inducing a mystical state of ecstasy”. [130] This led to the following incident:

The Khwaja likewise had his opportunities to display his alleged “supernatural powers”:

It is interesting to note that in spite of the fact that the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) severely rebuked and warned against the appearance of the innovators after his death, we are told that he (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) appeared to a man guilty of committing clear acts of shirk and innovation!

In regards to the subject of karamaat (miracles of God’s chosen people), then this is a phenomena that is affirmed by Ahlus Sunnah (the people of the Prophetic example) without doubt. But, there are stipulations and a criterion through which this is to be interpreted and understood. Imam Ibn Abil ‘Izz al-Hanafi, in his explanation of the masterful creed of Imam at-Tahaawi, elaborates on this subject by stating that a miracle is what produces a “commendable, objectionable, or permissible” outcome:

Finally we have a contemporary of Baba Farid, “The Great Chishti Shaykh ‘Abd al-Quddus of Gangoh (d.991/1583), famous for his ecstasies and his faith in wahdat al-wujud … his son Shaykh Rukn al-Din … was also highly ecstatic and a firm believer in wahdat al-wujud ….” [134]

We could carry on, but the examples given above are more than sufficient for us to draw the following conclusion: it is beyond reasonable doubt to infer from Baba Farid’s religious life and his commitment to the heretical Sufi Chishti silsilah that this man was most assuredly not from Ahlus Sunnah.

How true are the words of Ibn Abil-‘Izz al-Hanafi concerning people like Baba Farid and others of a similar disposition:

The final personality to be mentioned is one who was part of a movement from which, according to B. S. Anand, Farid “borrowed many features” including: “extreme asceticism … sang and danced in the ecstasy of the Beloved One”: [136] Kabir of the Bhakti movement.

Kabir

Kabir (c.1398-Unknown C.E.), or Bhagat Kabir as he is also known in Sikhism, is said to have been liberated according to the soteriology of Sikhism:

It is said that Kabir was “found in a lotus pond near Benaras by Neeru and his wife Neema who adopted him and named him Kabir (the Most High) …. [138] Though a Hindu by tradition, he was a Muslim by upbringing”. [139]

In general, however, Kabir’s life is not as well documented as the previous two Bhagats with a lot of what has filtered down to us through history immersed in legend and folklore:

In respect to the uncertainty surrounding the historical accuracy of stories attributed to Kabir, the best thing we can do, as we have done thus far, is to evaluate them at face value. Hence, according to one story:

When we take the above story on its own merit and test it against the principle of association (al-walaa wal-baraa), i.e. the person is on the religion of the people he interacts with and takes his knowledge from, we must conclude for the sake of consistency that just as we readily placed Mardana alongside his life long teacher Guru Nanak, we must likewise do the same with Kabir for having befriended Ramananda, [142] accepted him as his spiritual guide and supported him in propagating his non-Islamic ideas against Islam and the Muslims.

And Underhill reaches the same conclusion: “From the point of view of orthodox sanctity, whether Hindu or Mohammedan, Kabir was plainly a heretic ….” [143]

Kabir shared with his fellow devotees of the Bhakti movement, along with so many other Sufis, a belief in “the ‘simple union’ with Divine Reality which he perpetually extolled”, as can be witnessed from the following examples: [144]

According to Muzaffar Alam, the doctrine of ‘simple union’ asserted by the Bhakti movement paralleled the doctrine of Wahdat al-Wujood:

Wakabayashi and Rita echoed Alam’s astute observations:

Similarly, D. Singh admits:

Despite this muddled, contradictory and conspicuously un-Islamic outlook, D. Singh still outlandishly maintains that “Kabir was a monotheist”!

Kabir is also guilty of making some blasphemous claims against the Qur’an and its origin:

If Kabir did utter this deplorable statement, then by consensus of Muslim scholars he was a disbeliever since all Muslim scholars have affirmed throughout the ages that the Qur’an is the speech of Allaah and not “mere words”. Imam at-Tahaawi said:

Ibn Abil ‘Izz al-Hanafi commented on this maxim stating:

In this respect, Ibn Abil ‘Izz also quotes Imam Abu Haneefah:

Such was the strictness of the scholars in respect to this doctrinal point that they even condemned those found to be elusive or equivocal. The shaykh of Imam al-Bukhaaree and Imam Muslim, for example, went as far as to censure the one who said the Qur’an was a “quotation”:

Similarly, Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir al-Jilaani said:

Thus, what would these scholars say concerning the one who declared the Qur’an to be “mere words”?

