Project Naad Defends the Theory of Karma

Project Naad attempts to defend Sikhism’s belief in the unjust theory of Karma by replying to the arguments presented in our article Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration.
But all Project Naad ends up doing is opening up a whole new can of worms along with a generous helping of insurmountable obstacles.

Note: As per the rules of debate, we have only replied to that which is directly related to our article.

10.13 What were the mistakes we committed that resulted in our failure to acquire liberation:

According to SGGS: “After union, the separation comes and after separation the union. After living the span of life, the death comes and after death the life. He becomes the father of many and the son of many, the disciple and preceptor of many. Their lives in the past and future are countless. Nothing is known what was in the past and what will be in the future?” (Salok M.1. P 1238)
Hence, according to Sikhism, our past life and actions are unrecollectable. We are made to go through khand for past misdeeds we are in fact incapable of recalling. Based upon this, the next question one should ask is:
If one does not know what one is being punished for, then does not the possibility exist of repeating the same mistake?

The answer is not only an obvious yes; but, the problem is further compounded when we realise that since we do not know what evil deeds we committed, resulting in failure to liberate ourselves from the cycle of life and death, then how is it possible for us to learn from our mistakes in order that we do not repeat them, or worse still, commit worse transgressions?

10.13.1 Answer

There is no doubt that for most people the actions of previous lives are not available to the conscious mind and there is always the chance that an individual will make the same mistakes as they did in their previous lives. However there is no shortage of religious instruction in the 21st century and people are given the gift of free will to walk on the path of truth.

With religious doctrines comprised of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, Project Naad forgets that there are no two religious doctrines claiming to be revealed of God except that they are diametrical opposites. [1] Hence, the challenge of determining the truth of a religion needs to be sought first and should be the modus operandi for all seekers of truth. Thus, such a simplistic answer clarifies nothing; on the contrary Project Naad digs itself into a deeper hole. Take the following scenario: it is entirely plausible for the same sin, which essentially condemned one in a previous life, to be recommitted under the false belief that the said sinful action is permitted in the religion one is adhering to in this life. And this is just one example. How many potentially fatal mistakes, which condemns one to another repetition of life, must millions of people be committing under the mistaken belief that the said actions are correct?

Also, just because the conscious mind is not aware of the mistakes of our previous lives does not automatically mean that our sub conscious mind is unable to guide our actions and thoughts in our current life.

The lays inability in building well-structured arguments established on relevant and acceptable premises that translate into valid conclusions can be excused; but, what is Project Naad’s excuse, who lauds itself as a champion interlocutor for Sikhi apologetics, for continually committing simple logical fallacies like those committed in the above assertion. Use of broad loaded-terms has been left undefined thereby committing the freshman fallacy. What does Project Naad mean by “subconscious”, which has a number of meanings depending on the context in which it is used? Further, how does the subconscious supersede our conscious awareness to guide our actions? It is near impossible to properly respond to such a cryptically ambiguous assertion.

Finally lets not forget that God who is always there as a guide to help us in our current life.

As pointed out earlier, the following problems must be resolved in order for God to guide people towards the clarity of truth: Firstly, the problem of a multiplicity of diametrically opposed religious doctrines and theologies all vying for the exclusive claim of truth. And secondly, the impossibility of recalling one’s past-life misdeeds leads to not only the danger of repeating them, but worse still, committing greater transgressions under the false belief that they are good deeds.

It is a testimony of God’s love that we are given as many chances as needed to achieve moksha and not be resigned to an eternal punishment of hell because we screwed up in one life.
However it should be noted that none these arguments against reincarnation are even relevant in mainstream Abrahamic thought because you get one chance to attain heaven and if you screw it up, you WILL be resigned to hell for eternity.

Little wonder Sikh’s have opted for this whimsical theory of Karma when faced with such a puzzling conundrum of obscurities and ambiguities. With an inexplicably unjust soteriological doctrine such as this, which can only lead to confusion, it is unsurprising that Sikhs have found solace in accepting the idea of a repetitive crack at the reigns of life.
Sadly, rather than submitting, accepting and following the clarity of Truth from their Lord, some would rather follow their own invented truth, in accordance with their vain desires, no matter how utterly perplexing, contradictory and recondite it may be.

The proverb rings true in this regard: Follow the truth, but do not let the truth follow you.

10.14 An example of injustice through reincarnation:

Leading on from this, if we hold to the concept of “A person reaps what he sows” – “Jehaa beejai so lunai karma sandraa khet: The man sows so does he reap. Such is the field of actions.” (SGGS 134) – it can safely be said that if one is born under circumstances that could be construed as unfavourable, then this is simply a case of reaping what was sown in a previous life or lives. For example, if a baby was born with a deformity or born into a family stricken by extreme poverty, which in either case would assure a life of difficulty and hardship, and as a result lead to an early death, the question that would immediately arise is:
Is it just on God’s part to punish a person under such unfavourable conditions for past misdeeds that one has absolutely no knowledge of?

