Islam-sikhism - Theology (the Attributeless Waheguru)

7/28/2019 Islam-sikhism - Theology (the Attributeless Waheguru)

1/18

The Sealed Nectar [Ar

Raheeq Al MakhtoomSaifiur-Rahman Al-...Best 8.50

Privacy Information

By Abu Adeeba

INTRODUCTION

Since the publication in 2006 of our first article, The Nirgun-Sargun Conundrum, which soughexpose Sikhism's contradictory theology-proper of God, we have successfully responded toattempts at defending this incoherent concept. [1]

However, as is the case with all false theologies, there is more to this conundrum than meetseye; and so the aim of this paper is to further unveil the inconsistencies inherent in this ortho

This will be done by critiquing the Nirgunsaroop (form) of God sans attributes. Before this is

undertaken, however, it is necessary, given the conspicuously apparent interpretationaldifferences that exist among Sikh scholars vis--vis the theology of God, that we firstly delin

this disparity.

Once this is achieved, it will be contrasted against the coherent Islamic doctrine ofTawheed

(Unity of Allaah's existence) and its theological principles in order to demonstrate which theolproper of God truly upholds both His absolute perfection and the theistic apodictic belief thatis, as St Anselm of Canterbury famously put it, "the greatest conceivable being" in every posrespect in comparison to which nothing greater, in any way, can possibly exist.

SIKH PANTHEISM?

Sikh theology holds that God was, at one stage, sans attributes; that is to say, He was

"attributeless" or "unattributed" prior to the becoming of the temporal world. This notion hasdelineated by a number of prominent Sikh scholars in different ways. For example, GurbachaSingh Talib puts it thus:

This EK Oankar is the transcendental, unattributed Absolute. In other words, it is tha

which is above all Existence, has no attributes, since these will limit its absolutenessEternity. [2]

While Dr Surjit Singh Gandhi affirms:

God is both Nirguna - Absolute and Sarguna - immanent. For Guru Nanak, God in hiprimal aspect is absolute, unconditional and attributeless. He who unfolded the threeGunas has made His abode in the fourth. In this absolute aspect God is beyond thescope of human comprehension.... But in order that he should be within the range of human perception, He endowsHimself with attributes. [3]

It is understood from Prof G. S. Talib that in the Nirgun state, God is void of all attributes:

He is nirguna or without attributes. Yet He is saguna or with attributes, too, because

the manifested state all attributes are His. [4]

m-Sikhism - Theology (THE ATTRIBUTELESS WAHEGURU) http://www.islam-sikhism.info/theo/sifaat01.ht

18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


2/18

Similarly, Dr Rajinder Kaur Rohi states:

Being full of attributes (saguna), He is (nirguna) without any attribute also. [5]

Immanence and transcendence, with attributes and beyond attributes, relative andabsolute are the qualities of the one and the only one; God, Who alone possesses tqualities and yet remains beyond the qualities and exists in the perfect unity of His b[6]

In spite of attempted efforts made by Sikh scholars in forwarding reconciliatory explanationsthese two divergent states, there exists a distinct lack of congruity over each statesinterrelatedness vis--vis its understanding.

Some Sikh scholars hold that in the Sargun saroop, Waheguru is, in his esse (essential divin

nature), physically part of His creation in the literal sense; while others have adopted adiametrically opposite position.

Of the latter is Prof Daljeet Singh who, on the basis that "the becoming world is His creation,not his emanation; nor is it identical with Him", [7] has concluded that the "description of Hisimmanence and its operation [is] metaphoric[al]" [8]and "a symbolic way of expressing God'connection with the world". [9] He elaborates that since "the universe is in time and space ...

changing and is governed by fixed laws", God, who is "[f]ree" of these limitations and conditi"[can]not [be] determined by any laws known to us". [10]

This figurative rendering of the creator-creation dichotomy is, however, rejected by a numberprominent Sikh scholars.

Prof Wazir Singh, head of the Dept. of Guru Gobind Singh Religious Studies at Punjabi Univein Patiala, holds an entirely opposite theological belief. He is of the opinion that "God is ident

with the universe" (bold ours) and reasons that since "the world as a totality ... [is a] developuniverse which is not a finally perfect order of things ... [then] the nature of God must also bdeveloping; if the world is finite so must be the Divine". [11] (bold, underline ours)

He elaborates:

Most of us, I imagine, who are accustomed to thinking of God, in absolute terms, asperfect, unsurpassable Being, might experience a sense of shock at the descriptionGod in terms of relatively perfect, or a finite being. Recent philosophy, however, hasexperimented with the concept of a finite God, or God in the making. If the universe ia closed or finished being, then the universe of tomorrow would not be the same astoday. God who is identical with the universe of today; will not , therefore, be

identical with the universe of tomorrow, unless He also develops and identifie

Himself with the changed universe. Hence, the concept of the developing nature

God, that is, an unfinished Being in process, or God that is becoming unfolding,actualizing His potentialities. [12] (bold ours)

Prof Wazir is, in actuality, pushed towards acknowledging and embracing this tenuous affirm

of God and His creation being identical because of his literalist interpretation of Waheguru'sNirgun state being "transcendental", "necessary and infinite" and its mutual opposite, Sargun

being "contingent and finite". He explicates:

Those of the idealist philosophers who conceive the Absolute as the necessary, suprand infinite Being, regard the universe as phenomenal, conditioned and finite. The wcontingent as against reality that is necessary, but the world is ultimately absorbed ithe Absolute, since the two cannot be divorced from each other. Evidently, then, the

necessary and infinite Being contains the contingent and finite within itself. T

aspect that is supremely real or sat(i) is indissolubly associated with the aspect that

phenomenal or nam(u). Thus the sat(i)nam(u) of the mul mantra may be interprete

the Real-cum-Apparent, Infinite-Finite, Being-Becoming. It does not mean that the DiBeing lacks perfection; it only implies that in His phenomenal; aspect He is finite,

whereas, in His transcendental aspect He is infinite and perfect . [13] (bold ours)

The pure, shapeless essence turns into cosmic existence, with all its contours andcontents, evolutionary processes and infinite creative advances. [14]

God andbusinesswww.LifesGreatestQue

Hear from a successfulbusinessman How Godcan change your life

FacebookAccount Sign UpFacebook.com

World's Largest OnlineCommunity. Join forFree & Enjoy theBenefits!

Online PrayerRequestFreeWrittenProphecy.c

Send your Online PrayerRequest and receiveanswers to your prayer.

Pastors SermonHelperPreachIt.org/sermons

Our congregationsdeserve our best!Messages To Inspire andRevive

Eternal Life -Salvationwww.biblestudyonjesu

True Belief in JesusChrist. 100s of versesnot heard in church.


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


3/18

The problem with figuratively interpreting Sargun to the exclusion ofNirgun is that no objecti

reason is given for such a seemingly arbitrary choice. Hence, given this glaring problem, asas the vastly more difficult logical problems that arise from the theological position opted forProf Wazir et al (to be further explored in detail below), Daljeet's assumptive approach is an

entirely convenient ad hoc escape route.

And since all of creation is a manifestation of Waheguru's Sargun state, it is completely

understandable why Dr Rohi also champions this more coherent assumption that Wahegurui

the literal sense, intrinsically part of and identical to his creation.