What might have also been gleaned from the previously quoted lines of poetry is that Kabir was disposed to addressing the “Infinite” (God) by the blasphemous Hindu names Brahma and Ram:

It is from the principles of ‘aqeedah in understanding the Tawheed of Allaah’s Divine Names and Attributes that we are restricted to calling Allaah only by those names that He and His Messenger have informed us of. In this respect, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen mentions the principle: “The Names of Allah are Tawqeefiyyah; there is no place for intellectual free-thinking regarding them”, and elaborates:

As a side note, the meaning of the name Brahma, according to the Oxford Sanskrit-English Dictionary, and other Sanskrit-English Dictionaries, includes: The Supreme Spirit, which is certainly not a divinely revealed name of Allaah. [159]

In contradistinction to the Qur’an, wherein Allaah declares that He has not created all things in jest/ play, Kabir writes:

Similarly, he betrays his ignorance over the divine declarative word “kun” (Arabic for “Be/ Become!”), [161] which is spoken by Allaah during His creating and manufacturing process, by claiming:

After the accumulation of all this damning evidence, the question that requires answering by those who incessantly hold to the position that Kabir was a Muslim (Mohammedan) is why he was so transparent and deliberate in expressing such conspicuously heretical Hindu beliefs?

E. Underhill’s recognised that Kabir was a heretic to the “orthodox” Muslims, while distinguished Sanskrit scholar Prof. Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860) concluded that he was not a Muhammadan. Similarly, Rev. Ahmad Shah perceives:

Westcott on the other hand disagreed, being “inclined” instead to agree with those theories which suggested that Kabir was both a “Muhammadan by birth” and “associated with the Sufi order” (though he fails to furnish a name of this order). He, however, forwards the following proviso to his position:

Later he further adds:

In light of the evidences cited above, which strongly support the charge of heresy, one can fully understand the anger the Muslim “orthodox” must have felt towards this “one who despised [their] tradition” and utilised, in place of their adhered theology, Hindu philosophy and phraseology.

Kabir’s singular pursuit in seeking “to break down the barriers that separated Hindus from Muhammadans” resulted in him denouncing “the whole apparatus of piety, Hindu and Moslem alike-the temple and mosque, idol and holy water, scriptures and priests … as mere substitutes for reality”. [166] This denunciation, however, is wholly justified when one takes into consideration the following quotes from the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (henceforth indicated by the letter G) and the Bijak (henceforth indicated by the letter B) that demonstrate Kabir’s ridicule of the Imams, Muslims and certain rituals of Islam:

If someone completely unfamiliar with the person of Kabir were to be given his complete couplets to read in full, and then asked to make a choice between the following two options: was Kabir a Muslim or a Hindu? The unbiased and critical mind would have to be extremely deluded to say Muslim. In fact, it would not altogether be unsurprising if that person decided that Kabir was neither. Rev. Shah is partially correct in stating that a study of his most authentic work, along with what is contained in the SGGS, and the Bijak “leaves a fixed impression that the basis of his mental equipment was Hindu”. But, perhaps a more accurate interpretation, in accordance to his teachings and his association to the Bhakti movement, would be that he was neither Muslim nor Hindu. And Kabir’s following rhetorical question from the Bijak (later to be more perspicuously expressed by his successor Guru Nanak as: “There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim”): “Whence have the Hindus and Muhammadans come?” certainly supports this.

What is to be said in the end is that the evidences strongly suggest that any claim of Kabir’s association to Islam is certainly more doubtful than for the two preceding bhagats – such was his deviation.

Conclusion

The objective of this research was to determine the answer to the question of Guru Nanak’s Muslim identity – repeated ad nauseam by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

This was done by examining the historical evidence available to us through the lens of Islamic ‘aqeedah (creed), which we broke down into the following relevant categories:

A critical examination of the historical sources reveals that there exists no evidence to suggest Guru Nanak ever having recited the Islamic declaration of faith, either publically or otherwise. More significantly was the theological and doctrinal practices and teachings of Nanak which directly violated the shahaadatayn and the three categories of tawheed to the point of committing the greatest crime against Allaah: ash-shirk.

