Awakening the Sleeping Guru Granth

Introduction

This is a response to Bijla Singh’s attempt at rebutting our article Sukhasan Sleep and Slumber. However, rather than serving as a rebuttal, the author’s article, titled Satguru is Always Awake, only serves to strengthen our initial thesis that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is worshipped like an idol.

‘It’s Alive!’

Guru Gobind Singh proclaimed Guru Granth Sahib the only spiritual Guru of the Sikh being hundred per cent Divine.

What comprises a book? One would say: paper, ink, some binding material in the form of glue and/ or string, and a dust cover. Taking it down to the microscopic level, we would all agree that it is made up of the same created material as the rest of the universe: atoms. One would expect that all books that have, are and will be bound together are merely created matter and nothing more; and one would be wrong. According to Bijla Singh, Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the exception to all books because unlike the rest, this one is alive! In his opening sentence, Singh begins his rebuttal by asserting:

He reminds that SGGS is “the embodiment of same Divine Light that resided in all the preceding Gurus”.

And since it is “living”, there exists some emotional attachment in the form of love. And so Singh further adds that “Sikhs love it dearly”, meaning they love the living book which contains the same Divine Light that resided in the other 10 Gurus when they were alive. Since this Divine Light only resided in the 10 Gurus when they were living, and certainly not after their death, it stands to reason, thus, that since the time when SGGS was imbued with this Divine Light it has remained LIVING.

Let not anyone be under the illusion that Bijla Singh believes otherwise. He states in no uncertain terms:

Let us breakdown this argument as follows:

Singh continues:

And breaking this down, we have the following:

Singh adds:

From this we further infer:

What is concluded in respect to SGGS is that SGGS contains the true, eternal nature of God Himself.

And since this is the logical conclusion, Singh clarifies, that “Sikhs do not treat Gurbani casually, Guru Granth Sahib is ‘parkash’ (opened in the early morning) and ‘Sukh Aasan’ (closed at night) after conducting a special ceremony which has been the tradition since 1604.”

Singh has effectively driven the final nail in the coffin by helping to solidify our accusation of idol worship by reasoning that SGGS is not a non-living, created object within the temporal sphere, but a living entity that contains the eternal nature of God. Surjit Singh Gandhi cuts to the chase:

In apparent confusion and in contradistinction to all the above, Bijla Singh attempts to have his cake and eat it too by stating that the “Guru is not paper, ink or the binding but the revealed word of God”. But, if SGGS is imbued with the divine eternal nature of God, then it is either only paper and ink and nothing more, or it is paper and ink and also divine. Singh cannot have it both ways.

More damning, however, is the double-standard employed by Sikhs vis-á-vis Hinduism. Both religions openly and unashamedly acknowledge that a created object, fashioned by their own hands, contains the true nature of God. For Bijla Singh’s information, we cite The Complete Idiots Guide to Hinduism wherein it states:

Replace the words “living deity” with “living guru” and you have a notion that is akin to that which Sikhs adhere to vis-á-vis SGGS. Bijla Singh reasons further:

This is precisely the same reasoning applied by the Hindus. Sikhs consider it impermissible for Hindus to worship their hand-crafted deities irrespective of the Hindu’s insistence that they are not worshipping the idol, but the divine form that resides within. The Sikhs, as Bijla Singh has eloquently described, hold exactly the same idea. The Shabad resides in an object and Sikhs bow down to it; for Hindus, the divine nature of God also resides in an object and they bow down to it. And for Sikhs to argue otherwise is an exercise in double standards and hypocrisy.

In fact, such is this idol worship that after harping on about how revered this book is, Bijla Singh then remarks:

This is precisely our point. There is a line to be drawn between what separates reverence/ respect and worship; the Sikhs crossed this line when they, like their Hindu cousins, conferred divinity to a hand-made object. Singh passionately clarifies:

He forgot to mention that just as the chauri sahib (wand) was waved over the Gurus when they were alive, it was also waved over the SGGS. Hence, these acts of devotion where the SGGS is “covered in special clothes” (similar to the Hindus who dress up their idols), fanned by a chauri (again like the Hindus), brought out in the morning and put to bed at night, etc., are perfectly consistent with actions that would be justified only for a living being, which in this case, is divine.

Contrary to the SGGS’ condemnation of idol worship, it is entirely clear that this line of reasoning on the part of the Sikhs can only be upheld through the use of double standards maintained against Hindu idol worship. Little wonder Bijla Singh imperceptibly states:

We would contend, based on what has preceded, that the Golden Temple is the epitome of a grand temple of idol worship.