While Daljeet asserts that "God is not the material cause of the world", [15] Dr Rohi holds th"He prevails not only as being the basic substance or the material cause of the world but

as being the Person (purkha) Who creates as being the efficient cause as well" [16] (bold ou

Rohi continues:

It is the manifestation of God Himself in t he forms and the inner essence of

creation. This in fact is the expansion of God in the creation. The creation in other w

is the inflow from the personal being of God. When God wants to create He just

expands Himself int o the forms, so, there is the creation. He Himself exists in th

creation as the very ESSENCE of it . But, at the same time God is unmanifest,

transcendent, formless, in His purely essential nature. [17] (bold, underline, capitals

God is everywhere by His essence, as He is the efficient cause of all being or exist

[18] (bold ours)

God is before space-time, after space-time and, also, in space-time. God as beyo

space-time is named as 'Adesh' and 'Akal'; while God in space-time is named as

'Sarbatr Desh' and 'Sarbatr Kat'. [19] (bold ours)

Dr Gurdip Singh Bhandari illustrates how, before the becoming of the world, "every aspect ofcreation lies dormant in" Waheguru who, prior to the "Divine urge" whereupon the "the Formlassumes form ... and thus this world of a myriad colours takes shape", is in a "state of comptranquillity and oneness". [20] He then states:

God and His creation are one - the creation was merged in Him. God raised thcreation out of Himself. It is a gradual unfoldment of what lay folded within the

Ultimate cause -the Absolute Self.

From the state ofSunya,

The latent form became active.The elements of air and waterWere evolved out ofSunya...

Within the fireWater and living beings is His Light,And the power of Creation lies within Sunya...

FromSunya came out the moon

The sun and the firmament...The earth and heaven have been evolved out ofSunya. (GG, 1037-38) [21]

(bold, underline ours)

Rohi also cites a number of scriptural proofs for her position. After repeating that "every finitinfinite thing and being was created from within God as His own manifestation" she cites GurGobind Singh as declaring:

When God manifested Himself He created countless creatures out of Himselfand

He will withdraw His manifestation, everything will re-absorbed into Him. [22] [23] (bours)

And Guru Arjan Dev is quoted as saying:

Not only of one time or of one world, but for countless times, the countless creationsbeen issued fourth from God and re-absorbed into God. [24] [25]

Rohi also makes mention of a number of similes and metaphors used by the Gurus in making


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


4/18

clear God's immanence:

The simile of the sun and its rays is also very freequently [sic] used. The rays haveindependent existence of their own but are only the light of the sun. In the same wayuniverse only manifests the glory, 'Ashnai' [26] of the Lord. J ust as the sun is presen

its rays, in the same way God is immanent in his manifestations (rather creations).Inpoetical vars, Bhai Gurdas, the best medieval Sikh Mystic Interpreter, has paraphra

this idea in ten stanzas. He says that just as one mind works through different sense

organs, one moon is soon reflected differently in different waters, one copper whenwith different alloys is known by different names, one gold assumes different formsbeaten into different ornaments, from the one and the same seed spring forth bunchleaves, flowers and fruits, all different from each other, from the same cotton are woclothes of different varieties, and from the same sugar and milk are produced variousugar-and-milk products, similarly we see the one God revealing Himself in various f[27]

The simile of'Per' or 'Tarower' (tree) is very common in the Sikh Scripture. J ust as a

is immanent as the essence of every leaf, flower, fruit, branch and seed, in the samGod is present in each and every object, big or small, as its innermost essence. [28]

Prof Manmohan Sehgal of Punjabi University, Patiala, holds that Waheguru "lives within living

beings in the form of soul. After one's death, the part meets the whole and soul is dissolveHim, who is the Absolute Soul. Even the physical elements of the Universe dissolve in Him afthey perish". (bold ours). He further adds:

Hukam is both the cause and the effect and the Lord Himself is at once the Creat

and the Creation:

For without Govind, he see-eth not another, Yea, He the One, the Creator athe Cause. [Guru Granth,p.189]

He has not separated Himself from the Universe after its creation. He is the purakh (that is, He lives within His Creation - omniscient, omnipresent as He is.

Pervadeth He all the spheres and all the parts and peoples of the earth.[Ibid.535] [29] (bold ours)

Likewise, Prof Surjit Singh Gandhi affirms that Waheguru "is omnipresent not only by knowleand power but also by nature His eternal spirit pervades all beings" (bold ours) citing the

following scriptural proof:

"On the mountain is God,In the caves is God,On the earth is God,In the Sky is God,Here is God,

There is God,

In the world is GodIn the firmament is God."(Akal Ustat, 52, 53)

He continues:

The attribute of omnipresence of God also expresses the truth that the Being of Gonot separable from His activity. God is everywhere in the sense that He pervades

everything and He makes His working felt everywhere. [30] (bold ours)

In essence, these explanations are more pantheistic than monotheistic, as Rohi concedes inresponse to Macauliff who, she believes, was "misled ... [towards] the conclusion that the Siview of God is purely Pantheistic". [31] (bold ours) And she recognises that the only distincti

between a purely pantheistic doctrine and a partial one is that the former "reduces God to asubstance or a principle" whilst the latter upholds God as "a Person 'Purakh (Purusa)', 'Kart

Purakh', 'Adi-Purakh', 'Param Purakh', 'Akal-Purakh'". [32]

Daljeet, on the other hand, has set out in a number of his works to counter the position share


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


5/18

the above list of illustrious academics who argue for a more pantheistic conception of Sargu

Although Daljeet accepts that there are "a number of places [in SGGS where] the Guru descGod as informing the river, the fish, the boat, and everything", he condemns any pantheisticconclusions drawn from this as "superficial" because, as stated earlier, "all these verses area symbolic or another way of expressing the immanence of God". [33]

However, rather than responding with an apologetic that is clear, methodical and lucid, Daljesucceeds instead in presenting a confused [34] and jumbled explanation that raises morequestions than answers.

For example, although most Sikh scholars agree, regardless of their differing interpretive staover the Nirgun-Sargun duality, that Waheguru is Ik (One), Daljeet asserts that "when we sa

God is both Transcendent and Immanent, it does not at all mean that there are two parts, stor phases of God. It is the Transcendent God who is everywhere, in each heart, place andparticle. It is He who is both Transcendent and Immanent". [35]

The point of confusion here is with Daljeet's insistence that the Nirgun-Sargun states are not

parts, stages, or phases of God". As already alluded to above, according to Prof Bhandari,before Waheguru assumed form in his Sargun state, "[t]he Gurus ... used 'Sunya' in conjunct

with terms like samadhi, tari (trance, meditation) or sahaj (equipoise, balance) or sach (holy

truth) ... [to] describe the state of complete tranquillity and oneness of the Absolute Self, and

refer to that latent form in which every aspect of creation lies dormant in Him, waiting for theoperation of the Divine urge for its unfoldment". [36] However, could Waheguru have been inSunya, etc. before the becoming of creation? The answer is an obvious no.

What is more, in our article 'Contradicting Allah' or a Confused Bijla Singh?, we argued that

Waheguru must have experienced both an intrinsic and a relational change with the becomingcreation:

According to Bijla, "Waheguru was only Nirgun" (bold ours) when there existed nothi

but "then" manifested as Sargun when "He created the entire creation", while of cou

still fully remaining Nirgun. Since Nirgun and Sargun are descriptions of Waheguru's

intrinsic nature, i.e. his essence, thus Waheguru underwent an intrinsic change with tbecoming of creation. To say otherwise is to deny the claim that Waheguru is Sargu

which he certainly was not sans creation. ...

In addition, there must have also been for Waheguru a relational change with thebecoming of creation. ... In this regard, we wish to ask: could Waheguru have beenomnipresent, within His creation and beyond, and all pervading without the existencethe creation? ... Since the answer ... is an obvious no, ... [h]ence, there must have bfor him a relational change with the becoming of creation. It is, therefore, apparent tWaheguru changed both intrinsically and relationally following creation.

