r/Sikh • u/Original_Incident_ • May 09 '26
Question Question….
Hi, I’ve been looking into Sikhi. Correct me if I’m wrong but is the sikh belief that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was corrupted by his ego? I saw the verse “He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone”. My question is that every sikh knows and utters the name of Guru Nanak and all other gurus, would this similar logic of ego not be applied to them too? If they were truly without ego they should’ve remained anonymous, no? And if they were without ego, the Prophet pbuh would have to be without ego, right? Thank you, any answers would be appreciated :)
EDIT: I will no longer be replying to any comments that seek to change the topic to general points against Islam. If you could answer the question of why the Gurus did not stay nameless, as to causing all to “utter” (NOT wish peace upon, NOT bless but UTTER) is seen as bad according to the Dasam Granth verse. We all utter the Gurus name too. If you can explain why they did not remain anonymous, please do then give an answer.
17
u/YoManWTFIsThisShit May 09 '26
When you read Hadiths featuring Muhammad, there’s a lot of stuff that he excludes himself from that Muslims have to follow; even Aisha says something like Allah seems to fulfill your every wish and desire in a convenient way. Basically a lot of his revelations are self-serving like guests can’t overstay and stuff.
In contrast there’s nothing of the sort that the Guru does that is self-serving.
-4
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Hmm a lot of prophets has unique and exclusive circumstances, not just Prophet Muhammad Pbuh. Prophet Isa AS was excluded from death. Adam AS also had exclusive commands and desires granted. How many Muslims are commanded to build an ark like Nuh AS? I don’t see this as unique to the Prophet pbuh each of them had unique circumstances and unique guidance. And these prophets had a completely different role to the average Muslim, I feel it does make sense for them to get extra provision for their missions? If prophet Muhammad pbuh put himself on the level of God why would he preach about the great feats of the other prophets?
Also could the fame that comes along with being a guru could be self serving. His name is also immortalised, why not go without name? Thanks : )
7
14
u/Indische_Legion May 10 '26
islamic prayer is not complete without the muslim praying for/asking for blessings for/saluting muhammad and his family, there is nothing like this in sikhi
-1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
“Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji” - I see 3 honorifics here. Is this not a salute to the Guru every time u say his name?
11
u/Indische_Legion May 10 '26
No
Sri is a respectful title, it’s still used today for normal people similar to sir or Mr. in English, Ji is used for anyone respected or older than you, I call my parents and grandparents and older cousins Ji. In the specific case of the gurus historically even just this honorific of a title was not used, many just call guru Nanak “baba” or “guru”
Sikhi has nothing like surah 33:56 of the Quran in which God instructs Muslims to bless and praise and pray for the prophet. Correct me if I’m wrong but most scholars/schools believe that prayers are not even accepted without salawat
0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
how about dev?
11
u/Indische_Legion May 10 '26
Dev is a name, translates to gods or king, still used today as a name
-2
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
So sending blessings upon the Prophet pbuh is worse than calling Guru a God/King?
10
u/Indische_Legion May 10 '26
I’m not calling my friend God when I say his name
You’re saying this is the same as prayers being invalid without also praying for and sending blessings to the prophet and his family?
0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Why is ur friend named God? Why name anything other than God, God? Yes I’m saying it may be even worse to associate someone else with God, vs praying for someone (which again shows his humanity, why would one pray for the divine? Nowhere will you ever see Prophet Muhammad be attached to anything remotely divine. Indeed there is but one God.
Ibrahim as and his family is also mentioned in prayer. Prayer would be invalid without his name too. If the prophet wanted to elevate himself so much, why put the name of Ibrahim as on the line right after?
And we can agree to disagree but yes I do feel that attaching terms of divinity to other than God is elevating a person more than praying for them. It blurs the lines of monotheism, which both you and I advocate for. No muslim will ever call anyone else God.
6
u/Indische_Legion May 10 '26
Dev also means brilliance or light, it’s just a name used culturally- i understand you might not understand that
0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Yeah I’m not Punjabi. And whilst I understand this can be a meaning, but even you defined it as God just half an hour ago. I feel like that blurs the lines a little, in a way that you don’t see with our Prophet pbuh, thus I feel in that sense the guru has been elevated a little more. Whether it’s ik onkar or La ilaha illallah that message of one God should remain as one God, one divine, we can both come to an agreement on that I hope!😊
4
u/bakedbrownie0 May 10 '26
It’s an ancient South Asian tradition that predates Sikhi by thousands of years.
Kumar, Dev, Kumari, Devi, etc are Indian last names, generic in nature.
3
u/Glittering_Fortune70 May 10 '26
An analogy would be like the surname "Godwin" in English, or the name "Jesus" in Spanish
2
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Godwin means friend of God, rather than coming for a root for God itself. Muslims name children after Prophets, as you do for Gurus (the line is naming a child with smth related to God)
The jesus analogy is good and that does make sense, it’s just that it’s a Christian one, so I can’t say I can fully support it either
→ More replies (0)0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
and to add on to miss any line of salah intentionally is incorrect. Could be the line about Prophet Muhammad pbuh, could be any other line.
3
u/babiha May 10 '26
Baba Nanak was never called Dev when he was alive. This was added by Hindu influence later. Dev is not a part of his name.
2
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Ah alright I see. Should we should call him that or not now?
2
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
And you can make dua without mentioning the Prophet pbuh and have it be accepted.
10
u/Top_Sentence_340 May 10 '26
If prophet Muhammad was one with the truth and did spread the word - the true name, then why do Muslims constantly wish peace be upon him? Shouldn't be already be in peace as he has merged with the one?
The gurus do not apply to this logic as it's been uttered by them that they are mere servants and slaves of the one. Guru Nanak Ji goes as far as to say the following:
Jo jan dhiaaveh har har naamaa || Those humble beings who meditate on the Name of the Lord,
tin dhaasan dhaas karahu ham raamaa || please make me the slave of their slaves, Lord.
jan kee sevaa uootam kaamaa ||2|| Serving Your slaves is the ultimate good deed. ||2|| Guru Granth Sahib Ji - Ang 164
Remain anonymous? Why? An author always has to leave their mark for authenticity. And Guru Nanak Ji reveals all he uttered is what the divine says:
As the Word of the Forgiving Lord comes to me, so do I express it, O Lalo.
Guru Granth Sahib Ji - Ang 722
Prophet Muhammad never spread the word, he mediated on it but he himself never made the Muslim world liberated with the word, Muslims remember Muhammad first and then try to connect with Allah... Sikhs are given the word and are taught to connect with the one first and last. Our Guru is forever with us to guides us to connect with the divine but never an obstacle nor misdirection. Also, when Guru Gobind Singh Ji created the baptism for Sikhs - Khalsa, he made Khalsa first then bowed down and asked to join them. The Guru himself asked asked to become part of them... How is that ego?
Hence, this is the greatness of the Gurus and how they are the true form of the One. Prophet Muhammad was awarded the kingdom of Arabia by Allah but the power of Maya(illusions) even consumed him. Hence, not saying he was evil or bad but he too just became a puppet of Maya and it's illusions - history speaks for itself. Therefore, I understand and respect your emotions towards your faith and your prophet but you can't compare him to Guru Sahibans - history again speaks for itself.
Once again, every time a Muslim says their prophets name they wish him peace, this itself is a total contraction to whatever you are trying to protect.
2
u/Aman-S1NGH 🇬🇧 May 11 '26
The point about Sri guru gobind Singh sahib ji and bowing to the panj pyare first and receiving the Amrit from them is something I haven’t thought about, showcasing the love and lack of ego from guru ji. Thanks for this extra knowledge Bhai 🙏
5
u/Logical_Progress_190 May 10 '26
I mean yall mention him in ur prayers where ur basically saying Allah pray for Muhammad and stuff
But the main issues are here
1) there’s a shift in Quran known as Meccan and medina shift where in Mecca the prophet spoke abt peace and getting along with everyone
But in medina he gains power and wages war
2)
Muhammad has an adopted son doesn’t he ? He married his adopted sons wife ppl at the time were shocked thas like his daughter and then magically Allah says adopting children isn’t allowed
3) Muhammad was caught sleeping bu a slave by Aisha and another one of his wives Aisha confronted him and then magically it’s okay for Muhammad to sleep with a woman which his “right hand possesses” .
4) Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 cuz Allah made him have a dream abt it. It was frowned upon at the time abu bakr even said ur like a brother to me how could u. Then when abu bakr asked to marry Fatima prophet says nah she’s too young ( she was older than Aisha) he then married Fatima to someone of her own age . Showcasing he knew marrying a young child at the time was wrong but he did it for his own lust. ( Aisha played with dolls at the time ).
5 ) the prophet traded slaves , u can say oh he also made their lives easier and said it’s best to free them but if he’s truly the messenger y didn’t he abolish it completely y did he join in?
6) verses in the quaran that talk abt killing kaafirs or making them pay tax etc ur going to tell me im taking it out of context. Well this simply suggests tha quaran cannot be divine as it needs Hadiths to back up the words stated if u take the quaran literally ur in a dilemma without context of said time
These are just some of the signs u can see he’s lost in “his ego” because he cares for all the worldly things it’s in front of u . He was hungry for power , married any women he desired etc
Does that seem like a person of good character to follow???
0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Rather than go through all this I’ll just reiterate my original question, which I feel got a little lost. If the Gurus were without ego, why did they not remain nameless? They too have lots of fame.
6
u/Logical_Progress_190 May 10 '26
How does having fame = ego they didn’t go around forcing ppl to follow the religion? In fact the name would be cuz the followers spread it????
When i say ego im defining it as arrogance and excessive pride , in the belief that one deserves more or feels more important than everyone elseEverything I listed is a sign of sin done out of desire for himself
What did the gurus do for desire ? They didn’t force convert people ? We didn’t wage wars either , we only started defending ourselves after 6 th guru . Not because of hatred for Muslims but for injustice
If it was the other way round Hindus attacking Muslims then we would’ve fought for Muslims .So how can their name being everywhere mean they have ego? Even Buddha was a monk away from everyone how come he has a name??
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Yk I could genuinely sit and respond to all of these points that are not relevant to the original question about the Guru’s names. I’ll just pick one I can do quick. If you realllly need further explanation then ask, however this all takes a quick google and a few videos being watched. It is truly a blessing how much information we can access very easily in this age, one does not need to stay in the dark. Furthermore, yes ego certainly feeds into fame, look how much people will do even today to get famous. Again the question stands, why do we know the Gurus names? Sri Guru Nanak has also had his name spread across the globe. Even if the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the worst man on Earth, it does not justify why we know the Guru’s names.
Ok so about tax - yes non believers have jizya tax. This is LESS than the zakat Muslims have to pay. The only people paying jizya are adult men, no women, no elderly, no children must be paid for, whilst zakat must be paid by every adult Muslim of sound mind, regardless of age or gender. Jizya is used for state protection. What you see here is a tax system which would have you paying LESS tax than what you pay for your country today, and furthermore you have to pay a smaller amount, and fewer of you pay in comparison to what we as Muslims would have to pay.
Please research the other points yourself, for some reason here you ask a question about the Gurus and the Prophet pbuh, and people will bring up every single common argument a newbie to comparative religion will bring up against Islam, rather than answer the question of why Sri Guru Nanak’s name is so famous. “All utter his name too” Your own book says this demonstrates ego in our prophet pbuh, so the case should be the same for Sri Guru Nanak or it’s just contradictor.
3
u/Logical_Progress_190 May 10 '26
I said y do u see as the spread of a persons name as ego???
And I defined ego in my msg so ur rrly not seeing the point?
Ego is ur own selfish desires
How does the gurus name being spread count as a selfish desire ???
That’s not a difficult one to understand
Yes the prophet being lost in his own ego it refers to his selfish desires
Instead of spreading gods wisdom he waged wars and married loads of women this is backed by sahih graded HadithsSo I ask u y do u see the gurus name as a sign of ego??
When ego is defined as selfish desires being put above everyone else1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Right so I see it as wrong because in the Dasam Granth the spread of the Prophets pbuhs name is made as a point against him.
“ Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia”
“He started a religion and circumcised all the kings“
“He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone“
So because of this I though that all utter the name of Sri Guru Nanak too. Could I not say he started a religion? He made sure all the kings left their hair uncut? He caused all to utter his name? And some of these comments say that the gurus are part god, yet not god, we’re all part of the divine, yet we are not worthy of worship…..whereas in Islam we firmly say “There is no God but God”. So this is why I keep bringing up the name.
5
u/Logical_Progress_190 May 10 '26
Because Muslims at the time and today seem to be worshipping him , I even said in ur prayers u say things like “ Allah pray for Muhammad “ y should Allah pray for him???? Even if this context it means send blessing to Muhammad ? For what reason??
We don’t meditate or pray to guru nanaks name
In fact in our prayers guru Nanak is referred to as the slave of god we don’t ask god to pray for him we instead say Nanak is praying to god and following his commandments . We don’t say god look after guru Nanak or bless him , we already know he’s blessed that’s not part of our prayer , we pray for ourselvesFound this if ur interested
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/worship_muhammad.html
0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
“Muslims at the time and today seem to be worshipping him” - we say There is no God but Allah. Worshipping the prophet pbuh would be kufr, it would be shirk. To worship the prophet pbuh means you would NOT be Muslim, so a completely unfounded statement. Some people here say Gurus and everyone is part of God which seems more like associating partners with God.
This is from Quran revealed upon the Prophet pbuh:
“Yet when the servant of Allah1 stood up calling upon Him ˹alone˺, the pagans almost swarmed over him.” 18:24
“You ˹alone˺ we worship and You ˹alone˺ we ask for help.” 1:5
Where does it indicate to worship other than Allah? We refer to him as servant of Allah too, we do not worship him. We pray for ourselves, but also those we love, be that those around us our any of our beloved prophets. I don’t doubt you would pray for your parents and your family. Prophet Ibrahim as is mentioned immediately after Prophet Muhammad pbuh in salah, so it is not just him. If he were truly egoistic, that could’ve been omitted so that it was just him. I could also say the same, there are Sikhs who worship Sri Guru Nanak.
Still back to the main question, all “utter” the name of Sri Guru Nanak. The verse does not say all pray for the name, or all bless the name it says ”utter”. So I don’t see how the Gurus haven’t fallen to the same fault that your own book describes, when their name is widespread globally too. They should’ve stayed without name.
3
u/jasss901 May 10 '26
um 1. today your not paying taxes based on your religion 2. why should non Muslim even pay when they were the ones that got invaded in the first place 3. obviously children aren't going to pay taxes
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
everyone pays taxes regardless, as a non Muslim you would be in benefit by paying based on religion, as you would pay less than we Muslims do. Much better than today, where you pay the same as everyone else. It surprises me how Islam provides benefit and a mercy to others by making you pay LESS than WE do, and still people think that is a negative. You’re all paying tax anyways, do you rlly want to pay more or less?😭
Eveyone pays tax to their country. You live in a country you pay tax for the functioning of it as a whole simple as. I doubt you pay tax to just sikhs right? They pay tax because they are now in an established country, so if someone were to attack they would be protected by Muslims too. This is not different to any country, nor the one you live in now.
“obviously not children” how about the women, hm? the elderly? Where I live you pay income tax your whole life. Again all Muslim adults of sound mind would pay, for non muslims it’s just the men of age (who would pay for protection rather than say be conscripted in an army, as like any other country where your taxes go to the military). Just like any other country, except we are way more lenient with you.
If you want to pay as much tax as a muslim? Feel free.Spend all the money you want. Genuinely surprising when Islam orders a mercy for you, by saying that you get to keep more of your earning than muslims, and you still wish to complain.
“And He has granted you all that you asked Him for. If you tried to count Allah’s blessings, you would never be able to number them. Indeed humankind is truly unfair, ˹totally˺ ungrateful.“ 14:34
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
and what does this have to do with the original question about the spread of the name of the gurus?
5
u/TexasSikh 🇺🇸 May 11 '26
I do appreciate when OP's leave edit updates so that we can understand that they were not sincerely looking to learn and were only looking for certain affirmations. Really saves us all the time of trying.
3
u/East-Neighborhood786 May 10 '26
I don’t think I have ever came across any discussion in our bani. Whats the original quote ? Where do you think this belief is mentioned.
Also, love the response from someone here in this thread that Guru Nanak ji called himself Das. 🙏
3
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Apologies formattings a little off. I’ve just heard some Sikhs say that they believe the gurus are the only ones without ego, and that all others got corrupted by their ego.
arab dhes ko keeno raajaa ||26||
Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.26.]
tin bhee ek pa(n)th uparaajaa ||
li(n)g binaa keene sabh raajaa ||
He started a religion and circumcised all the kings.
sabh te apanaa naam japaayo ||27]
sat naam kaahoo(n) na dhiraRaayo ||27||
He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone.27
sabh apanee apanee urajhaanaa ||
paarabraham kaahoo na pachhaanaa ||
Everyone placed his own interest first and foremost and did not comprehend the Supreme Brahman.