He also misses the forest for the trees in writing a chapter on what Sikhism perceives as sleep. He fails to understand from our initial article that we were not arguing against God sleeping, but rather arguing that the Sukhasan ceremony is proof that SGGS is treated and worshipped like an idol.

Bijla Singh makes an absurd allegation that “Muslims have not provided a single credible source to back up their claims” when accusing Sikhs of idol worship. How nonsensical would it be for a Hindu to demand a Sikh prove their idol worship by making recourse to credible Hindu sources? Would Bijla Singh be expecting a Muslim who holds Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) to be the final recipient of divine revelation to prove this through the SGGS? It goes without saying that proofs derived from all Islamic sources would necessarily be rejected by the Sikhs!

The quandary for the Sikhs, however, is that despite their obduracy towards recognising the treatment of SGGS through the Sukhasan ceremony as idol worship, the fact that they describe, treat and direct their worship towards something they unreservedly label and look upon as a living, divine, eternal entity constitutes idol worship a la Hinduism.

Singh then questions:

The answer is now not only quite obvious, but also exposes Bijla Singh’s fallacious mixing of categories when he reasons: “If revering word of God is idol worship then Muslims should discard Quran.” Although the Muslims show respect and reverence towards the Qur’an, we do not believe that the Qur’an contains or is imbued with God’s divine nature. The Sikh’s reverence constitutes idol worship precisely because they consider their book to be divine.

Bijla Singh then makes some of his characteristic false accusations against Islam:

Anyone can carry it [Qur’an] in their backpack or in an armpit and open it without washing their hands. How respectful is it to treat the word of God with such manners?

Correction: Muslims are forbidden to pick up the Qur’an if they are not in a state of ablution (wudu). Moreover, such is the respect towards the Qur’an and the high level of cleanliness demanded of the Muslims that it is forbidden for anyone to recite the Qur’an, let alone pick it up, either from the Qur’an or from memory if they are in a state of ritual impurity (junoob).

Bijla Singh continues his false assertions by trying his hand at playing the mufassir (interpreter of the Qur’an). He boldly claims:

We have shown that SGGS is an idol comparable to the hundreds of millions of idols of the Hindus and the hundreds that used to exist during the time of the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. The above cited Qur’anic verse was revealed in condemnation of objects worshipped besides Allah (Arabic for Shirk); since SGGS, which is imbued with the divine, eternal nature of God, is worshipped as an object in opposition to what constitutes correct worship in Islam, it is defined as an idol and is covered by the general meaning of the verse. Bijla Singh fallaciously attempts to interpret the verse of the Qur’an in isolation of the Islamic definition of idol worship and shirk (associating partners in the worship of Allah).

Do Muslims Worship the Ka’bah?

No where in Islam is the Ka’bah, the Black Stone, or anything else in Creation considered divine or partially so.

Finally, we move on to Bijla Singh’s most absurd claim of all: “Idol Worship in Islam” vis-á-vis the “House of God” – the Ka’bah. In this regard, Singh’s ability to argue coherently and soundly woefully falls short of the mark. For instance, he commits the freshman fallacy by failing to clearly define idol worship. According to him, the pilgrimage to Hajj “clearly shows that Muslims are idol worshippers and revere lifeless objects in their ‘house of God'”. Although he fails to define what he means by “revere” and “lifeless objects”, he provides the Ka’bah as an example:

But, if this simplistic reasoning is the basis for accusing others of idol worship, then how is this different from Sikhism’s male-led wedding ceremony known as Anand Karaj?

If reverence constitutes making “rounds around” “a man-made” object while idol worship means holding such an object significantly in the religious way of life, then Sikhs too are idol worshippers since a man-made book is held significantly in their religious way of life! If Bijla Singh objects to this and cites the excuse that his holy book is not “lifeless” but “living”, then this is a non sequitur because it is still man-made (unless he wishes to contend that it was exclusively created by God Himself). What would compound the situation further for Bijla Singh is that if this excuse is asserted, then he still has the unenviable task of solving the discrepancy that arose when he claimed the Guru, which is imbued in the SGGS, is “not paper, ink or the binding”.