These changes are also acknowledged by certain Sikh scholars. For example, Rohi states:

God is the Creator only in relation to the world, while in Himself, He is theever-transcendent Absolute. The creator and the absolute are two phases of the

and the same Supreme Being. [37] (bold ours)

God is also transcendent because the immanence of God is not identical with the

whole being of God. [38] (bold ours)

Prof Wazir shares this understanding:

The moment of transformation from the unrevealed to the revealed, from the unmanifto the manifest, from the impersonal to the personal aspect, is the moment of creati

The pure, shapeless essence turns into cosmic existence, with all its contours andcontents, evolutionary processes and infinite creative advances. What is potential i

one phase becomes actual in the other. [39] (bold ours)

Similarly, Prof Trilochan Singh upholds that:

[E]kang (i.e. the numeral one) and oamkarare two different concepts standing

respectively for the transcendent Self-Existent Being and the Immanent All Prevadin


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


6/18

spirit. The first is the Supreme and Absolute Being and the second is the creation ouHis own Spirit. They are NOT one and the same but s tand for two metaphysical

Truths, which are fundamental to Sikh Cosmology. [40] (bold, capitals ours)

Given these persuasive arguments, it is difficult to see how Daljeet et al. [41] could seek to r

this position.

Moreover, assuming that this is not a genuine lapse in concentration or a typographical error

his part, what is perplexing is how Daljeet could have concluded that "the Transcendent Godeverywhere, in each heart, place and particle" when he himself recognises that not only isWaheguru, as the Transcendent, "beyond space and beyond time", but that he only "becomeImmanent in it [creation]" after he "creates the universe ... [while] being at the same time

Transcendent". [42]

Daljeet continues his apologetic ambiguity by claiming that "the Gurus say that before He creform, He was Formless; before He was Immanent, He was Transcendent only: and yet, allimmanence, expression, creativity were inherent in Him, and so was His Word, in essence". [We then have something called Naam. Daljeet reveals:

God's immanent character was unexpressed. The expression ofNaam was prior t

the creation of the universe. "God manifested Himself into Naam and at the seco

place the world was created." It is true that the Gurus quite often mention God asinforming the universe. But in no scripture has the distinction between the transcendand the immanent aspects of God been made more clear than in the Guru Granth;because God's Immanence has been given separate names, i.e., ofNaam, Will

Word. [44] (bold ours)

We are further told that this manifestation of 'Naam extends to all creation. There is no place

space where Naam is not.' [1. p. 4]. And with "numerous verses in Guru Granth Sahib where

Naam and God have been described synonymously", including "[b]oth Naam and God ...

mentioned as ... 'Permeating and informing all things, beings, space and interspace' .... Thisunambiguously leads us to conclude that God and Naam are one and the same, and the latt

may be called the immanent or qualitative aspect of God, since God has been described botunmanifest (nirguna) and the Creator, and Ocean of values". [45]

The same conclusion is reached by Dr Lalit Mohan J oshi, i.e. "nam is not mere name, but th

Ultimate Reality itself ... [the]Omnipresent Existence which manifests itself in the form of cre

and is the source and sustenance of all beings and things (GG, 284) ... Nam is the source of

creation and like God is all-pervasive. At the same time, nam is coextensive with creation; th

no space where nam [sic] is not-jeta kita teta nau vinu navai nahi ko thau: all that Thou hast

created is Thy Name, i.e. manifestation; there is no place where Thy Name does not pervad(GG, 4)". [46]

In what has followed, the ambiguity arises from the way in which Naam has been expounded

this explanation serve to clearly and incontestably show a definitive distinction betweenWaheguru's intrinsic nature and his creation? IfNaam and Waheguru are "one and the same"

where Naam is said to be "permeating and informing all things, beings, space and interspac

is "coextensive with creation" to the extent that "[t]here is no place or space where Naam is

then it is difficult to see how Waheguru and his creation are not identical.This definition ofNa

near all-encompassing and all-pervasive presence in the world again lends more support towa pantheistic view of Waheguru than the opposite.

The ambiguity does not end there. In spite of the obvious disparity that exists between the tsaroops vis--vis Waheguru's attributes, Sikh scholars, such as Parma Nand, remain intransi

in their insistence that "[al]though He manifests Himself in all forms, sentient and non-sentientbeing the enjoyer and the object of enjoyment, at the same time, yet, he remains One,

changeless, constant and imperishable". [47] (bold ours) This assertion, however, unsurpri

smacks against the following observations:

1) Those who unequivocally hold that the two phases or stages of Waheguru during hisSargun manifestation "stand for two metaphysical Truths". How can a being remain

changeless and constant in spite of this apparent change with the becoming of theuniverse.


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


7/18

2) If his divine attributes (knowledge, wisdom, love, etc.) are a sine quo non of the Sar

state, then they must also be the same for the Nirgun counterpart in order to mainta

that Wahegueu remains one in his essential being.

3) If, however, he is changeless and constant in the sense of being a single, indivisiblethen his Sargun state can never be inclusiveof his attributes.

4) If there were, indeed, two phases or stages with the becoming of the universe, then

certainly implies that Waheguru went through an intrinsic and relational change with tbecoming of creation. Hence, it seems more plausibly consistent to conclude that thexists a division in Waheguru's esse, for there is his atemporal transcendent side an

obversely, his temporal immanent side.

All in all, the Sikhs seem to be in a rather sticky catch-22 situation; they certainly are in no stto have their cake and devour it too.

Having evaluated this core ontological difference of opinion over whether Waheguru is, in his

physically part of His creation in the literal sense, we can now move on to examine a centraldoctrinal point which, to our knowledge, no reputed Sikh academic disputes: Waheguru was,Nirgun state and prior to the becoming of the temporal world, void of all divine attributes.

THE ATTRIBUTELESS GOD

In Islam, it is heresy (Arabic: kufr - disbelief) to believe that Allaah, the Most High, was, is or

could be void of any or all of His divine attributes sans creation or otherwise. In contrast, Sik

as we have shown, holds a belief that is diametrically opposed.

In complete contrast to the convoluted and unintelligible nature of Sikh philosophical theology,Islamic understanding of the esse of God is pellucid and comprehensible. This is because, u

the philosophers and false prophets who, in their misplaced attempt to decipher the divine, wentirely confined to the use of their limited intellects, God's bona fide prophetic emissaries wexclusively privy to the truth of knowledge concerning His esse. Originating from the source

truth who endowed humankind with reason and rationality, it is inconceivable to think that Gowould convey revelatory knowledge that would be incompatible with man's intellect.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) famously said of Islam's trreligious intellectual elite:

The religious scholars are heirs of the prophets. [48] Indeed the prophets do not leabehind dinars or dirhams (pecuniary source); rather they leave behind the heritage o

(revelatory) knowledge, and whoever acquires it has acquired an abundance of weal[49]

It is for this reason that the Muslim scholars, who inherited not only this pristine and authenticprophetic knowledge, but more importantly its correct understanding and interpretation, wereto derive sound and irrefutable principles vis--vis the divine names and attributes (al-asmaa

was-sifaat) of Allaah.

In regards to this topic, the following cited principles will be used to dissect the notion of anattributeless God:

A. The attributes of Allaah, the Most High, are perfect, containing no deficiency in asense at all. [50] [51]

B. Attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, are dhaatiyyah - those pertaini

His Self, and fi'liyyah - those pertaining to His actions, and there is no limit or en

His actions. 'And Allaah does what He will s.'" [52] [53] [54]

C. And it forms part of the faith in Allah that we believe in those Attributes with whiAllah has qualified Himself and with which the Prophet (upon whom be peace anblessings of Allaah) has qualified Allah. Neither should alterations be made [ta'w

nor negations [ta'teel], nor attributing a state of being [takyeef] nor of likeness to

creation [tamtheel]. [55]


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


8/18

D. The divine names of Allaah can be derived from verbs and can, therefore, be eittransitive (muta'addiyyah) or intransitive (ghayr muta'addiyyah). Those names t

are transitive require affirmation of the following three categories:1. The divine name itself,2. The divine attribute it gives evidence to,3. How this quality or attribute relates to the creation and its ruling and what itnecessitates. [56]While all others require affirmation of only the first two categories. [57]

To begin, Daljeet claims that it is meaningless to speak of a God with divine attributes, or onwho exercises His Will, sans creation:

It is impossible to think of a God of Attributes or of His Immanence in the absence ofrelative or changing world. That is why when God was by Himself, the question of 'loand devotion, of good or bad actions, or of the saved or Saviour' could not arise, thebeing nothing other than Him. [58]

J ust like the Attributes of God, God's Will too can be exercised only in a changing wand towards a goal. The very idea of a Will implies a direction and an aim. [59]

His reasoning proceeds as follows:

First, attributes and values have relevance only in a becoming or relative world. Becall perfection is static and all qualities are relative. A God of Attributes has, thus, ameaning only in relation to the changing world of man. Evidently, for the expression oattributes, a changing universe is essential and becomes an integral part of the creaplan of God. God and the universe are, thus, closely linked. It is impossible to thin

a God of Attr ibutes in the absence of a changing world. That is why when God

all by Himself, the question of 'Love and devotion or good or bad actions', [1. pp. 10could not arise.[60] (bold ours)

Daljeet's assumption, in brief, is that a "God of Attributes" cannot be logically tenable withoutcreated object towards which His attributes can be exercised.

The premise on which this argument hinges, however, is the assumption that the divine attribof God are analogous or comparable to the human; an assumption that violates principle C amore specifically: tamtheel.

A leading scholar of the modern era, Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen (d. 1421H2000CE), briefly forwarded a definition for Tamtheel as "the act of mentioning an attribute

together with its like"; [61] in Daljeet's case: likening the attributes of God to His creation.

Given the relative nature of humanity, it goes without saying that such attributes can only beexercised in a changing and relative world. But, to say the same of God would necessarily ra concession to anthropomorphism on His part since there cannot be any logically plausiblereason to support this assertion without affirming that God's absolute perfect attributes are,completely (tamtheel) or partially (tashbeeh), [62] comparable to those of the relative and

imperfect human. Hence, what holds true for them must also hold true of God.

This fallacious assumption has been repeated throughout history by philosophers from differsocio-religious backgrounds, including Muslims, ad nauseam. The irony after all this is that D

himself actually clearly negates tamtheel (anthropomorphism):

We need hardly state that this idea of Personality in Theism is not analogous to the iof limited personality in man, who is a finite being. [63]

Daljeet's contradictory reasoning is further exposed as follows: If God's "expression of Naa

prior to the creation of the universe where 'God manifested Himself into Naam and at the se

place the world was created'", [64] or, as he puts it elsewhere, "God created Himself and N

and at the second place was created the universe", [65] and yet it is both "impossible to thin

God of Attributes in the absence of a changing world" and for "God's Will ... [to] be exercisein a changing world and towards a goal", then how could Waheguru have exercised his will toanything in the absence of the world?

To put it more lucidly, since the presence of a relative and changing world is a prerequisite to


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


9/18

Waheguru exercising his will to create, where the act of creating is one of God's divine attribhow could he will to create Naam (or Himself), or anything else for that matter, before the

becoming of such a world? Daljeet et al.'s position seems to be self-defeating.

Coming onto principles A and B, these have most comprehensively been explained by Ibn Ab(d. 792H), the well known commentator of the universally accepted book of creed 'Aqeedah

at-Tahawiyyah, authored by the great sage and scholar Imam at-Tahaawi (d. 321H/ 933CE).

The following points 13, 14 and 15 of Imam at-Tahaawi's creed are directly concerned in tacthe general idea of an attributeless deity. The fact that the Imam was addressing these hereat that time shows that such an idea preceded Guru Nanak and Sikhism by half a millennium.

(13) He has always existed with His attributes, even BEFORE the creation of the wor

which did not add anything to His attributes that were not already present.J ust as He is Eternal along with His attributes, so He is Everlasting along with them

(14) It is not the case that He acquired the name Creator (Al-Khaliq) only AFTER creat

(something), or the name Originator (Al-Bari) only after originating (something).

(15) He was qualified with Lordship (rububiyyah) even when there was noth ing to lor

over. And He was the Creator even when there was nothing c reated. [66] (bold,

capitals, underline ours)

Ibn Abil-'Izz's commentary of point 13 correlates with principle A wherein he reasons that "Allqualified from eternity with attributes of perfection, both attributes of essence and action". [6Shaykh 'Uthaymeen makes clear the apparent distinction between the attributes of Allaah's e

and His actions:

Allaah's affirmed Attributes might either be permanent Attributes that are always witHim, or Actions that He performs when He likes.

As f or His permanent Att ributes [at tr ibu tes of essence - dhaatiyyah], they are

ones that He never ceases to be described with, like having Knowledge, Power, HeaSight, Honor, Wisdom, Highness, and Greatness.

As f or His chosen Actions [ att ributes of act ion - fi'liyyah], they are the actions t

are connected to His Will. If He wants, He does them, and if He does not want to dothem, He does not do them .... [68]

Ibn Abil-'Izz continues to declare:

It is not permissible to believe that Allah acquired an attribute after He did not have ibecause His attributes are attributes of perfection, hence their absence would impl

imperfection. It is not conceivable that He was first imperfect and then He became

perfect. However, this is not cause to deny the active or voluntary attr ibutes of

Allah, such as creating and forming, causing life and death [etc.] .... [69] (bold ours)

Denying the active or voluntary attributes of God is precisely what Daljeet does by claiming t"when God was by Himself, the question of 'love and devotion, of good or bad actions, or ofsaved or Saviour' could not arise, there being nothing other than Him". [70]

We have already highlighted that though this limitation is necessarily true of mankind, there eno logically plausible reason to extend this to include God. We have also mentioned, albeit inpassing, that Sikhism is not unique in this belief. According to Ibn Abil-'Izz, in proclaiming that[Allaah] is qualified with His attributes eternally from before the creation of the world", Imamat-Tahaawi "refutes the ... claim that Allah did not at first have the power to act or to speak,then He came to have such powers. Action and speech became possible after it was firstimpossible. The impossible changed into the possible". [71]

This is a convincing response when juxtaposed with the recognition that an absence of any, l

alone all, of God's attributes for a given duration implies imperfection. When Sikhs allege thaWaheguru was attributeless in the pre-Sargun stage; they are, in fact, affirming that Wahegu

became absolutely perfect after being imperfect at the moment of the becoming of the worldwhy does Ibn Abil-'Izz conclude that such a concept, laNirgun-cum-Sargun, implies the


18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


10/18

impossible changing into the possible? Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen offers the following answer:

Everything that truly exists must have an attr ibute, and that attribute must either

perfect one or a deficient one. The latter is rejected when referring to the Perfect Lowho deserves our worship. [72] (bold ours)

While recognising why an absolute perfect deity must possess absolute perfect attributes, omay still be prompted to ask why "everything that truly exists must have an attribute"? Ibn Acompellingly posits:

[I]t is not the case that there is no essence existing out there divested of all

attributes. In reality, the essence qualified by the attributes of perfection essential t

INSEPARABLE f rom them. It is only in the mind that the two are separated from ea

other and that the two are imagined to exist by themselves. In reality, there is no

essence without an attribute; this is simply not possible. [73] (bolds, underline,

capitals ours)

This a priori axiom that a living entity void of all attributes can only really "exist" as an abstra

nonconcrete, hypothetical and imaginary idea should be enough to pull the very rug from undDaljeet et alia.

While refuting the heretical beliefs of the infamous Avicenna, Shaykhul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyahreaches the same conclusion in arguing that an "essence that is existing without knowledge awhich knowledge is added ... is a corrupt representation", [74] and that "an essence which hattribute has no existence but in the mind". [75]

Ibn Abil-'Izz's incisive evaluation uncovers further failings in the Sikhi doctrine:

Even if there were no attribute present except that of existence, even that would notbeen separate from the essence. But in one's mind they can be conceived of as anessence and an existence, each separate from the other, though in reality they cannand are not separate. [76]

A question arises from what Ibn Abil-'Izz has adduced above: If we accept, for arguments sa

that Waheguru was attributeless sans creation: was he alive/ did he exist during His Nirgsaroop? It would be a travesty of intelligence for anyone to even hint at an answer in the

negative. No one with a sound and sincere disposition could claim that an eternally existing dcannot be described or could not possess the attribute of life/ existence for any given duratiowould clearly be nonsensical, semantically speaking, to accept that God was, even for an insnon-existent, given that it contradicts the definition of the term eternality and, thus, completelnegates the idea of an eternally existing/ living God.

And the same would be true, for example, in negating the attribute of knowledge.

What does it mean when someone claims a living entity is completely void of its necessaryattributes or that "it is impossible to think of a God of Attributes"? It essentially entails thedismissal of any conceivable thought about the ineffable nature of the Nirgun state of Waheg

even after the becoming of creation. In order to remain consistent in defence of this argumemust be maintained that even speculating, for instance, over the relative spatial position of thNirgunsaroop in relation to the creation is futile. But, again this approach is self-defeating gi

that Sikhs readily affirm that the Nirgun state of God is wholly transcendent.

The problem becomes ever more acute when Sikhs fail to recognise the apparent disparity texists where on one hand the mantra ofNirgun being "beyond the scope of human

comprehension" and "ineffable" is continuously parroted, and yet on the other reams of scholwork elucidating on the difference between the two states are readily produced and publisheFor example, we are reminded by Daljeet that "[t]he Gurus have cautioned us against theinadequacy of human logic to comprehend Him ... The nature of God transcends all knowncategories of thought. The Creator of these limited categories cannot be judged by them". [7Similarly, Surjit Singh Gandhi echoes:

About Absoluteness of God, there is nothing man can say.[78]

God who is absolute, eternal, Akal and formless cannot be grasped by humanunderstanding which is strictly limited and any effort to define Him would circumscrib


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


11/18

infinite to bring within narrow bounds the one who is boundless. God is ineffable andman's proper and inevitable response to any authentic glimpse of the Being of God conly be that ofVismad of fear, of wonder before Him Who is beyond comprehension

is againAgochar(inscrutable beyond the reach of intellect). He isAlakh (ineffable). [

And yet Daljeet seemingly belies these cautions by conflictingly stating that Waheguru "is botthe universe and outside it".[80] The reason for this is quite simple and one that Daljeet is fullcognisant of:

Perforce, He has to be explained, howsoever inadequately or symbolically, only in teof that language. That is why the Guru has cautioned us against the pitfalls andinadequacy of human logic and language to comprehend the Timeless One. All the sthe Guru has mentioned the state when the Transcendent God was all by Himself anthere was no creation. [81]

This paradoxical position is also mentioned by Prof Wazir Singh, who more accurately obser

All the names that we utter in respect to God are functional or attributive names. Thbasic reality is nameless. Guru Gobind Singh expressly calls it ANAME (nameless).even the nameless can serve as a name. When we say Brahman is featureless,'featurelessness' becomes its feature. In order to give expression to our sense of th

Beyond, that which defies all expression or description, we coin several terms, just aNothingness, Emptiness, Big Zero, Sunya, as well as Formless, Nirakar, Nirankar, aNirgun. But again, Nirankar is a name, and so are other epithets so coined. Perhaps

cannot do without names. It is our linguisic [sic] compulsion to assign a name or s

to anything we know. It is human compulsion. [82] (bold ours)

And it goes without saying that this linguistic compulsion of assigning names would also entaiimpossibility of rejecting the apparent meaning any name carries and its associative attribute.Hence, any rational minded person would be compelled, at least, to acknowledge that God'sattribute of life is an eternal sine quo non of His essential being, while also recognising that t

would not be possible if the attribute were negated (ta'teel); or its apparent meaning

misinterpreted/ distorted (ta'weel); or conditioned on futilely attempting to comprehend its re

modality (takyeef); or attempting to analogously liken Him in any way, shape or form to His

creation.

As we have shown, Daljeet was forced into answering the paradoxical question of "what cafirst: the chicken or the egg?" by arguing that without the presence of a relative and changinworld, Waheguru could not exercise his will or his attribute to create, raising the question ofhe could have ever willed to create anything in the first place without the presence of a relatiand changing world? This self-defeating argument proves the validity of principle D:

The divine names of Allaah can be derived from verbs and can, therefore, be eithertransitive (muta'addiyyah) or intransitive (ghayr muta'addiyyah). Those names that a

transitive require affirmation of the following three categories:1. The divine name itself,2. The divine attribute it gives evidence to,

3. How this quality or attribute relates to the creation and its ruling and what itnecessitates.While all others require affirmation of only the first two categories. [83]

Since the attribute of life is, as we argued above, an eternal sine quo non of God's essential

being, it is intransitive. Unlike the divine names, such as, The Most-Merciful (Ar-Rahman), Th

Most-Loving (Al-Wudood), The All-J ust (Al-'Adl), etc., which are transitive and require an obj

for God to be merciful, loving or just towards, the same cannot be said of his names: TheEver-Living (Al-Hayy), The Unique (Al-Ahad), The Self-Sufficient (As-Samad), etc. It would b

ludicrous to say that Allaah is necessarily self-sufficient or unique towards something externahimself!

If Sikhs, however, acknowledge the rationale behind principle D, they would be compelled, b

extension, to reject this counter-intuitive notion that God was attributeless or ineffable sanscreation.

These inconsistencies arising from such mentally oppressive and paradoxical ideas are not,however, something new to Sikhism. To the contrary, there existed, and still do, heretical Mu


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


12/18

who held equally perplexing views.

Historically, the first person associated to the Muslim community to introduce the heresy ofnegating Allaah's attributes in toto was a man by the name of J ahm bin Safwan (d.128H/ 74

who, according to Shaykhul Ibn Taymiyyah, took this doctrine "from the students of the J ewsidolaters", [84]. Ibn Taymiyyah elaborates:

J ahm used to deny Allah's Names. He would not, therefore call Him: "Thing" nor "Livinor anything else except in a figurative sense, because he claimed that it wasat-tashbeeh (likening Allah to His creation) to call Him by any name, which was also

for creation. [85]

And like Daljeet et al., "J ahm did not affirm ... [a] "Will" (al-Iraadah)" [86] for Allaah. J ahm's

reason for denying God's names is, of course, based on his fallacious interpretation of princicited earlier. Tashbeeh did not simplistically mean anthropomorphism by the mere sharing of

name, but rather likening the reality or modality that the name stood for. For example, the naloving, knowledgeable, wise, etc. are accepted as attributes essential to both God andhumankind; yet, it would be erroneous to claim that the reality or modality of God's attributescomparable to those of His servants.

What is more, Ibn 'Uthaymeen identifies that since "al-Hayyu [the Living who does not die] is

name that comprises all the perfect Attributes of life" [87] (where the life of Allaah is incompato that of His creation since Allaah's life is absolutely perfect and infinite whereas the creationot [88] ); then, consequently, "the existence of the Creator is necessary, while the existencethe person is possible". [89] It would, thus, be nonsensical to negate this, or any other, namemerely on the basis of it being shared by two entities!

Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen also mentions a group who believed that God was "neither in 'uluw

(loftiness [transcendent]) nor in sufl (opposite 'uluw: lowness); He is neither inside the world

outside it; neither to the right nor to the left; neither joined nor separate". He declares "thisposition [to be] absolute ta'teel (negation) because it is a description ofal-'adam (non-existe

while adding that some scholars said:

If we were asked to describe al-'adam we would not find a more comprehensive

definition than this description .... [90]

In essence, apart from a semantic one, there is no conceptual difference between systematiarticulating this dual affirmatory-negatory approach of God's attributes, and negating them in

by describing Him as attributeless; they are both apt descriptions of non-existence.

Another possible answer to the above question could be that while the name, e.g. Ever-Livin(al-Hayy), is affirmed, its associated attribute, life, is rejected and denied. Incidentally, this is

a hypothetical situation, for Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen noted:

The third type is to reject the Attributes that are proven by the Names. Such a persoaffirms the Name, but rejects the Attribute that is included in this Name. Such as sayithat Allah is All-Hearer, but without hearing; the All-Knower, but without knowledge; t

Creator, but without creation; the All-Powerful, but without power... It is something tunintelligible. [91]

Since it must be intuitively acknowledged that an eternally pre-existent living being is necessaattributed with all its eternally pre-existent attributes, it follows that:

Allah is the essence that is qualified by His ever-present attributes. That is why the a[Imam at-Tahawi] said, "He has always existed with His attributes;" Note that he didsay, "He and His attributes are always existing" because in this case the conjunctionwould permit the possibility of difference between them. [92]

There can be no difference between Allaah's attributes in terms of their existential reality: theall eternally present and an essential part of His eternal esse.

Another major pitfall with this idea that attributes were brought into existence with the creatioNaam and the becoming of the world, is identified by Ibn Taymiyyah:

Allaah has informed us that He has created everything, and everything that is create


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


13/18

existential, and everything that is existential must have been brought about after onc

being absent. [93] (bold ours)

In this case, the opposite also holds true: whatever is brought into existence after once beinabsent is a created entity, and since God is the Creator and not created, He can never be ain His esse, which must be inclusive of all His attributes, for any length of duration. This point

succinctly put by Ibn 'Uthaymeen as follows:

Affirming the sifah (attribute) ofhayaat (Life) for Allaah, and that His life is one ofperfection, neither preceded by 'adam [non-existence] nor coming ... to naught nor

characterized by imperfection. On the contrary, our life originates in 'adam and will c

to an end, and it is accompanied by imperfection. If fact, all of our life is imperfect, athat is why Allaah described it by ad-dunya. The Life of Allaah, however, is perfectio

from all angles because of His saying: "The Living," where the particle "The" is foral-istighraaq, which comprises all the meanings of the qualities of the perfect life, as

says, "There is no one who is truly living except He." In fact, this is the case becausthere is none qualified with the life of perfection except Allaah, the Most Mighty andMajestic. [94]

There are also the philosophical quandaries that ensue from the idea that Waheguru was in astate ofSunya. Daljeet details this doctrine as follows:

The Gurus have stated at a number of places that there was a stage when theTranscendent God was by Himself; and it is later that He started His Creative ActivitSidh Gosht, in answer to a question as to where was the Transcendent God before

stage of creation, Guru Nanak replied, "To think of the Transcendent Lord in that stato enter the realm of wonder. Even at that stage ofsunn (void), He permeated all th

void." [1. p. 940]. ... The Gurus say, "When there was no form in sight, how could thbe good or bad actions? When God was in the Self-Absorbed state, there could be

enmity or conflict. When God was all by Himself, there could be no attachment ormisunderstanding. Himself He starts the creation. He is the Sole-Creator, there is nosecond One." [1. p. 290]. "For millions of aeons, the Timeless One was by Himself.was no substance or space, no day or night (i.e., no time,) no stars or galaxies; Goin His Trance." [1. p. 1035]. "God was by Himself and there was nothing else ...... T

was no love or devotion, nor was His Creative Power in operation ...... When He willHe created the Universe." [1. p. 1036]. [95]

The following metaphysical question comes to mind when faced with the notion that Wahegurarbitrarily decided at some moment to become immanent and create having, before then,remained in his Nirgun state from eternity past: Is it more befitting the absolute perfection of

to believe that he remained creatively idle for a duration before deciding to create, or that hebeen creating continuously from eternity past without a moment of idleness?

We have already covered the doctrinal irrationality of an attributeless God arguing that God'esse has always been inclusive of the divine name and attribute of creating even before the

becoming of the temporal world; but, what is more befitting his absolute perfection vis--vis

aforementioned question?

The Islamic position on this is given in principle B cited above:

Attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, are dhaatiyyah - those pertaining to

Self, and fi'liyyah - those pertaining to His actions, and there is no limit or end to

actions. 'And Allaah does what He wills.'" [96] [97] [98] (bold ours)

In relation to there being no limit or end to His actions, then this cannot belong to the categoran infinite regression of causes because, as Ibn Abil-'Izz argues, "this is impossible, for we cimagine that one cause derives its causative power from another cause, and that from a thircause and so on ad infinitum". [99] Rather, Allaah's endless actions belong to the category hdefines as 'necessary' where:

[E]very act of His is preceded by another act. For example, He has been speaking seternity whenever He pleased; obviously, His attribute of speech is not something thhappened to Him after a time. The same is true of the other acts that are essential tlife, for every living being acts and the difference between the living and dead is acti


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


14/18

That is why a number of the Elders stated, "Living is acting." 'Uthman Ibn Sa'id said,"Every living thing acts. And our Lord has never been for a moment imperfect, withospeaking, willing or acting."

Hence, a God who is idle to the point of not willing to act for a given duration through eternityis less perfect in comparison to one who constantly wills to act. According to Ibn Abil-'Izz:

Since Allah is Living, Powerful, Willing and Speaking from eternity - all this being parHis essence - He would be doing one thing or another according to these attributes.Act ion is more complete than inaction. (bold ours) [100]

And so "first, Allah acts as He wills and pleases [and] He has always done so ... [because] Hcannot be thought of as losing [this ability] at any time". [101]

However, Ibn Abil-'Izz's brilliant reasoning continues as he cautions against understanding Gonecessity to create to mean that these created "objects co-exist with Him". To the contrary:

Allah precedes every single object He creates and is not preceded by any of them.created object has something first that went before it, except the Creator, Who hasfirst before Him. He alone is the Creator and everything else is created and comes iexistence after a time when it was non-existent. [102]

What should be borne in mind at this juncture is that the scholars who traverse the path and fthe example of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) do not inaway accept the notion that individual entities exist pre-eternally as a concomitant of God'sexistence. And this is precisely the reason why Ibn Abil-'Izz clearly delineates that "everythinis created and comes into existence after a timewhen it was non-existent" (bold, underlin

ours); meaning that we affirm the genus of infinite events, with each and every created objec

preceded by non-existence, and not a single pre-eternally existent object.

This understanding is, thus, in complete harmony with what Allaah and Prophet Muhammad (whom be peace and blessings of Allaah) respectively meant when they proclaimed:

"He is the First and the Last" [Qur'an 57:3]. And the Prophet (peace be on him) stat

"O Allah, You are the First, there is nothing before You. You are the Last, there is noafter You." [103]As for the author's words, "He is Eternal without a beginning. Everlasting without anthey explain the meaning of the divine names, the First [al-Awwal] and the Last[al-Aakhir]. [104]

With this in mind, Ibn Abil-'Izz concluded that "since the existence of an endless series of evethe future is not inconsistent with Allah being the Last, without anything coming after Him, theexistence of an endless series of events in the past is not inconsistent with Allah being the Fiwithout anything going before Him. Allah is always there doing and speaking whatever andwhenever He wills from eternity ...". [105]

CONCLUSION

The interpretational differences that exist among Sikh scholars vis--vis the theology of God,

proves beyond doubt a distinct lack of hermeneutical homogeneity and conformity vis--vis t

definition and understanding of the Nirgun-cum-Sargun transformational process.

Contrary to Daljeet Singh's valiant efforts, what became clear was that not only were there Sscholars who believed that Waheguru was, in his Sargun saroop, physically part of His creati

the literal sense, i.e. in his esse, but that this interpretation was much closer to a pantheistic

conception of Waheguru than the oft-espoused monotheistic one.

In regards to the doctrine of an attributeless deity, where God is said to be void of all his diviattributes sans the becoming of the temporal world, then the arguments in support of this we

not only self-defeating, but also, when deconstructed and compared to the apodictically sou

principles of Islamic theology, shown to be logically incoherent and wholly untenable.

For instance, the argument that the subsistence of a relative and changing world is a necessprerequisite to Waheguru exercising his will to create turned out to be fallacious as it transpirthat the actual cause (willing to create) bizarrely preceded its own condition (a relative and


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


15/18

changing world)! This brought forth the paradoxical question of: "What came first: the chickethe egg?"

Further, since God's attribute of life is an eternal sine quo non of His essential being, belief i

doctrine of an attributeless God sans creation lead to the patently absurd idea of an eternall

existing God not being described or not possessing the attribute of life/ existence for a givenduration.

It was also shown that a doctrine which holds that God, viz. Waheguru, remained creatively ithrough eternity past, i.e. choosing not to exercise his creative will before arbitrarily decidingsome moment to create, was less befitting the absolute perfection of God than one whichaffirmed that he, viz. Allaah, has been creating continuously, and thus, constantly exercising

divine will from eternity past without a moment of idleness.

All in all, it is reasonable to conclude in light of all the above that the Sikh theology-proper ofvis--vis the concept of an attributeless God is logically inconsistent and mentally oppressive

comparison to the coherent Islamic doctrine ofTawheed (Unity of Allaah's existence) and its

theological principles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to (jazakumullaahu khairan) both Abu Iyaad Amjad Rafeeq (Aqidah.com) and Abu 'ARahman (Islam-Sikhism Researcher/ Editor) for their critical feedback and sagacious commeand suggestions.

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

atoobu ilayka.

[1] See: I. S. Dhillon (1, 2, 3), Project Naad, Saajan Sandhu and Bijla S ingh.

[2] J . S. Mann; S. S . Sodhi (Unknown),Concepts in Sikhism - Cognitive Psychology - Mind Map Approach to

Understanding Sikhism for the Second Generation Sikh Children, (Global Sikh Studies.net, online Word file, 9 Dec.p.202.

[3] S. S. Gandhi (2007),History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1469-1606 C.E. Vol. 1, (Atlantic P ublishers & Distributors), p.1

[4] J . S. Mann; S. S. Sodhi (Unknown), op. cit., p.467.

[5] R. K. Rohi (1999), Semitic and Sikh Monotheism - A Comparative Study, (Punjabi University, Patiala, India), p.99.[6]Ibid., p.100.

[7] D. S ingh; K Singh (1997),Sikhism - Its Philosophy and History, (Institute of Sikh Studies, New Delhi), p.20.

[8]Ibid., p.42.

[9]Ibid., p.21.

[10] Ibid., p.20.

[11] P. Singh (1985), Sikh Concept of the Divine, (Guru Nanak Dev University Press, Amritsar), p.146.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., pp.146-7.

[14] S. S. Bhatia; A. Spencer (1999),The Sikh Tradition: A Continuing Reality (Essays in History and Religion),(Publication Bureau Punjabi University, Patiala, India), p.91.

[15] D. Singh (2004),Sikhism: A Comparative Study of its Theology and Mysticism, (Amritsar, Singh Brothers), p.19

[16] R. K. Rohi (1999), op. cit. ,p.96.

[17] Ibid., pp.145-6.

[18] R. Kaur (2003),God in Sikhism, (Secretary Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar), p.52.

[19] Ibid., pp.39-40.

[20] J . S. Mann; S. S . Sodhi (Unknown),op. cit., p.459.

[21] Ibid., pp.459-60.[22] Fn.15: see Dasam Granth. Charitropakhyan, Verse 389.

[23] R. K. Rohi (1999), op. cit., p.102.

[24] Fn.16:Guru Granth Sahib, p.131, Trans. G. S . Talib.

[25] R. K. Rohi (1999), op. cit., pp.102-3.

[26] Fn.17: "Whatever is there isyour creation and all manifest your Glory." - Guru Nanak Sahib, Shabad Hazare.

[27] Fn.18: Bhai Gurdas - Varan.

[28] R. Kaur (2003),op. cit., p.54.

[29] P. Singh (1985),op. cit., p.75.

[30] S. S. Gandhi (2007),History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1469-1606 C.E. Vol. 1, (Atlantic P ublishers & Distributors),pp.131-2.

[31] R. Kaur (2003),op. cit., p.54.

[32] Ibid., p.55.

[33] D. S ingh; K Singh (1997),op. cit., p.42.

[34] His confusion is soundly typified by his erroneous interpretation of the Qur'anic verse: "Is He not closer (to you) thavein of the neck." (50:16) as a referral to God's Immanence in Islam. (Ibid., p.42.).However, a correct understanding of Allaah's relationship with his creation has been accurately delineated by Dr Rohi:

Although, God alone creates with His will the whole of what ever exists with just the utterence [sic] of the one

(kun). It is created with His creative might, but the creator and the creation are not one in existence. The act


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


16/18

power or existence of the absolute power does not get diluted with His creative act. God remains in His coabsolute transcendence. In His essential nature God is and remains beyond the created universe. In fact, thof God neither bears comparison nor analogy to the essence of the beings and things which are subject to pBut, on the other hand, it no way means that God created the world and set it apart to move unsystematicallyuncared for. God is continuously in relation to the world.

(R. K. Rohi (1999), op. cit., p.66)

She also states:

According to the Semitic ideology, God ordered in the word 'be' and there was the creation. But He Himself

remained beyond the created universe, His actual and essential being is no way manifested in the creation.neither present in the creation by His essence nor His essential existence is diluted in the forms of the creatiremains in His fully essential and absolutely transcendent nature and maintains His purely personal existencpresence in the creation is only in the form of the presence of His laws which run the whole of the creation wiany defect.Sikhism, however, holds somewhat contrary position while explaining the same phenomenon of the creation

Rohi (1999), op. cit., pp.145-6.)

In Sikhism on the other hand, the rule of the world is not maintained by God from beyond the creation as is hthe Semitic tradition. Rather, it is administered from within the creation itself. God prevails in the creation noHis laws or knowledge alone, He is present in the creation as the essence of it as well. (Ibid., p.48)

Allaah's continuous relationship with the world is, for example, through His absolute, perfect Knowledge and Mercyencompassing all things. Hence, when Allaah says in the Qur'an that He is closer to us than our own jugular vein, the e

and best of generations - the Pious Predecessors (Salaf us-Saalih) - understood this to mean Him being closer to usthrough His Divine Knowledge.

[35] D. Singh (2004),op. cit., p.189.[36] J . S. Mann; S. S . Sodhi (Unknown),op. cit., p.459.

[37] R. Kaur (2003),op. cit., pp. 41-2.

[38] Ibid., p.67.

[39] S. S. Bhatia; A. Spencer (1999),op. cit., p.91.

[40] P. Singh (1985),op. cit., p.123.[41] Such as P rof G. S. Talib, who preposterously reasons that since "God is both Transcendent and Immanent, [it] doe

mean that these are two phases of God one following the other. God is One, and He is both nirguna and sarguna". (J .

Mann; S. S. Sodhi, op. cit., p.111)

[42] D. Singh (2004),op. cit., pp.188-9.


[44] D. Singh (2004),op. cit., p.197.


[46] J . S. Mann; S. S . Sodhi (Unknown),op. cit., p.316.

[47] P. Singh (1985),op. cit., pp.32-3.[48] Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751CE) said:

This is one of the greatest qualities of the scholars, for the Prophets are the best of the creation of Allaah, aheirs are the best of creation after them. As everything that is inherited passes to the heirs, they are the onetake his place after he is gone, and there is no one who can take the place of the Messengers in conveyingwith which they were sent, except the scholars, who are the most entitled of people to their legacy. This indicthat they are the closest of people to them, for the inheritance only goes to the closest of people to the dece

J ust as this applies to the inheritance ofdinars and dirhams, so it also applies to the inheritance of Prophet

and Allaah singles out for His mercy whomsoever He wants. (Miftaah Daar al-Sa'aadah, 1/66)

[49] Abu Dawood, Sunan, 3641; At-Tirmithi, Sunan, 2683; Al-Albaani, Saheeh Sunan Abi Dawood, 2/407.

[50]Fn.11:Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/206; Mukhtasarus-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah, 1/232 and Badaa'i'ul-Fawaa'id , 1/168.[51] A. ibn 'A.-Q. as-Saqqaaf; Trans. D. Burbank (1999), General Principles Regarding Al laah's Attributes, (SalafiPublications, Article ID: AQD030010), p.1.

[52] Fn.12:Soorah Ibraaheem (14):27.

[53] Fn.13:Al-Qawaa'idul Muthlaa, p.30.

[54] A. ibn 'A.-Q. as-Saqqaaf, op. cit., pp.1-2.[55] Ibn Taymiyyah; commentary: M. K. Harras (1996), Sharh Al-Aqeedat-il-Wasitiyah, (Dar-us-Salam Publications), p[56] Examples of Allaah's transitive divine names:

NAME AFFIRMING THE NAME AFFIRMING THE ATTRIBUTE

RULING & IMPLICATIO

Al -'Aleem Al-'Aleem (Omniscient) Allaah has 'knowledge' Allaah's knowledgeencompasses all things;nothing is hidden from Hi

Al -Khaaliq Al-Khaaliq (The Creator) Allaah 'creates' Allaah is the creator of allthings

[57] Abu I. A. Rafiq (1998), General Principles Regarding Allaah's Names, (Salafi Publications, Article ID: AQD0300p.3.

[58] D. Singh (2004),op. cit., p.190.

[59] Ibid., p.191.


[61] M. bin S. Al-'Uthaimin (2009),Commentary on Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah's Al-'Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah Vol.1,


f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


17/18

(Darussalam, Riyadh, KSA), p.145.[62] Shaykh Ibn 'Uthaymeen differentiated between the two as follows:

Tamtheel is to acknowledge that something is equal (in all aspects) to something else, and Tashbeeh is toacknowledge that something is similar (in some aspects) to something else.

Therefore Tamtheel is to make a likeness between two things in all perspectives and Tashbeeh is to makelikeness between them in most of their characteristics. Sometimes they are used interchangeably.

(M. ibn S. al-'Uthaymeen; trans. A.-R. Harrison (2004), Explanation of a Summary of al-'Aqeedatul-Hama

of Ibn Taymiyyah, (Tarbiyyah Bookstore Publishing, Texas, USA), p.26.)

[63] D. S ingh; K Singh (1997),op. cit., p.41.[64] D. Singh (2004),op. cit., p.197.


[66] Ibn Abi al-'Izz; Trans: M. 'A.-H. Ansari (2000), Commentary on the Creed of at-Tahawi, (Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn SIslamic University, Imadat Al-Bahth Al-'Ilmi, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America),57, 61 .

[67] Ibid., pp.49-50.

[68] M. ibn S al-'Uthaymeen (2003), Exemplary Foundations Concerning the Beautiful Names and Attributes of Alla(T.R.O.I.D. Publications; Toronto, Ont., Canada), p.56.

[69] Ibn Abi al-'Izz; Trans: M. 'A.-H. Ansari (2000), op. cit., pp.49-50.

[70] D. Singh (2004),op. cit., p.190.

[71] Ibn Abi al-'Izz; Trans: M. 'A.-H. Ansari (2000), op. cit., p.53.

[72] M. ibn S al-'Uthaymeen (2003), op. cit., p.40.

[73] Ibn Abi al-'Izz; Trans: M. 'A.-H. Ansari (2000), op. cit., pp.50-1.

[74] Y. J . Michot (2003),A Mamluk Theologian's Commentary on Avicenna's Risala Adhawiyya - Part 2, (J ournal of IStudies 14:3, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, May 2003), p.310.

[75] Ibid., p.329.[76] Ibn Abi al-'Izz; Trans: M. 'A.-H. Ansari (2000), op. cit., pp.50-1.


[78] S. S. Gandhi (2007),op. cit., p.130.

[79] Ibid., pp.132-3.


[81] Ibid., p.39.

[82] S. S. Bhatia; A. Spencer (1999),op. cit., p.202.

[83] Abu L. A. Rafiq (1998), op. cit., p.3.

[84] Ibid., 5/20.

[85] Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' Fataawa, 12/311 see also 8/460.

[86] Ibid.,8/230.

[87] M. bin S. Al-'Uthaimin (2009),op. cit., p.245.

[88] Ibid., p.169.

[89] Ibid, p.170.[90] M. bin S. Al-'Uthaymeen; trans. Dr S. as-Saleh (1998), Explanation of Aayat al-Kursi, (King Fahd National LibraryCataloging-in-Publication Data, Riyadh), pp.75-6.

[91] M. bin S. Al-'Uthaimin (2009),op. cit., p.157.


[93] The Decisive Criterion between theAwliyaa (friends) of the Most Merciful and theAwliyaa of Shaytaan, p.196.

[94] M. bin S. Al-'Uthaymeen; trans. Dr S. as-Saleh (1998),op. cit., pp.88-9.


[96] Fn.12:Soorah Ibraaheem (14):27.

[97] Fn.13:Al-Qawaa'idul Muthlaa, p.30.

[98] A. ibn 'A.-Q. as-Saqqaaf, op. cit., pp.1-2.


[100]Ibid., pp.55-6.

[101]Ibid., p.57.

[102]Ibid., pp.55-6.

[103] Fn.22: Part of a hadith recorded by Muslim, Adh-Dhikr, 2713. Also see Abu Dawud,Al-Adab, 5051; At-Tirmidhi,

Ad-Da'wat, 3397; Ibn Majah,Ad-Du'a 3873; Ahmad, 2:381, 404.

[104] Ibn Abi al-'Izz; Trans: M. 'A.-H. Ansari (2000), op. cit., p.35.[105]Ibid., p.55.

RELATED ARTICLES

THEOLOGY - The Nirgun-Sargun Conundrum

REBUTTAL - 'Contradicting Allah' or a Confused Bijla Singh?

REBUTTAL - Project Naad's Defence of a Nirgun-Sargun God

FEEDBACK - I. S. Dhillon - The Impossible God - Part 1



f 18 6/25/2013 4:37 PM


18/18


FEEDBACK - Saajan Sandhu - Nirgun-Sargun Sandhu Solution

BACK T

The Plan of Salvation God Can Change Your Purpose Prayer is Your New Way Home www.LifesGreatestQuestion.com

Facebook Account Sign Up World's Largest Online Community. J oin for Free & Enjoy the Benefits! Facebook.com

Online Prayer Request Send your Online Prayer Request and receive answers to your prayer. FreeWrittenProphecy.com/Prayer.html


Islam-sikhism - Theology (the Attributeless Waheguru)

Documents

Transcript of Islam-sikhism - Theology (the Attributeless Waheguru)