In our bid to cover this topic comprehensively, it was also necessary to make an historical perusal of Sikhism’s Muslim connection, i.e. those people who were associated to Islam and the Muslim community, but intimately revered by Sikhs. These included Guru Nanak’s bard, Mardana, and two of Nanak’s predecessors: Baba Farid of the Sufi Chishti Order, and Kabir of the Bhakti movement.

Although it is not in our purview to make takfeer bil ‘ayn (excommunication of individuals), the evidence in regards to the position of said bhagats pointed to the inescapable conclusion that they were unquestionably not from those Muslims who adhered to the Prophetic tradition (Ahlus Sunnah). Instead, it is beyond doubt that all three committed shirk and bi’dah, while Mardana and Kabir were certainly guilty of making allegiance (tawallee) to non-Muslims and assisting them (mudhaaharah) in propagating their anti-Islamic beliefs and practices.

In all, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that Guru Nanak was a Muslim.

Subhanakallaahuma wa bi hamdika, ash-Shahaadu al-Laa ilaaha illa Ant, astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilayka.

[1] Here are two such examples:

• http://www.booksie.com/religion_and_spirituality/article/rassool_auckbaraullee/the-muslim-guru-nanak-i-was-shocked-too/nohead/pdf/ver/8
• http://www.haqqanisoul.com/forum/topics/guru-nanak-was-a-muslim (a Sufi bid’ah website)

[2] Fn. 7: Reported by Muslim (no.37).
[3] S. ibn F. al-Fawzaan (1998), The Declaration of Faith, (UK, Message of Islam), p. 17.
[4] A.A. bin A. bin Baaz (2006), Clarifying the Meaning of La Ilaha Illa Allah, (NY, Al-Hujjah Publ.), p. 22.
[5] Fn. 3: Refer to Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (10/249) and (13/200) and Iqtidaa’us-Siraatil Mustaqeem (p. 461).
[6] Fn. 4: Refer to the Tafseer (2/291) of al-Qurtubee.
[7] Fn. 6: Refer to Ma’aarijul-Qubool (2/416) of Haafidh al-Hakamee.
[8] M. Qureshi (2006), The Meaning and Conditions of Laa ilaaha illAllaah, (Sunnah Publishing), p. 2.
[9] Ibid., p. 25.
[10] S. ibn F. al-Fawzaan, op. cit., p. 14.
[11] Ibid., pp. 40-3.
[12] Fn. 1: Al-Waajibaat Al-Mutahattimaat (pg. 5).
[13] U. ibn A. al-Jaabiree, (2007), A Gift for the Intellects in Explanation of the Three Fundamental Principles of Islaam, (UK, Salafi Publications), pp. 68-9.
[14] Ibid., pp. 70-2.
[15] Ibid., p. 77.
[16] These first two conditions of muwaalaat have also been mentioned by “al-Qurtubee (4/57, 18/52) in his ‘Tafseer’ and also Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabee in ‘Ahkaam ul-Qur’aan’ (4/1770)”. See here for more information.
[17] A-M. al-Ubaykaan, Muwaalaat and Mudhaaharah (Loyalty and Support) to the Mushrikeen (Polytheists), (Salafi Publications), pp. 1, 3, 4.
Shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh also covers this issue here.
[18] Fn. 11: Tashbeeh: To claim that Allaah similar to His creation in one or some of His Attributes or Actions.
[19] Fn. 12: Tamtheel: To claim that Allaah is similar to His creation in all of His Attributes and Actions.
[20] Fn. 13: Tahreef, also referred to as ta’weel: To pervert [distort] the meanings of the texts that establish Allaah’s Names and Attributes.
[21] Fn. 14: Ta’teel: To claim that Allaah’s Names and Attributes have no meanings at all.
[22] A-R. ibn N. as-Sa’dee (2004), Essential Questions and Answers Concerning the Foundations of Eemaan and Obstacles in the Path of Eemaan, (Toronto, T.R.O.I.D Publications.), pp. 17-8.
[23] M. ibn S. al-‘Uthaymeen (1997), Explanation of the Three Fundamental Principles of Islaam, (UK, Al-Hidaayah), pp. 74-5.
[24] S. ibn F. al-Fawzaan, op. cit., p. 15.
[25] Ibid., pp. 76-7.
[26] M. Haq, The Mission of Guru Nanak: A Muslim Appraisal, (Sikhi Wiki).
[27] The doctrinal fallacy of the Omnipresence of God has been discussed in detail and emphatically refuted in our article: Attributeless Waheguru.
[28] Muqaatil bin Hayyaan (d. 150H): The Meaning of ‘al-Baatin’ is ‘the Closest to Everything With His Knowledge’ Whilst He is Above His Throne, (AboveTheThrown.com, 2010).
[29] Saheeh Al-Bukhari.
[30] D.S. Maini (2003), Islam in Sikh scriptures, (The Tribune India, updated 2006).
[31] Fn. 8: Cf. Max Arthur Macauliffe, “The Sikh Religion,” Oxford, 1909, Vol.I, p. 121.
[32] A. Jaleel (1993), Birth of Sikhism, (Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, The Review of Religions, March).
[33] R. ibn H. U. al-Madkhalee (2005), An Explanation of the Tolerance of Islam and the Mercy that it Contains, (Sahab.net Forum).
[34] M.A. MacAuliffe (1909), The Sikh Religion, Volume 1, (Internet Sacred Text Archive, 2001).
[35] Ibid., CHAPTER XVII.
[36] S.S. Brar (2009), The First Master Guru Nanak Dev (1469-1539), (Sikhs.org).
[37]Prof Daljeet Singh believes the year of Nanak’s enlightenment to be 1496 CE:

[38] Both Harbans Singh and Mohinder Singh state:

Surinder Singh Johar agrees:

[39] S. ibn F. al-Fawzaan, op. cit., pp. 39-40.
[40] B.S. Anand (2009), Baba Farid, (New Delhi, Sahitya Akadmei), p. 47.
[41] S.S. Gandhi (2007), History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1469-1606 C.E. Vol.1, (Atlantic Publishers & Distributors), pp. 88-9.
[42] A.A. bin A. bin Baaz (2010), Ruling on whoever performs Salah at certain times and gives up at others, (Portal of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta’).
[43] Fn. 1: Hau dhaadi vekaar kaarai laaia; Raat dihai kai vaar dhurho pharmaaia; Dhaadi sachai mehl khasam bulaaia. (Majh Var Mahla I).
[44] I. Singh (1985), The Philosophy of Guru Nanak, Volume 1, (Atlantic Publishers & Distri), pp. 116-17.
[45] S.S. Gandhi, op. cit., pp. 80-2.
[46] Vaars Bhai Gurdaas, Pannaa 1:

[47] O.P. Ralhan (1997), The Great Gurus of the Sikhs, Volume 1, (Anmol Publications PVT. LTD.), p. 131.
[48] G. Singh (2005), Sri Guru Granth Sahib Vol. 1, (Allied Publishers), pp. XXXIX.
[49] Prof Haq also recounts this story, but rejects the literalist take on it, instead interpreting it as allegory.
[50] R.K. Pruthi (2004), Culture and Civilisation Series: Sikhism and Indian Civilization, (Discovery Publishing House), p. 56.
[51] Fn. 1: Janamsakhi, Bhai Bala, p. 292.

EDITOR’S NB: Some Sikh scholars consider the author Bhai Bala to be “fictitious” and, thus, hold this biography to be “spurious”. Trilochan Singh believes it to be authentic but corrupted by the heretical groups: “the Minas, or Meharban and his followers. Then … by the Handaliyas, and then by the printers”. See: H.R. Gupta (2008), History of the Sikhs 1469-1708, Vol. 1, (Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi), pp. 40-3.

[52] Fn. 2: Janamsakhi, Bhai Mani Singh Wali (Janamsakhi Prampra, edited by Kirpal Singh, Antka, p. 333).
[53] (Eds) D. Singh, K Singh, op. cit., p. 220.
[54] Fn. 19: Janamsakhi, Meharban Wali, pp. 10-12.
[55] Fn. 24: Janamsakhi, Bhai Bala, p. 279. Latif, p. 245.
[56] (Eds) D. Singh, K Singh, op. cit., p. 223.
[57] Fn. 4: S.R., I [M.A. Macauliffe (1993), The Sikh Religion Vol. I, (Delhi)], pp. 102, 121, 123.
[58] S. Singh (1986), Philosophy of Sikhism, (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar), p. 117.
[59] Al-Eemaan al-Awsat, (published under Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, vol. 7, compiled by Ibn Qasim), p. 151.
[60] D.S. Maini, op. cit.
[61] Al-I’tisaam, 1/231.
[62] For a more comprehensive introduction, read Notes on the Evils of Innovation.
[63] S. ibn F. al-Fawzaan (2001), Haqeeqat-ut-Tasawwuf, (Al-Ibaanah.com), pp.11-5: At-Tasawwuf: Al-Mansha’ wal-Masdar, p. 28.
[64] Ibid., Masra’ at-Tasawwuf, p. 19.
[65] Narrated by Abu Hurairah, Sunan at-Tirmithi, 2484 (Hasan).
[66] Judging a Claimant to Salafiyyah by his Companionship: Sahih Muslim, (Salafi Publications, no.114, 2010).
[67] Ibid., Al-Ibaanah, 2/478.
[68] Ibid., Al-Ibaanah, 2/476.
[69] Ibid., 2/477.
[70] T. Singh (2000), Selections from the Sacred Writings of the Sikhs, (Orient Blackswan), p. 148.
[71] S.S. Gandhi, op. cit., pp. 1078-9.
[72] H. Dhillon (2005), Guru Nanak Spiritual Masters, (Indus Source), pp. 165-6.
[73] S.S. Gandhi, op. cit., p. 1080.
[74] Judging a Claimant to Salafiyyah, op. cit., Al-Ibaanah 2/437.
[75] S.S. Gandhi, op. cit.
[76] H. Dhillon, op. cit., p.166.
[77] Early deviant sect that denied Allaah’s Divine Pre-Ordainment: the sixth pillar of Eemaan (Faith).
[78] Al-Ibaanah, 2/453.
[79] Judging a Claimant to Salafiyyah, op. cit., Reported by al-Laalikaa’ee, 1/139.
[80] Not to be confused with the eleventh century Sufi, the so-called “patron saint of Lahore”, Pakistan, Data Ganj Baksh Ali ibn ‘Uthman al-Jullabi al-Hujwiri.
[81] Moinuddin Chishti, (Wikipedia).
[82] Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki, (Wikipedia).
[83] Nizamuddin Auliya, (Wikipedia).
[84] Wahdatul Wujood: Lit. Unity of Existence – The belief that all existence is a single existence and everything we see are only aspects of the Essence of Allaah.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Rabee’ ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee explicated:

[85] J.D. Gort, H. Jansen, H.M. Vroom (2006), Religions view religions: explorations in pursuit of understanding Vol.25, (Rodopi), p. 202.
[86] A.A. Na’im (2002), Islamic Family Law in a Changing World: A Global Resource Book, (Zed Books), p. 202.
[87] W. Doniger, Merriam-Webster Inc (1999), Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions, (Merriam-Webster), p. 199.
[88] B.S. Anand, op. cit., p.31.
[89] Fn. 308: See ‘Ali Al-Qari, Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar, p.171; Adh-Dhahabi, Al-‘Ulu, p. 103.
[90] Ibn Abi Al-‘Izz, (Trans) M. A.-H. Ansari (2000), Commentary on the Creed of at-Tahawi (Sharh al-‘Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah), (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Sa’ud Islamic University), p. 236.
[91] Fn. 3: Jahmiyyah are the followers of Jahm Ibn Safwan, who was the first one to publicly declare the denial of Allah’s Attributes. Before long he denied the Attributes of Allah, he was killed and crucified by Khalid Ibn Abdullah Al-Khusari, Prince of Iraq. This took place during the era of the Tabioon, (students of the Companion). All the scholars at his time called him a Kafir [disbeliever] on account of plainly denying the Attributes of Allah.
[92] Fn. 4: Reported by ad-Daarimee in ar-Radd ‘alal-Mareesee (p. 24 and 103) and ar-Radd ‘alal-Jahmiyyah (p. 50) and Abdullaah Ibn Ahmad in as-Sunnah (p. 7, 25, 35 and 72).
[93] S.A. Kayum (2005), The Jamaat Tableegh and the Deobandis, (Ahya Multi-Media), Chapter 3: Pantheism, Wahdat al-Wajood or Moksha: Additional Proofs from the Sayings of our Pious Predecessors (as-Salaf as-Salih).
[94] Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee (d. 561H): Refutation of the Saalimiyyah Sect Who Claim Allaah is Everywhere And Not Above His Throne Exclusively, (AboveTheThrone.com, 2009).
[95] Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Firyaabee, Shaykh of al-Bukhaaree, (d. 212H): Whoever Says Allaah Is Not Above His Throne is a Kaafir, Ibid.
[96] M. Murad (2010), Where is Allaah? (With slight modification), (SalafiPublications.com). For more information on this subject, (Salafi Publications).
[97] N.M. Sadarangani (2004), Bhakti Poetry in Medieval India: Its Inception, Cultural Encounter and Impact, (Sarup & Sons), p. 63.
[98] H. Singh (1998), Encyclopaedia of Sikhism: S-Z, Volume 4, (Punjabi University), p. 220.
[99] A.A. bin A. bin Baaz, (Trans) A. Walker (2007), The Statement: Verily Allaah is Everywhere, (Ad-Da’wah Magazine, Issue no. 1288).
[100] S.A. Kugle (2007), Sufis & Saints’ Bodies: Mysticism, Corporeality, & Sacred Power in Islam, (UNC Press), p. 239.
[101] N. Hanif (2000), Biographical Encyclopaedia of Sufis: South Asia, (Sarup & Sons), p. 86.
[102] M. Taher (1997), Encyclopaedic Survey of Islamic Culture, (Anmol Publications PVT. LTD.), p. 211.
[103] B.S. Anand, op. cit., pp. 21-2.
[104] Sahih Muslim, 2670.
[105] Sharh Muslim, 16/220.
[106] Sunan at-Tirmidhi, 2453; classed as hasan by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 1995.
[107] M.N.D. Al-Albaani (Trans. I. Alarcon), Al-Asaalah Magazine, Issue 21.
[108] Sahih Muslim, 3/96.
[109] Musnad Ahmad, 2/524.
[110] Reported by Ibn Hibbaan and classed as hasan in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 1774.
[111] Fn. 27: Prakash, Dr. Satya. The Great Sufi Saint Baba Farid – Study in Life, Teachings and Achievements. In Perspectives on Shaikh Farid. Ed. Gurbachan Singh Talibi, Baba Farid Memorial Society, pp. 35-40.
[112] M. Mohammada (2007), The Foundations of the Composite Culture in India, (Aakar Books), p. 232.
[113] N. Hanif, op. cit., p. 86.
[114] G.S. Talib (1974), Baba Sheikh Farid Shakar Ganj, (New Delhi, National Book Trust), p. 31.
[115] B.S. Anand, op. cit., p. 34.
[116] D. Singh (2004), Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism, (Amritsar, Singh Brothers), p. 144.
[117] Ibn al-Qayyim in Ma’aarij al-Qubool, 2/255, mentions the story, among others, of a man committing immoral actions with his wife and said, “What is this?” She said, “It is the will and decree of Allaah.” He said, “We accept what Allaah decrees.”
[118] Shifaa’ al-‘Aleel, p. 5.
[119] Musnad Ahmad, 2/160; Sunan Abu Dawood, 1692.
[120] Sahih al-Bukhari, 3/164; Sahih Muslim, 1628.
[121] At-Tabaraani, Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2/8.
[122] C.W. Ernst, B.B. Lawrence (2002), Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond, (Palgrave Macmillan), p. 68.
[123] A. ibn Mani, A. ibn Ghudayyan, A-R. Afify, Seeking help from the jinn to fulfill one’s needs, (Alifta.com, Permanent Committee Fatwas), p. 162.
[124] M. Mohammada (2007), The Foundations of the Composite Culture in India, (Aakar Books), pp. 200-1.
[125] Ibid., pp. 240-1.
[126] Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

[127] N. Auliya, B.B. Lawrence, H. Dihlavi (1992), Nizam ad-din Awliya: morals for the heart: conversations of Shaykh Nizam ad-din Awliya recorded by Amir Hasan Sijzi, (Paulist Press), p. 252.
[128] M. Mohammada, op. cit., pp. 240-1.
[129] Ibid., pp. 200-1.
[130] Ibid., p. 173.
[131] N. Hanif, op. cit., pp. 323.
[132] Ibid., pp. 322-3.
[133] Ibn Abi Al-‘Izz, op. cit., p. 462.
[134] M. Taher, op. cit., p. 193.
[135] Ibn Abi Al-‘Izz, op. cit., p. 459.
[136] B.S. Anand, op. cit., pp. 30-1.
[137] SikhiWiki (2009), Bhagat Kabir, (Encyclopedia of the Sikhs).
[138] If Kabir here is an Arabic word, then it does not mean “most high”, but rather: great, large, powerful, influential, distinguished, formidable, eminent, important, etc. (Hans-Wehr).
[139] SikhiWiki (2009), op. cit.
[140] R. Tagore, E. Underhill (1915), One Hundred Poems of Kabir, (London, MacMillan and Co. LTD.), p. x.
[141] Ibid., pp. xi-xii.
[142] Ibid., p. 92: “I became suddenly revealed in Benares, and Ramananda illumined me;…” (XXIX).
[143] Ibid., p. xv.
[144] Ibid., p. xv.
[145] Ibid., pp. 6-7, 8, 96, 62, 72.
[146] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[147] M. Alam (2004), The Languages of Political Islam: India 1200-1800, (C. Hurst & Co. Publishers), pp. 91-92.
[148] J. Wakabayashi, R. Kothari (2009), Decentering Translation Studies: India and Beyond, (John Benjamins Publishing Company), p. 121.
[149] D. Singh, op. cit., p. 158.
[150] R. Tagore, E. Underhill, op. cit., p. 50.
[151] Al-‘Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah.
[152] Ibn Abi Al-‘Izz, op. cit., p. 96, 104, 117.
[153] Fn. 105: Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, pp. 40-50.
[154] Ibn Abi Al-‘Izz, op. cit., p. 105.
[155] Ahmad bin Sinan al-Waasitee (d. 258H): Shaykh of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim Sends Jahmite Ash’aris Fleeing From Their Secret Hideouts: ‘Whoever Says the Qur’an is Two Things Or a Hikaayah is, by Allaah, a Zindeeq, Kaafir’, (Asharis.Com, 2009).
[156] Shaykh Abdul-Qadir al-Jeelaanee (d. 561H): Cleans Out the Secret Hideouts of the Ash’arites and Sends them Fleeing For Cover Out Of Awe and Terror: Whoever Claims the Qur’an is an Ibaarah (Expression) is a Kaafir Whose Repentance is to Be Sought, Ibid.
[157] G.H. Westcott (2006), Kabir and the Kabir Panth, (READ BOOKS), p. 22.
[158] M. Ibn S. al-‘Uthaymeen (2003), Exemplary Foundations Concerning the Beautiful Names and Attributes of Allaah, (Canada, TROID), pp. 28-9.
[159] Abu A-R. A-A. Ibn F. Ibn Z. Ibn M. (2005), Investigation into the literal meaning of ‘Brahma’ in Sanskrit language according to Oxford Sanskrit – English dictionary and other dictionaries, (Salafitalk.net).
[160] R. Tagore, E. Underhill, op. cit., p. 89.
[161] The Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it: ‘Be!’ – and it is. (Qur’an 2:117).
[162] R. Tagore, E. Underhill, op. cit., p. 88.
[163] A. Shah (1917), The Bijak of Kabir, (Hamirpur, U.P., India), p. 4.
[164] G.H. Westcott, op. cit., pp. 32-3.
[165] Ibid., p. 46.
[166] R. Tagore, E. Underhill, op. cit., p. xvi.
[167] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[168] G.H. Westcott, op. cit., p. 57.
[169] Sri Guru Granth Sahib, op. cit.
[170] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[171] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[172] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[173] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[174] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[175] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.
[176] G.H. Westcott, op. cit.