The answer to this question can quite easily be determined when we see children suffering and realise that this is merely just reward (punishment) for misdeeds committed in some unknown and unrecollectable past life.

10.14.1 Answer

To answer this question lets assume Hitler is caught after the war and is placed in front of a jury to be tried for the murder of 6 million Jews. However, for whatever reason Hitler develops genuine amnesia. In this worldly example would it be right to find Hitler guilty of crimes which he no longer has any recollection of?
I think the answer is obvious!

Let us firstly repeat our argument related to the Hitler-example before examining Project Naad’s polemic:

The only conclusion one can arrive at is that not only will an innocent person be unduly punished, but Hitler himself will go unpunished for his crimes against humanity because he ceased to exist! As a result, it is not possible to justify punishment for past actions (deeds) that are neither connected to one’s present existence nor recollectable.

With Project Naad’s unavoidable and necessary concession that “there is no doubt that for most people the actions of previous lives are not available to the conscious mind” (underline ours), our contention that “there is no connection between one’s previous life and the next in terms of personality and self-awareness… [and] that actions of a previous life are separate, distinct and unconnected to the next life” all but proves our fundamental point:

Putting aside the argument over whether a court would entertain a case built on past-life crimes (excluding the much sought after Khalistani Sikh courts), Project Naad’s “worldly example” is thus a strawman argument since the argument is not related to a single person suffering from amnesia. The argument involves two completely different people: Adolf Hitler who is dead, and an innocent person on trial for Hitler’s crimes.

In relation to this, Project Naad impulsively appeals in answer 10.16.1 (see below):

Let us recall what we concluded in the article: The Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration:

Project Naad answers in section 10.15.1 (see below):

However, Project Naad has already conceded that “there is no doubt that for most people the actions of previous lives are not available to the conscious mind” (underline ours). Yet, they contradictorily point to the pseudo-scientific research of Dr Stevenson that matches the style of writing between two completely independent people (we have dealt with the alleged evidence related to past-life patients during our rebuttal of answer 11.6.1. – see below).

What then will Project Naad’s defence be? What is it that will be “resigned to the bin”: the undoubted acceptance that “most people” cannot recall their alleged past-lives, or that people do have a link through alleged identical writing skills presented by Dr Stevenson?
It is unnecessary for us to entertain the so-called research conducted by Dr Stevenson et alia that Project Naad presents because even if, for arguments sake, we were to accept these so-called scientific findings, the crucial point here is that this does not apply to the vast majority of humankind, something Project Naad accepts.

Just because someone cannot remember their actions in their previous life does not automatically mean that it is unjust for them to receive the fruits of the actions (consequences) which they themselves have performed.

Let us repeat: Since the vast majority of humankind have absolutely no recollection of this imaginary past-life; and since “reincarnations, extending over a period of time, are no more significantly linked than the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time”; thus, “an innocent person will be punished for crimes committed by another person”; thus, WaheGuru is unjust for punishing innocent people for crimes committed by someone else.

The 3 different explanations for e.g. young children suffering is:
– Suffering is the result of our own actions
– Suffering is the result of God’s will
– Suffering is natural (atheist view)
So if a Muslim argues that it is unjust for a young child to undergo suffering due to his or her actions in a previous life, then the only other option is that God is responsible for such suffering on a child who could not have done anything wrong because it’s his/her first and only life! This unfortunately throws the concept of an all compassionate God out of the window.

If Project Naad is using their confusingly muddled outlook of the world as demonstrated in Sikhi Soteriology, then they may be correct; however, this is not applicable to Islam. Either the above assertion is a desperate cheap shot, or Project Naad has conveniently ignored our explanation from the article in question, where we explained:

In addition, we add that “it is not possible to justify punishment for past actions (deeds) that are neither connected to one’s present existence nor recollectable, let alone being able to justify it for an innocent child. Moreover, this child, for all intents and purposes, is innocent of those unrecollectable yet incriminating actions since it has absolutely no means of learning from them.”

10.15 An example of injustice through reincarnation

Going back to the example of the child born with a deformity or one that suffers terribly and then dies, we can examine the implications in light of the following:

• The child’s suffering is directly related to sins committed in previous lives.
• The child’s parents are likewise suffering the pain and anguish as a result of their own sins committed in their own respective past lives.

SGGS: “Daddai dos na deyoo kisai dos krammaa aapanyaa. Jo mai keeyaa so mai paayaa dos na deejai avar janaa: Do not blame anyone else; blame instead your own actions. Whatever I did, for that I have suffered; I do not blame anyone else.” (SGGS 433)
Before we determine how just and humane this concept is, we have to realise certain factors.
Recalling that the parents and child have no recollection of their past lives in terms of sins and transgression to justifiably warrant them being reborn, we can, thus, see clear absurdities that lead us to inevitable conclusions of injustice when we consider the following:

(A) Personality and self-awareness developed over one lifetime comes to an end after we die.

(B) Upon being reborn, there is absolutely no trace of ones personality and self-awareness from any so-called previous life.

(C) Hence, if a completely new personality and a totally different self awareness exist, then various reincarnations, extending over a period of time, are no more significantly linked than the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time.

The questions that needs to be asked is:

• How is it possible to justify the suffering of a person as a deserved punishment for previous sins when one has absolutely no recollection of the transgressions committed in a past life?
• Is there any difference between this and accusing a newly born child, who has no means of determining the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, of possessing a sinful nature before it has acquired the faculties of reason – similar to the Christian notion of Original Sin?

10.15.1 Answer
In this example, the following 2 points are accurate:
– The child’s suffering is directly related to sins committed in previous lives.
– The child’s parents are likewise suffering the pain and anguish as a result of their own sins committed in their own respective past lives.
However the above points do not validate the 3 points below, all of which are incorrect:
(A) Personality and self-awareness developed over one lifetime comes to an end after we die.
Point A has been shown to be incorrect through the scientific research done by Dr Stevenson in matching hand writing styles of deceased and reborn individuals.
(B) Upon being reborn, there is absolutely no trace of ones personality and self-awareness from any so-called previous life.
Point B can also be proven incorrect through modern scientific methods such as past life regression and analysis of spontaneous past life recall.
(C) Hence, if a completely new personality and a totally different self awareness exist, then various reincarnations, extending over a period of time, are no more significantly linked than the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time.
The logic used to support Point C is no longer applicable as the first 2 points can be proven (scientifically) to be false.
We have already discussed the morality regarding the reaping the fruits of previous actions in a new life when we have no recollection of our previous actions. So this point will not be mentioned again.

Ibid.

There is a similarity between the Christian concept of original sin and karma.
However the difference is that karma in Kaliyug is about people being judged for their actions only.
The Christian concept of original sin suggests that all beings are still paying the price of the decision of our ancestors to disobey the command of God.

In relation to guilt and punishment, however, it is the same thing. According to Christianity, the sin of Adam and Eve, which led to their “downfall”, was subsequently inherited by their progeny. It would be unjust for their children (humankind), who at the time when their parent’s transgressed were non-existent, to later inherit this so-called sinful nature and be considered guilty for being “in sin”. Similarly, as Project Naad has acceded, Sikh’s believe that since “there is no doubt that for most people the actions of previous lives are not available to the conscious mind”, and that “there is no connection between one’s previous life and the next in terms of personality and self-awareness”. Hence, as we stated: “Various reincarnations, extending over a period of time, are no more significantly linked than the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time”; therefore, like Christians, an innocent person is considered guilty (and punished) for inherited sins accrued by someone completely unrelated in a previous life.
We do not see any difference whatsoever when it comes down to the essential aspect of guilt and punishment.

The other big difference is that the traditional Christian model of suffering (same applies to Islamic model of suffering) can not explain the grades of suffering i.e. why one man is born into a rich family and anther one into a poor family.

Project Naad would do well to understand the adage: He who lives in a glass house, should not throw stones at others.

Thus far, it is evident that Sikhism’s theory of karma does nothing but portray God as mercilessly unjust.

Islam’s reasoning in relation to the Creator’s (al-Khaaliq) relationship with His creation (makhlooq) is so much more sublime, straightforward and befitting the majesty of Allah.

Firstly, the relationship between suffering and social status and class is arbitrary and relative since a pauper may not necessarily consider it suffering to live a life of struggle and toil as a rich man would. And the case could be argued by a pauper, and perhaps even acknowledged by the rich, that possessing greater material possessions brings greater stress, worry and other problems that the poor would not “suffer” from.

As for Muslims, who have firmness and certainty of faith, complete reliance in the Almighty and God-consciousness; then their reaction towards what would be perceived by disbelievers as suffering will be entirely different. A practicing Muslim should be content with the social circumstances and provisions s/he has been blessed with from Allah. The following hadeeth of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) aptly describes a believer’s state of affairs:

Hence, when a Muslim is afflicted by a trial or tribulation of any kind, s/he knows that this is not the result of unrecollectable past-life sins, where the potential for learning and rectification is impossible. On the contrary, Muslims view any and all adversities and calamities as events that will aid them in drawing closer in their relationship with Allah. They know that exercising sincere patience with their Lord will not only enhance their character by strengthening their resolve, resilience, and determination, but that they will also be rewarded both in this life and the hereafter, God-Willing. This is why the Prophet said:

And as Allah says:

Hence, what Project Naad qualifies as “suffering”, which again has been left undefined, is arbitrary. Of course, this does not free Project Naad from their belief in the unjust notion that is the theory of Karma.

10.16 There is no connection between ones previous life and the next

If there is no connection between ones previous life and the next in terms of personality and self-awareness, it stands to reason, therefore, that actions of a previous life are separate, distinct and unconnected to the next life. This implies that an innocent person will be punished for crimes committed by another said person, i.e. one person accumulates karma and another completely independent person with a different personality will suffer the consequences. It is a case of ‘one person sows and a different person reaps’, since no personal characteristics can be preserved from one incarnation to the next. This is not only unfair, but fundamentally contradicts the idea of perfect justice. From this absurdity, can it therefore be said that Hitler will suffer for his sins in the next life? No! Since there is no continuity between the person of Hitler and that of the individual who has to endure, presumably, the severe hardships incurred by Hitler’s karma.
The only conclusion one can arrive at is that not only will an innocent person be unduly punished, but Hitler himself will go unpunished for his crimes against humanity because he ceased to exist! As a result, it is not possible to justify punishment for past actions (deeds) that are neither connected to one’s present existence nor recollectable, let alone being able to justify it for an innocent child. Moreover, this child, for all intents and purposes, is innocent of those unrecollectable yet incriminating actions since it has absolutely no means of learning from them.

10.16.1 Answer

Stop… stop! We have already mentioned that there is indeed a connection between ones previous life in terms of personality and self awareness and so this next section of reasoning is all resigned to the bin.
No one can escape Karma because it is divine justice. Hitler will most definitely suffer from the actions in his life as Hitler. All the other points have been mentioned previously.

Ibid.

11 Suffering child held accountable for actions from previous life

In Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said that the pen for the recording of actions and deeds in life, including the judgment, is lifted i.e. suspended, in such cases where one has either not developed the means or lost the ability to rationalise, i.e. the use of sound reasoning and moral judgment:
“The pen has been lifted for three: the insane until he regains his sanity, the child until he reaches puberty (age of discernment), and the sleeper until he wakes up.”
And yet, under the Karmic worldview, this child is not only held accountable for unrecollectable actions, but must also be deemed and described as a guilty sinner! The ramifications are of course shocking to say the least and in light of
this, we can do nothing but come to the harrowing conclusion that in relation to the suffering child, God must be described as unjust. We seek refuge in Allah!

11.1.1 Answer

The author of the above quote is confused between the concepts of blame and suffering.
The Karmic view regarding suffering of a child born with a painful deformity is that the child was born that way because of previous sins.
The Abrahamic view regarding suffering of a child born with a painful deformity is that the child was born that way because of God’s will.
In the Karmic world view there is a reasonable reason for the suffering which is namely that the soul had performed various deeds in their previous life for which they are now experiencing the consequences.

The astute reader will come to see who in reality is confused over the concepts of blame and suffering, if s/he has not already done so.

Firstly, what is so reasonable and just concerning the notion that the deformities an infant is born with are a punishment for sins accrued in a past life? We ask:

Does this guilty suffering child have knowledge of the mistakes committed in its so-called previous life? Of course not!

Even if, for arguments sake, the child is made aware of these mistakes, for which it is blamed and made to suffer, would it possess the full faculties of reason, maturity and comprehension to be in a position of fully rectifying these wrongs?

No, and a point even Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) acknowledges, albeit indirectly:

A child has not developed the complete faculties of “reason and clear consciousness”.

Moreover, since we have shown that reincarnations are no more significantly linked than the lives of all the individuals who happen to be alive at the same given moment in time, it is absurd and unjust to accept the notion that an innocent immature child deserves to suffer through punishment for crimes committed by someone else in the distant past.

As for the Islamic understanding of the relationship between children, guilt and punishment; then, this has been dealt with previously (see our rebuttal to section 10.14.1). As for the point at which maturity is reached and deeds are recorded; then, this has been delineated below (see our rebuttal to section 11.2.1).

In the Abrahamic view regarding suffering there seems to be no logical reason why God would cause such suffering to a young child when they have done nothing wrong. So why is the child suffering? God indeed must be described as unjust in this incomplete view of suffering.

As stated earlier, the term suffering is arbitrary and relative. It could be said that a baby suffers, albeit slightly, during pregnancy, at birth and thereafter. One could conceivably interpret a baby’s crying at birth as “suffering”; and yet it is known that the child needs to go through this process to strengthen its vocal cords. Likewise, some could construe as “suffering” the vaccination of a child through the use of an injection even though it strengthens the baby’s immunity against disease and infections. Hence, not everything perceived as suffering is necessarily seen to be “wrong” in the Islamic understanding.

We have room for manoeuvre since our world view does not restrict us to this unjust relationship of holding a child morally accountable whilst accepting the fact that it is incapable of comprehending morality.

There is no suggestion that a child undergoing suffering should be described as a guilty sinner. The attitude to every creature of God should be one of compassion and unconditional love.

We seek refuge in Allah from the delusions wrought by Satan!

Project Naad needs to learn that merely asserting something does not make it so; that is, by claiming that “no suggestion” exists does not abdicate Project Naad from logically proving it; otherwise it has proven nothing except the inability to debate.

Project Naad has conceded contradictorily in answer 10.15.1 that we were “accurate” (underline ours) in surmising that “the child’s suffering is directly related to sins committed in previous lives”.

Universally, it is known that the one who accrues sins is considered a sinner. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines sin as: ‘A moral category going beyond that of simple wrongdoing by its implications of evil, disobedience, depravity, stain, and wickedness’; the one who is considered a sinner is guilty of contravening established edicts/ laws. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines guilt as: ‘The uncomfortable feeling of having done wrong, and therefore deserving the anger of others,’ (in this case, it would be the anger of God). Since Sikhs believe that any and all suffering people endure through life is “directly related to sins committed in previous lives”, they are, thus, guilty.

Finally there is also no suggestion that the soul in its current state is accumulating much good or bad karma as it is unable to either. Again this shows the authors poor understanding of both the Karmic and the Abrahamic models of suffering.

Our Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) said: “Hastiness is from shaytaan (the devil).” Perhaps it is hastiness that has led Project Naad to construct such a nonsensical sentence that we cannot make heads and tails out of.

11.2 Suffering child due to external reasons

In Islam, the suffering of the child is not due to previous sins. On the contrary, it occurs due to factors external to it and beyond its control by the decree of Allah. It cannot be said that the child is being punished since punishment is only meted out upon the one who commits sins and transgressions. As for the suffering of a child then this could either be due to punishment meted out upon others with whom it is associated to, e.g. parent’s being punished for their transgressions and evil deeds, the consequences of which directly affects the child, or Allah is testing the parents to see how they will react in the face of their child’s suffering. In both cases the child is considered innocent from any personal blame.

11.2.1 Answer

The above is an interesting and confused account of the reasons for suffering of a child born with severe deformities. According to traditional Islam – God will make a child undergo untold pain because of the actions of its parents or because God is testing the faith of the parents. This renders the life of the child almost useless like a “test object” for the greater good of someone else!

This definitely sounds like an all compassionate God and “just” divine laws.

Before Project Naad accuses Islam of rendering the life of a child as a test object, it should peer closely at the following verses from SGGS:

How surprising that Gurmukhs, such as Project Naad, have the audacity to charge others for treating things as test subjects when WaheGuru treats his entire creation as something far worse: a “plaything”. Allah, in fact, refutes this expression analogous to the behaviour of a child:

On the contrary, Allah says that this life can be nothing but a test.

This Life is Indeed a Test

In what has preceded, we have explained how accountability on the Day of Judgment will be commensurate to one’s level of wisdom, knowledge, capability, etc., which of course varies from person to person. Some are blessed with greater qualities and abilities which others may altogether be deprived of. But this is, according to the Divine Wisdom through which Allah governs everything, the nature of life.

From His perfect wisdom, Allah decreed to create a dualistic [3] world:

We would have no appreciation of what ‘compassion’, ‘love’, ‘sight’, ‘heat’, ‘light’, ‘anger’, ‘purity’, beauty’, ‘good’, etc. are if their opposites did not exist for us to measure against. It is for this reason that the Muslim scholars have said: “The beauty of something is known by its opposite.” We all differ to some degree in our mental, physical and psychological make up. Hence, Allah has through His wisdom created this dualistic nature as a determined way to test us all so as to distinguish and separate the grateful, patient and believing servants from their opposite number. Allah says:

Hence, the life we live can be nothing but a test; but certainly not a “plaything”.

Moreover, as with the term “suffering”, the terms “disabled” and its antonym “able-bodied” are relative. In the Islamic world view, Muslims do not treat the disabled as guilty sinners enduring punishment for past woes; neither should a disabled Muslim consider any disability as a necessary obstacle in life.

Islamic history has a shining record of numerous examples of disabled people who have enjoyed a prominent status in society on the back of sheer hard work and perseverance. ‘Atta ibn Abi Rabah, who was lame and partially paralysed, was one of the greatest Meccan jurists of his time and highly honoured by the caliph (leader) ‘Abdul-Maalik ibn Marawaan.

The companion of the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) ‘Amr ibn al-Jamooh was also lame. His four sons, when participating in Jihad, said to him: “You have an excuse to remain at home, for you are old and you have a kind of disability.” With full confidence and trust in Allah, he said to them: “Nay, for I hope to walk in Paradise with my lame foot.” Commenting on this, the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) said to them: “Leave him, for he is a man who seeks martyrdom.”

Abdullah ibn Umm Maktoom was one of the first followers of Islam; and although he was blind, this “disability” did not stop him from participating in major battles, nor hinder him in displaying great devotion towards the Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah). There are many other narrations of lame or permanently injured people who also fought for and served Islam to the best of their ability.

All these so-called disabled people utilised to the full what little they were blessed with to surpass many of their more able-bodied fellows. An example of this today is the present Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Aziz Aal ash-Shaykh, and his predecessor, Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Aziz ibn Baaz, who were blessed with the highest religious position despite being totally blind from an early age. Did all these people have to go through great hardship during their progress? Perhaps; but, in the end, they were patient and true to the promise of their Lord:

And we know that He will reward them for their endurance and servitude:

This just theological understanding can never inculcate in a Muslim the horrendous view that all disabled people are guilty sinners who are deservedly suffering through punishment for unrecollectable sins from a past-life. On the contrary, a Muslim will draw closer to Allah in gratitude and thankfulness for whatever He has blessed them with hoping that in the end Allah will reward them handsomely.

In addition, a Muslim will also consider the possibility that so-called disabled people may even have less to account for on the Day of Judgment than their able-bodied colleagues. Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) said:

During our short life, we believe that all our actions are being recorded meticulously. But, we have also been informed that the pen for recording one’s deeds can be suspended under certain situations. The Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) said:

The great scholar Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen explained that this meant a senile person was no longer accountable:

Likewise, a person who has no sense of time or the ability to distinguish between the prayers is not obligated to pray. This principle stems from the Mercy of Allah, which is the “removal of difficulties” (takalluf), and not to place a burden on someone greater than s/he can bear; a principle that is oft-repeated in the Qur’an:

Prayer and fasting are the second and fourth pillars of Islam [5] and mandatory for every single Muslim to fulfil, except for the aforementioned reasons. The penalty for ignoring these without a valid legislative reason is severe. Yet, Allah from His Mercy and Justice has absolved those who are incapable of fulfilling these obligations. Hence, a disability is not considered a hindrance, let alone a sign of punishment, but rather as a blessing; similar to all the other blessings our Lord has provided each and every one of us. Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

It is for this reason that Abu Bakr as-Siddique, the first leader after Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings of Allah) and his best friend, was said to have remarked upon seeing a bird in a garden:

And he said:

In the end we are guaranteed that when the Day of Judgment comes, not an atoms worth of injustice will be committed towards the servants of Allah:

Note: We are wondering why Project Naad conveniently decided to overlook the first example related to “the incineration of six million Jews by their Nazi exterminators”, as well as the powerfully persuasive second example; both of which we reproduce for the readers’ edification:

Project Naad again concedes: “The Karmic model would state that it was a combination of their previous lives deeds and deeds performed in their current life which lead to the unlucky 242,000 being killed by the Earthquake. So these people would have indeed earned this seemingly harsh end to their lives.”

What can one say to this absurdly cold, heartless and inexplicable explanation?

It boggles the mind that there exists a religious group who hold as their creed the notion that six million “unlucky” Jews “earned this seemingly harsh end to their lives”? According to them, these Jews were guilty sinners who were destined to be punished at the hands of the Nazis and deservedly so since this is from the so-called justice of WaheGuru.

However, a more interesting question arises, which we hope Project Naad will be brave enough to answer.

Were the Sikhs Massacred in 1984 also Guilty Sinners Deserving of Punishment?

Sikhs often commemorate the Delhi massacre of 1984 where some 3000 of their co-religionists were massacred following the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Will Project Naad be willing to apply the above rationale by boldly proclaiming that all those Sikhs were “unlucky” and “earned this seemingly harsh end to their lives”? Will they confess that it was only right and just that the massacred hundreds deserved such an ignominious end on account of their sins?

We also ask Project Naad why Sikh’s demand justice for this massacre and/or why crocodile tears are shed for other genocides and massacres around the world when these “unlucky” souls were deservedly butchered for retribution. How can Sikhs deem these massacres and genocides unjust when Waheguru has established such a perfect system of justice? Are Sikhs claiming that Waheguru’s inexorable law of Karma is unjust?

We seek refuge in Allah from such confusion.

The Islamic model would state that, “people receive punishment after they have consciously chosen to disobey the commandments and violate the edicts of their Lord, i.e. they have knowledge of right and wrong and based upon this they continue to go ahead and do wrong, before they are subjected to any type of worldly punishment.”
This seems great on the outset; however it fails to explain why babies and young children died in the earthquake. Surely they could not have consciously chosen to disobey the edicts of their Lord?

Correct, they could not disobey the edicts of their Lord. As explained earlier, a child cannot be held accountable precisely because it has not developed the full faculties of reason, maturity and comprehension. Hence, it dies as a result of the consequences of the earthquake, but certainly not as a guilty sinner that must pay for its crimes; a point Project Naad and Sikhs cannot escape from.

This is where the additional insight from the Karmic model provides the missing link to the puzzle as the only way children and babies could suffer death in such traumatic way would be if there was a past life reason.

To reiterate the argument for the umpteenth time: We have already shown that suffering is arbitrary and relative and thus not synonymous with guilt and punishment. This is a problem that Islam does not fall into; but, which Sikhism inevitably does. Pay attention:

11.4 Karma abdicates personal responsibility

On the face of it, the Karmic theory seems alluring since it merely shifts the immediate consequences of one’s actions to past lives. However, when viewed holistically, this concept leads not only to apathy, but also a very real undermining of the meaning of the term: personal responsibility.
We have seen that all outcomes in life are inexorably linked to the actions of past lives. From this it was understood that blame cannot be assigned to a person or people who choose to do a particular action since these actions, and the results, are a direct consequence of actions carried out in previous lives.
This concept shifts any immediate blame from the one who consciously committed wrong to his/her alleged past life. Hence, the Karmic theory abdicates complete personal responsibility from that person and places it squarely upon unrecollectable past lives, which, as we saw, has no real tangible connection to one’s present life.
It is an incredible proposition that this theory provides one with the excuse of shrugging off responsibility for any wrongdoing with the comforting thought that they were merely forced to enact actions in order to pay off some mysterious karmic debt.

11.4.1 Answer

This question has already been answered previously. But in summary in no way does karma abdicate personal responsibility.
It is incorrect understanding to suggest that the actions of a being in his/her current life are the results of previous lives. In every life we are given free will to choose between good and bad and the choices we make will lead us closer to or further away from God.
It is ONLY correct to suggest that the results of actions performed in our current life are a summation of the actions in both this life and in previous lives.

Ibid.

11.5 Origin of Bad Karma

According to the Karmic theory, our Karma is an accumulation of evil actions stemming from past lives and is responsible for suffering in this life. However, a unique dilemma arises.
If we take the present life to be the 100th life and the suffering that occurs is from the 99th life and the Karma of the 99th life stemmed from the 98th life, etc. one would eventually come to life number one. Since there was no life before the 1st, the question we ask is: Where did this karma originate from?
According to SGGS, we began to believe our mind and body to be our own, which resulted in the cycle of birth and rebirths:
“kaachae bhaaddae saaj nivaajae anthar joth samaaee. jaisaa likhath likhiaa dhhur karathai ham thaisee kirath kamaaee. man than thhaap keeaa sabh apanaa eaeho aavan jaanaa. jin dheeaa so chith n aavai mohi andhh lapattaanaa.
“He created and adorned the earthen vessels (human bodies) and infused His Light within them. As is the destiny pre-ordained by the Creator, so are the deeds we do. The human began to believe that the mind and body were all his own; this is the cause of his coming (births) and going (rebirths). He does not think of the One who gave him these; he is blind, entangled in emotional attachment.” (AGGS, M 5, p. 882)
The question that follows is: When did this occur and what was the initial reason behind man acquiring this free-thinking aberration?
Guru Arjun Dev in SGGS asks:
“jab kachh na see-o tab ki-aa kartaa kavan karam kar aa-i-aa: When nothing existed, what deeds were being done? And what Karma caused anyone to be born at all?” (SGGS p.748 Arjun Dev)
Likewise, Bhagat Naam asks: “Saasat no hotaa Bed naa hotaa karam kahaan te aa-i-aa: When there was no Shastras and no Vedas, where did the Karma come from?” (SGGS p.973 Nam Dev)
However, this above explanation opens up a whole new can of worms. If the cycle of birth-rebirth was kick-started by those free-thinking humans, it stands to reason that this cycle of birth-rebirth did not exist amongst their ancestors.
If this is true, then the question is:
What type of belief did they hold and did they only share the understanding of the Semitic religions of just one life?
Another interesting question is: Why did these pre-Karmic humans not achieve liberation from the cycle of birth-rebirth and become one with God?
Had this occurred, the existence of karma would not arise. Or perhaps even more profoundly, they would not have formulated the reincarnation-transmigrational theory and accepted the just revelatory truth of Islam.

11.5.1 Answer

There is no can of worms here just misconceptions about Karma. Karma came into being when the material universe came into being just the same way gravity came into being. Karma is simply a universal law within nature.
The author of the above text is correct in thinking that there was no Karma before creation, however as soon as a being was created then its karma would start from that specific point in time.
The belief that the first humans in Satyug held would have been those of the Indian religions including Karma and Reincarnation. This history of divine avatars and sages in the different ages is recorded in Bhai Gurdas Vaars.
Again there is no such thing as pre-karmic humans. You can’t have zero gravity humans on earth because gravity affects everyone. Similarly Karma affects everyone and no one can escape it.

An intriguing answer that does indeed open up a can of worms.

If there were no “pre-karmic humans”, it stands to reason that those first humans “infused” with the light of god must have immediately come to the conclusion “that the mind and body were all his own” leading to a “cause of his coming (births) and going (rebirths)”.

Perhaps the argument may be forwarded that these first humans were reincarnated from pre-existing serpents, goblins (?), pigs, and other creatures, as derived from the following inexplicable verse, which we analysed in the article: The Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration:

This brings into the equation the following questions:

If these first humans were not reincarnated from the said pre-existing creatures, then the following questions arise:

This Karmic story seems to get stranger and stranger with every answer we receive.

11.6 Sikhism is ridiculous

We have seen from the above arguments how the notion of karma leads to absurdities and mind-boggling scenarios that point to two possible conclusions:

• God is unjust for subjecting mankind to a countless number of lives, wherein so much suffering is endured, based upon the indefensible reasons derived from the Karmic Law.
• God is all-just, but Sikhism is untrue and man-invented explaining why such insurmountable problems exist when attempting to justify reincarnation-transmigrations
• May Allah guide us all away from falsehood and towards the clarity and light of our Creator and His Truth so that our hearts become united upon a singular understanding and worship of Him; brothers and sisters upon a singular faith and creed.

11.6.1 Answer

We have looked at the mechanics of reincarnation and a great deal of scientific evidence to support the reality of such a phenomenon. In light of such evidence it would be small minded to suggest that this is a fantastical idea.
Sikhs believe that God is indeed just and that reincarnation is a testimony to his love for his children. Sikhs uses the tools of experience of divinity, logic, common sense, science and the eternal principles of the Guru Granth Sahib to understand their relationship with creation and the Creator. Sikhism is very much a Dharma for the modern age.

What worth this so-called scientific evidence if the inherent injustices of the Karmic theory remain unresolved?

Research and Evidence Against Reincarnation

This so-called evidence itself is highly questionable with critics and debunkers aplenty. We have covered in detail the alleged evidences presented by past-life and reincarnationist propagandists in the following article: Evidence for Reincarnation DEBUNKED

In the end the question still remains: Where does this bulk of information leave Project Naad and others desperate to validate the patently unjust theory of Karma?
Our point in presenting the above research is to show two things:

12 Conclusions

It is a healthy trend that today and in recent times, belief in reincarnation is on the increase. Poll after poll has shown that a steady and growing number of people are coming to believe in the idea of reincarnation. This trend has been particularly pronounced in industrialized Western countries. For instance, some representative numbers are that in the United states and Europe, around 25% of people believe in reincarnation, the figure for the United Kingdom is around 30%. The growth in the numbers of people who believe in reincarnation are demonstrated by these figures: in 1968, 23% of people in France believed in reincarnation versus 28% in 1990. Comparable figures for the United Kingdom over the same time period are 18% versus 30%.
In the West, where once belief in the transmigration of souls was seen as the reserve for eccentrics or oddballs, these days the idea is quite commonly accepted. It is worth noting that young people, that is those in the 15 to 30 age group, are disproportionately represented in the statistics which show a growing belief in reincarnation, i.e. there exists a greater tendency among the young to subscribe to a belief in reincarnation. This trend encourages the hope that perhaps in the future, the idea of reincarnation will become the dominant doctrine concerning the nature of eternal life (God willing).

Here Project Naad has once again committed the argumentum ad populum/ numerum “appeal to the people/ number” – a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true on the basis of how many people support it.

In conclusion, we leave the astute reader to make up his/ her mind over the veracity that is the unjust theory of Karma.

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

[1] Readers who have already read our rebuttal of Project Naad’s defence of the Nirgun-Sargun Conundrum will be familiar with its self-defeatist acceptance that truth can be found in contradictions. We would also recommend one read the Logic and the Law of non-Contradiction, for a more thorough understanding of this untenable theological position.
[2] Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration
[3] Not to be confused with ‘duotheism’, ‘bitheism’ or ‘ditheism’, which implies a belief in two equally powerful gods with complementary properties.
[4] Liqaa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh
[5] Prophet Muhammad said:

[6] Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration
[7] We have covered this topic in detail showing how untenable this concept is and how it theologically renders the Creator as inherently unjust. See the Absurdities of Reincarnation-Transmigration.