He then gives the old and hackneyed example of the Black Stone (hajar al-aswad) garnished with his usual false accusations:

Perhaps Bijla Singh would like to explain how Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) appeased the pre-Islamic Meccan pagans by kissing a black stone, which they did NOT worship, while, at the same time, openly condemning their 360 idols housed inside the Ka’bah? Moreover, the kissing of the Black Stone and the circumambulation of the Ka’bah is not a pre-Islamic custom, but rather an Islamic one that was put into practice at the behest of their Lord by none other than the Muslim Prophets Abraham and his son Ishmael, which the Arabs acknowledged and continued to follow up until the time of Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah). Bijla Singh is ignorant of the fact that Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) only continued those rituals that were originally part of the pure form of worship of Allah – enacted by said Prophets – while purging it of all the false innovations, including idol worship, that had been wrongly introduced by the Pagan Arabs over the course of the centuries.

Bijla Singh then sets himself up for the big fall by chimerically stating:

In answer to his question: it all revolves around God’s obedience. While fully affirming that said created objects are indeed lifeless, temporal, and non-divine, the Muslims’ obedience to Allah’s commands is ipso facto worship of Him and not these lifeless objects, which are not worthy of worship. These divinely instantiated rituals are only carried out by Muslims in full obedience and complete submission to their Creator.

The problem that now faces Bijla Singh is: when is an act of prostration towards a created object considered idol worship? His answer: when the object “holds no power, life or divine knowledge”. Conversely then, any act of prostration towards an object that DOES hold power, life or divine knowledge is NOT idol worship. From this, the devastating conclusion reached is that Bijla Singh must, by extension of this convoluted logic, accept that Hindus cannot be idol worshippers for prostrating to a stone they believe holds power, life or divine knowledge of God!

What remains is the position of the Muslims? The simple answer to this is:

Muslims who understand and practice their religion in strict accordance to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah), while taking the practical example set by his companions en masse, reject in toto the idea of omnipresence, pantheism, monism and anthropomorphism. We believe that Allah is distinct and separate from His creation, thus, rejecting all antithetical doctrines, including the Greek-inspired Sufi doctrines of Wahdatul Wujood, [4] hulool, [5] etc.

The only reason we face the direction of the Ka’bah during prayer, circumambulate it while kissing the black stone during pilgrimage, pray five times a day, fast during the month of Ramadan, and give zakaah (obligatory alms-giving), etc., is out of complete submission to God’s commands and in obedience to our Prophet. We certainly do not venerate or worship any created objects.

This is precisely what the second caliph of Islam, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, alluded to vis-á-vis the black stone:

If, after this, Bijla Singh still wishes to remain thick-headed, then we look forward to receiving his clear and unambiguous Islamic evidences.

Conclusion

We have shown that Bijla Singh believes the SGGS to be a living entity on the basis that it is imbued with the true, divine and eternal nature of God Himself.

We have also shown that this notion of created objects containing the divine nature of God is not unique to Sikhism, but is also acknowledged by Hindus vis-á-vis their idols. In rejecting the Hindu’s explanation that what is being worshipped is not the man-made object per se, but the divine nature of God that resides within the living idol, Bijla Singh and his co-religionists are, thus, guilty of employing double standards in using exactly the same excuse.

We have, likewise, exposed the arguments asserted by Bijla Singh in his desperate attempt at trying to prove idol worship in Islam are not only untrue, but also so poorly constructed that they serve as nothing except an argument against him.

Bijla Singh has also failed to bring any Islamic evidence which suggests that Muslims hold the Ka’bah, black stone, or any other created object, to be divine and, thus, worthy of being worshipped. Of course, we have proven from his own rebuttal that this is precisely what Sikhs are guilty of committing, i.e. taking a created divine eternal object and worshipping it.

“Nay, We (Allah) fling the truth against falsehood, so it obliterates it.
And behold! It is vanquished.” (Qur’an 21:18)

[1] S.S. Gandhi (2007), History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1469-1606 C.E. Vol.1, (Atlantic Publishers & Distributors), p. 398.
[2] L.Johnsen (2002), The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Hinduism, (Alpha Books), pp. 152-3.
[3] K.S. Khokhar (2005), Anand Marriage – Development and History: http://www.globalsikhstudies.net/pdf/article/AnandMarriage – By Dr. Kulwant Singh Khokhar.pdf
[4] 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 Allah. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Rabee’ ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee explicated:

[5] Hulool: Lit. “Entering” – Divine indwelling. The belief that Allah dwells within a particular human, i.e. that Allah dwells in a particular Sufi shaykh, a pious person, etc. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Rabee’ ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee explicated: