IslamSikhism.com World's 1st Sikh Da'wah Initiative
We respond to an article quietly published on reddit.com titled: Philosophical Refutation of the “IslamSikhism” Admin on Nirgun-Sargun Conceptualization of God – Written by Anon Friend.
Abu Adeeba of the polemics site “IslamSikhism” has attacked Sikhi multiple times for believing in the concept of Nirgun-Sargun. His criticisms are based on misunderstandings and are lukewarm at best. In this post, we will defend Sikh theology but also show how absurd it is from his side to reject such theology as he also subscribes to it.
Finally someone from the Sikh community has re-awoken to take on our arguments exposing the contradictory concept of Sikh theology that is the Nirgun-Sargun dichotomy. [1] What makes this one especially interesting is the accusation that we are guilty of applying double-standards for refuting a religion whose doctrinal principles apparently mirror our very own. Not only is this Sikh challenging the principles that underpin Islam’s orthodox theology, but is aiming to refute them as well. The game’s afoot!
He Himself is formless, and also formed; the One Lord is without attributes, and also with attributes. (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ang 250)
From the verse, it might seem the verse alludes to the fact God is simultaneously attributeless and with attributes, positing an inherently contradictory statement. However, this is an example of a poetic device known as a “Paradox”. A paradox seems inherently contradictory and foolish on the surface, yet when you dig deep, it reveals a further truth. This is standard seventh grade English class knowledge of poetry, which the Mohammedan [2] somehow cannot comprehend. Yet the English translation is wrong. To explain why; I am referring to Prof Sahib Singh’s commentary (Guru Granth Sahib Darpan) of Ang 250
Here he gives definitions of the terms described in the verse:
Guna/ Attribute = The three qualities that sustain Maya/ created reality (Raj-Tamo-Satva)
Nirgun = God not revealing himself through the three qualities of Maya/ created reality
Sargun = God revealing himself through the three qualities of Maya/ created reality
This basically entails that God is transcendent and immanent.
We have written a number of articles over the past two decades containing copious citations from learned Sikh scholars and academics, which include the traditionalists, in support of our position. To assert, therefore, that we have attacked this contradictory concept on the basis of this solitary verse alone, and done so based on our own understanding, is patently false. Sadly, this is not the first time that such underhanded tactics have been utilised against us over the years. [3]
Be that as it may, the more crucial question is whether this Sikh’s attempt at modifying the definitions of Nirgun and Sargun succeed in circumventing the accusation that they stand in contradiction to each other. Although we will examine this in more detail below, let us firstly take this argument at face value and ask how our opponent endeavours to reconcile Sahib Singh’s vague explanation with those of his colleagues, who present an understanding more in line with ours than his.
Take Professor Vir Singh’s (Vir Singh 1950: 393–4) rendition of Guru Nanak’s well-known composition of Asa di Var (462:17- 475:10; specifically 463:4-5) in the Guru Granth:
Notice how Vir, despite affirming the obvious dichotomy between the Creator and the creation, nevertheless insists that the two somehow manage to co-exist as a single, inseparable whole. And as if to allay any doubts regarding his position in this regard, Vir elucidates below that although Waheguru brought the world into existence separately, he should not be deemed distinct from it, and neither should this creation be numerically designated as the second (meaning, presumably, secondary) in relation to him:
This duality is expressed even more starkly by Professor Wazir Singh, who goes so far as to ascribe both a finite and infinite nature to Waheguru, wherein the former is contradictorily “contained” or “absorbed” in the latter:
Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair not only delineates Guru Nanak’s resolute commitment towards the inseparability of these two contrastive states, but even goes so far in recognising the obvious tension that exists between this model and the fundamental a priori laws of logic:
nirgun aap sargun bhi ohi
The One is simultaneously existent (has form) and non-existent (formless).
sargun nirgun nirankar, sunn samadhi aap, apan kia Nanaka, ape hi phir jap
With form and without form, the Absolute [i]n trance like void, maintains self-nature. From the same impulse, O Nanak, [c]reation happens, and is eternally repeated.
What the above verses suggest is that the One cannot be thought other than through the simultaneous co-implication of transcendence and immanence, which not only contradicts the transcendental logic of classical theism but, through reference to form (sargun) and immanence, shifts the work of thinking away from speculating on the origin and cause of cosmic creation towards contemplation on the processes of human individuation. [7] (bold, underline ours)
Despite acknowledging the incoherency of Waheguru being “simultaneously existent (has form) and non-existent (formless)”, the irony is that Arvind-Pal attempts to play the same card as our opponent by diverting the focus to anything other than the obvious implications surrounding this transcendent-cum-immanent nature.
This obvious sense of embarrassment, which sees God unmistakably being portrayed through the use of oxymoronic language, before being qualified using reconciliatory rhetoric, is certainly not unique with Arvind-Pal. Rajinder Kaur’s entire chapter on the Immanence and Transcendence of God epitomises this strategy, being replete with similar descriptive incongruities regarding Waheguru. Insisting that God as “the Creator, the Maker of Order, the Law-Giver, is not debarred from indwelling His creation. His creativity implies His indwelling of His creation”, she points out:
Rajinder continues by declaring: “God is also transcendent because the immanence of God is not identical with the whole being of God.” [9] (bold, underline ours) This is a shocking admission, since not only does it all but admit Waheguru being comprised of two mutually-exclusive identities, but also challenges notions of his indivisibility and oneness. She, then, paradoxically quotes verses from the Guru Granth that essentially undermine her knee-jerk attempt at reconciliation when she says that “Immanence and Transcendence are complementary concepts of God”:
In fact, it is worth citing her at length to witness the lengths to which people, who are forced to swallow a doctrine as mentally-oppressive as Sikhism’s, will go to to deludingly convince themselves that all is coherent in their man-made religion:
Transcendence and immanence are relative terms. The question of immanence and transcendence arises when God is viewed in relation to the universe. God, as He reveals Himself in the cosmos, is looked upon as the Transcendent and the Immanent, but beyond His revelation. He is neither the transcendent not [sic] the immanent, yet with equal reality both transcendent and immanent. God in action is the Manifest and Unmanifest; the Defined and the Undefined; the Form and the Formless, the Existent and the Non-Existent; all that is and all that is not.
The Punjabi words most frequently used for the immanence and transcendence of God are ‘Nere’ and ‘Dur’ near and far; ‘Pargut’ and ‘Gupat’ the Manifest and the Unmanifest; ‘Asthul’ and ‘Sukham’ Gross and Subtle, Seen and the unseen; ‘Akar’ and ‘Nirakar’, wilh Form and without Form; ‘Sargun’ and ‘Nirgun’ with attributes and without any attribute. [10] (bold ours)
Then follows her unconvincing effort at reconciliation:
The irony here is that, while the Guru may not have felt compelled to arrive at some compromise, his brave followers in Rajinder et al. certainly did:
If it takes such jumbled jargon and inanity to arrive at a compromise, little wonder the Guru decided against it.
It is obvious that the manner in which these dual concepts of Nirgun and Sargun have been understood by the Sikh scholars and academics above, and the many others we have quoted over the years, is far more nuanced and obvious than the simplistic way in which this Sikh is seeking to portray Waheguru.
God decides whether to remain hidden or to reveal himself to his devotees through divine theophanies. Hence Sargun means the phenomenal experience of God on the status of attributes, traditional Sikh thought subscribes to Mereological Simplicity where the essence of God and his attributes are identical. This is in sharp contrast to Sunni beliefs of God’s essence having many subsisting attributes leading to multiple necessary beings (do not ask how it does not entail polytheism).
According to this approach, the problem regarding the coherency of Sikh theology is not with the model of God, but rather the epistemological approach we have been utilising all this time. We are being asked to apply “seventh grade English class knowledge of poetry” by making recourse to the interpretive lens of divine theophany, which involves a person claiming to have experienced the divine through God revealing Himself in one form or another.
We do not believe in God being present as some abstract attributeless monad or the impersonal reality of Adi Shankaracharya Ji (completely Nirgun). To quote Isher Singh Kashiwale in his magnum opus “Sri Gurmat Digvijay” (pg.120):
A manner of consideration which denies the existence of Ishvar (God) as a Purakh (personal deity) is the false philosophy of those not possessing wisdom concerning the nature of reality.
It is an absurdity to believe a transcendent God can’t produce theophanies for his devotees.
Bhai Nand Lal expresses the Sargun Saroop seen by his closest devotees as the “nur” of God. It is a fundamentally mystical concept seen in every faith till an extent. Now if the Mohammedan denies God revealing himself to his creation in the material reality, he would start having to deny his own scriptures and scholars.
It should be noted from the outset that we have never denied divine theophanies per se. The allegation, therefore, that our argument for Waheguru existing contradictorily somehow implies a denial of theophanies is false.
Before attending to the assertion regarding “Sunni beliefs of God’s essence having many subsisting attributes leading to multiple necessary beings”, let us return to the crux of this response and the question of whether God contradictorily exists both with and without attributes. Has this Sikh managed to rebut our original argument by making recourse to the notion of theophanies? Not quite.
For starters, God revealing Himself to a devotee through His Sargun state does nothing to address the accusation that Waheguru occupies two mutually-exclusive modes of existence. Even this attempt at redefining Nirgun and Sargun as some manifestation of the divine raises more questions than answers. For instance, is this revealing, manifesting or appearing through or in creation done partially or fully? If it is the former, then does this entail divisibility in God, with Him somehow comprising of both a manifested and unmanifested dual nature? If it is the latter, then how does a being, fully defined in one way and one way only, exist simultaneously in the opposite way?
This individual’s stab at playing the philosopher provides us the opportunity of inquiring into Waheguru’s relationship to time both sans creation (meaning, without creation) and with its becoming. Hence, in response to the simplistic claim that “traditional Sikh thought subscribes to Mereological Simplicity where the essence of God and his attributes are identical”, we would ask our intrepid Sikh philosopher whether Waheguru existed timelessly or temporally sans creation, and whether this state of affairs remained the same with its becoming, or changed, and, if so, how.
We might also inquire into whether Waheguru existed changelessly sans creation or not (if not, then what activity would he have been involved in), and whether this deity remained changeless at the point of creation, or underwent some type of internal and/ or external change. Of course, answers to all these questions necessarily go back to our philosophical opponent demonstrating how each position impacts on Waheguru’s nature in relation to the concepts of Nirgun and Sargun. Answers to these questions we are absolutely confident will fully unveil the incoherency of Sikh theology.
[T]raditional Sikh thought subscribes to Mereological Simplicity where the essence of God and his attributes are identical. This is in sharp contrast to Sunni beliefs of God’s essence having many subsisting attributes leading to multiple necessary beings (do not ask how it does not entail polytheism).
Before addressing the examples of divine theophany attributed to Islam by this Sikh, let us firstly tackle this nonsensical argument of polytheism being entailed by the affirmation of divine attributes. Although we are, again, faced with an acute lack of necessary detail, especially in the case of a subject as intricate as this where Divine Simplicity (mereology, which deals with the theological question of metaphysical parts existing in God, is a part of this subject) is being pitted against its counterpart, we have no qualms in digging deeper if that means exposing the falsehood of Sikhism from a philosophical stance.
Having said that though, in this case, we can only wrestle with what is immediately before us. Hence, without being required to go into too much depth, we would ask our opponent, given that the onus is upon the claimant, to demonstrate how the affirmation of divine attributes subsisting in the essence of God – both existing as purely mental abstract notions with no external concrete existence – entails a composition of divine parts externally concomitant to Him such that He is dependent upon them. To be sure, the hidden assumption in this approach is that some realist conception of reality needs to be assumed for this argument to follow through.
Quran 7:143 describes Moses seeing Allah when he revealed himself on Mount-Sinai. Moses saw Allah and fainted while the mountain crumbled. Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the verses posits Allah showed his finger to Moses on the mountain. Yes, his “real” fingers. And this view is based on a Sahih Hadith stating the same. Maarif Al-Quran states God revealed some of his “light” on the mountain.
The Qur’an establishes an unequivocal principle that there is no ontological similarity between the Creator and His creation: “And there is nothing comparable to Him,” (112:1-4) and: “There is nothing like unto Him…” (42:11). This dissimilarity, however, does not imply a complete negation of any resemblance to the point of absolute ineffability. This fact is demonstrated by the inference Ibn Taymiyya draws from a statement of the erudite companion of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Ibn Abbas (one of the most knowledgeable exegetes of the Qur’an), who said: “There is nothing in this world that is in Paradise, except names.”:
Thus, if these realities that Allah has informed us of agree in name with the realities present in this world, and there is no resemblance between them, in fact, there is such a difference between them that only Allah knows of, then the Creator’s difference to that of creation will be even greater than the differences present between different creations themselves. The difference between Him and creation is far greater than the difference between what is present I the hereafter and what is present in this world, since a particular type of creation is closer to another creation it agrees with in name than the Creator is to creation. This is very clear and evident. …
Allah named Himself and His Attributes with certain names, and with these (same) names, He named some of His creation. He named Himself the Living, Knower, Hearer, Seer, Mighty, Compeller, Supreme, King, Kind and Merciful. Allah also named some of His creation as knower, forbearing, kind merciful, hearer, seer, king, mighty, compeller and supreme. It is very clear that the former Knower (i.e. Allah) is not like the latter knower (i.e. a creation of his), this Forbearing is not like that forbearing, this Hearer is not like that hearer and so on with the rest of Allah’s names. [13]
With this understanding in mind, we adhere to an objective criterion that necessitates amodal affirmation of all the divine names and attributes transmitted by Allah and/ or His Messenger in a manner free of anthropomorphism and resemblance to His creation, and without reinterpretation and distortion of their obvious and apparent meanings, arbitrary negation, or subjectively prioritising some over others as necessary. This objectivity ensures that not only are we confident that our belief, understanding and worship follows on from and directly matches that taught by our Prophet (pbuh) and practiced by his immediate followers, but also safeguards the truth from the subjective standards concocted by those latecomers who would otherwise threaten to either reduce God to an abstract entity, or an apophatic deity whose existence would virtually be denied through the process of extreme negation.
Hence, when we are informed that God is existent, knowledgeable, powerful, merciful, loving, just, etc., and that He not only wills, acts, speaks, ascends, sees, hears, grasps, etc., but also has a face, hands, foot, eyes, and, yes, finger tips, etc., the aforementioned criteria of affirmation has us accept all His divine attributes free of incoherency and falsehoods.
Ahmad Hanbal, founder of the Hanbali school (the one which Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim scholar quoted before followed) believed that Allah showed himself to the prophet as a young boy with curly hair and red clothes in his dreams. Ibn Taymiyyah agrees with this in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah (7:192-198). Though it is to be noted, this does not really mean God is a young boy of such nature. It is just the Prophet sees Allah as a young boy being unable to comprehend his true form (in Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion). Still is a divine theophany though. Such theophanies are jam packed in the Quran and Hadiths. Stating them would make this too long, so we would stop here for now.
We have nothing more to add here except to succinctly underscore the evident difference between the two events: Allah revealing His actual self, albeit restrictedly, in the real world; and the act of dreaming, which is a purely abstract experience with no actual extra-mental existence.
So doctrinally, a Mohammedan should have no issue with the concept of “Nirgun-Sargun” (transcendent and immanent)
As we have demonstrated, this individual’s poor attempt at shifting the goal posts of the argument by redefining these terms has failed.
[1] We were only alerted to this post, quietly published by our brave little anonymous ‘friend’ circa June 2024, via email from an observant Muslim.
[2] Is the insinuation through the use of this offensive, antiquated term Mohammedan meant to be that Muslims worship the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him; henceforth abbreviated: pbuh)? If so, then this Sikh must know that it is strictly forbidden for any Muslim to associate any partner in the worship of the one and only true God, Allah. Since worship is defined as a comprehensive term that encompasses all that Allah loves and is pleased with from the speech and actions of His servants (be they conspicuous or inconspicuous), this Sikh would do well to also know that calling upon Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), let alone anyone else, for aid and assistance, while believing that, despite being deceased, he can directly hear and has the power to grant the supplicant’s plea, constitutes the greatest crime against God, which is known as Shirk in Arabic.
In fact, so strict was our Prophet (pbuh) against the pure worship of Allah – known as Tawheed in Arabic, which denotes singling God out with all the forms of worship designated by Him – that his wife ‘A’isha reported:
[3] The last time we highlighted this deceitful trend, which seeks to portray us in this isolated way, was in response to ChardiKala in our article Gurmukh-Kafir Manmukh-Muslim & Bhai Gurdas:
Of course, it is far easier to defend the accusation that we are “deliberately twisting Sikh writing”, than it is to accuse us of deliberately twisting the explanations and conclusions of this author’s Sikh brethren who, unlike this unknown individual, are known for their qualifications and credentials.
Sadly, this sloppy approach at a refutation, where sources are just dismissively ignored, only happens to fit a general trend followed by our opponents that stretches back to when our website first started almost two decades ago. How many times have we had to deal with Sikhs who publish disingenuous rejoinders that seek to misrepresent our editorials in this underhanded way?
[4] C. Shackle (2008), Repackaging the Ineffable: Changing Styles of Sikh Scriptural Commentary, (Bulletin of SOAS, 71, 2, pp. 273-4, School of Oriental and African Studies), p. 19.
[5] Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[6] W. Singh (1981), Philosophy of Sikh Religion, (Ess Ess Publications, Punjabi University, Patiala), pp. 13-4.
[7] A-P.S. Mandair (2022), Sikh Philosophy, (Bloomsbury Academic), pp. 108-9.
[8] R. Kaur (2003), God in Sikhism, (Golden Offset Press (SGPC), Amritsar), p. 51.
[9] Ibid., p. 67.
[10] Ibid., pp. 68-9.
[11] Ibid., pp. 69-70.
[12] Ibid., p. 71.
[13] M. ibn K. al-Tamimi (2002), Tawhid of Allah’s Most Beautiful Names & Attributes, (Al-Hidayah Publishing & Distribution), pp. 119-120.
What Sikhs don’t realize is the simple fact that if God was to be everywhere and interfere in human matters while being a part of them (instead of being above them), a plethora of things would be compromised from the most basic levels to the highest ones. A good example of one of them is the ‘concept of justice’. We in fact see human judges in the courts sitting above all to serve justice. If the judge was to dwell among both sides i.e. speak from and for both sides, how could justice be served? I can already hear the Sikhs screaming “but God can do everything”. Yes He can do everything, and by the same logic we can say that He can deny to serve us humans any justice at all without any justification from His side; how does that sound now? Absolutely unfair, right? And this is exactly the point. If God was to reside in both parties, justice wouldn’t make any sense in human societies, nor to the human minds.
Now what makes sense for the sound human mind is when we believe that Allah azzawajal is above His creation and nothing is above Him, and from there He can serve justice to even a small ant.
This was just one example; there’s literally everything wrong with this ideology that God exists everywhere and He can be found in all human matters. Instead of having this filthy belief that God is residing in everything and executing tasks -ve or +ve, why not believe sensibly that it’s God who decides all the postive and negative matters, and judges accordingly, while being absolutely separate and above from all?
And 3 more things that I’d like to add:
1. Sikhism has philosophy and pantheism as it’s base. Having studied philosophy when I was a kafir, I now know 2 things about philosophy:
A. Most parts of philosophy change with time and differ from one place to another, and whatever changes with time we know that it’s not the truth. Truth never changes, we know.
B. Philosophy is a self-refutable ideology. One person can write a whole book on certain philosophical idea, while someone else can write a single paper and refute that whole book in one go.
C. Pantheism is absolutely an extension of polytheism just with some “cute words” added to it in order to please the modern society, liberal-secular agenda.
2. Sikhs can all understand this mental gymnastics; but when we simply tell them that “God has attributes sounding similar to human attributes like eyes, face and hand but are in no way absolutely similar and limited like them nor are they just metaphors, but they’re in a way that befits His majesty” they don’t seem to catch a letter.
3. When I say Sikhism is actually an extension of Hinduism – and I’ve seen the Sikhs following Hindus at every step – it’s no joke. The similar claim made by Hindus that “we’ve reformed our dharma” is made by Sikhs “we can reform our panth with the changing times”. The one and only claim of Hindus that I agree with is “Sikhs are the children of Hindus”.
The one and only religion that possesses the authority to be called a religion today is Islam. The firmness, the strictness, the discipline, the complete guide of rules and regulations (while yet having leniency at the necessary places), makes it unmatchable, such that it doesn’t allow a man whom Allah azzawajal created dignified! Not to bow like a donkey to the “changes & reforms” of the changing societies and times. Alhamdulillah.
Wa assalamu alaikum. Please pray for the hidaya of my parents.
Wa salaam and jazakallahu khairan for your input.
Yup, there is so much that can be said about this nonsensical theology known as Creatio ex Deo, which is the notion that God literally creates the world from His own self such that He is both the material source and the material cause of the world.
For instance, and very briefly, given that Sikhs, in general, believe that the Nirgun sarup of Waheguru is wholly transcendent with him existing timelessly, i.e. existing without time, we might ask how such a being interacts with the world through His Sargun sarup, where he is said to also be a part of creation and time, but still remain timeless?
In short, how does Waheguru exist both in time (temporally) and outside of time (timelessly), at the same time and in the same respect? Do these Sikhs believe that God comprises of literally two-halves? If so, then how does this impact on God’s knowledge of changing tensed facts? If not, then that would presumably make things even worse when it comes to forwarding a rationally coherent defence.
You will find them absolutely silent on this and other contradictory issues regarding their deity. That is why they are forced to resort to either desperate diversionary tactics, or irrational rejoinders.
“They follow nothing but conjecture and do nothing but lie.” (Qur’an 6:116)
Wa iyyaka.
Exactly brother. Sikhs have big mouths when talking about spirituality and philosophy. But when it comes to someone questioning it, the only lame claim-cum-blame they’re left with every single time is, “You don’t believe in the power of God! He can do everything.” I don’t know how many a times we’ll have to repeat that, yes, indeed God can do everything; but if He started doing everything He likes, most part of it would be disliked by His creation, like making crimes lawful.
Now let’s just, for the sake of argument, say that God is sargun; then why ever be bothered by anything bad or sinful anyone does? Let’s make everything lawful and nothing unlawful, because all the blame is ultimately upon God and God is never wrong so there’s nothing bad and all is good. Lol, I felt like a kid saying that.
The sole reason why I’m bringing this whole argument up again and again to human-level and justice, is because I believe that Sikhs will never be able to justify their ideology this way, because they never think about it that way. Making hugely unjustified and half/poorly-explained claims about spirituality every single time is easy; but it neither makes any sense in human lives nor does it bring any (good) difference to them.
Now on the other hand we’ve Allah azzawajal, THE LORD OF EVERYTHING. The helpful one who implements, gives, as well as orders/ demands justice. The compassionate Lord who doesn’t prevent His slaves from knowing Him, and the merciful Lord who introduces His own mighty self in the Qur’an to make it easy for His slaves to know Him, in the most simplest of the ways, with the simplest of words, and without any sort of confusion about Him. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil ‘Aalimin.
May Allah azzawajal bring both of my innocent parents out of this copy-pasted cult from Hinduism that arose from the political conflicts of the 17th century, and which possesses nothing for it to be called a religion.
And may Allah azzawajal bless you for your efforts towards His deen. Tackling polytheism is easy, but tackling a people who feel no shame making absurd claims about God, while continually changing their claims having (falsehood) philosophy as their tool, is something that requires extreme dedication.