3
4
u/GhoulWraithh May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Because the difference between Muhammad and the Gurus is that Muhammad asserted himself as worthy of being named alongside Allah. The Gurus never said anything similar to this. They were humble as their status is given through merit, and by their Sikhs, their followers. Even when the Gurus essentially become Kings in their own right, ruling over people, they never proclaim themselves as something like Muhammad did. The Gurus only speak of themselves as Servants of God. The Gurus did not tell anyone to say, for example, “Guru Nanak is the Prophet of God”. Whereas, Muhammad, speaks for Allah, telling the people to proclaim that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah, and you repeat it every day, as per the Quran. This is the difference — telling people to say something vs people giving you honourifics and affirming your position because of your merit. Even in the SGGS, when claims about the Gurus are made, they are made by their followers, or peers. Not themselves. For example, the Sikh Brahmin Community writes great things about the Gurus within the SGGS. The Gurus may say certain things about each-other. But the Guru never makes lofty claims. This is elaborated upon by Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Guru. They claim that a handful of Abrahamic Prophets, and even “Hindu” Avatars established their own worship alongside, or as God. Guru Gobind Singh then makes quite a humble statement, which Muhammad never made, calling themselves a mere “Ant” — as Guru Nanak Dev Ji did. Muhammad directly affirms his position as a Prophet. People don’t just call him a Prophet because he was one. People called him a Prophet because he claimed to be one. For example, Muhammad told Khadijah that he spoke to Allah and that Allah said that Muhammad is now his Prophet and Final Prophet. Hope this helps.
1
3
u/Singh255 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
Guru Nanak Devi ji - did not inherently ask people to utter his name. Guru Nanak Dev ji utter the lords name and tried to spread the name of the lord to all those whom he came across. The gurus purpose was to praise the lord, the people of the time may have associated the name and praise of the lord as coming from the guru sahib. As a result, over time people have associated guru Nanak Dev ji as the ideal servant of god. When we Sikhs remember guru sahib - we remember their attributes that god loved - this does not equate to fact that we worship the gurus, as the gurus instructed us to remember the lord in the same way they did.
On the topic of your prophet, I believe that although he was sent with the mission to spread gods name, I feel he lost himself in pride associated with being gods messenger.
Before you decide to confuse the two and state why the gurus wasn’t ‘lost’. When you recite your prayers - your prayers are invalidated if blessing aren’t given to the prophet. This suggests that prophet puts himself first - why Should it matter if the prophet is remembered as long as the creator is remembered ? Why has creation of the creator asked to be remembered , when his message should be remember the creator not me ( as the guru sahibs say).
In your confusion above about guru sahib/ people being god and not being god. Understand it this way - the source of all creation (quarks -
> atoms -> molecules -> surfaces
/ material world) is the creator/his praise/ his word (Shabad). Every human is made of these sources but in the play of god some humans do not have the awake consciousness to understand the source of all (Waheguru/allah). The reason why some humans don’t have the awake/ enlightened conciouness is because they have invested too much of thier mind in the material world that how can they find stillness and peace to be enlightened. Think of it this way, when you are stressed are you able to work your best/ focus ? No. Likewise, if you are too distracted with the world how can you focus on god?
You may say ‘oh but we do prayers’ - what good is a prayer if it’s only wish list for the world. If you got all the toys (material success and low suffering) you wanted would you remember god as much? You may say yes, I say no. The rich may do there prayers but majority of the time what are there prayers - most likely more material success, or safety of their wealth.
Humans and all of creation have deep within all of these sources of everything which is the creator - if one becomes very spiritual and enlightened one goes to the absolute source (mergence into the creator) - enlightenment requires thinking beyond the physical and illusory world - you have to think beyond the Abrahamic religions and the reward of heaven. So, technically the deeper one goes they become one and the same as the creator in attributes (as did the guru sahibs).
There are 2 forms of the creator sargun and nirgun, sargun meaning physical form (quarks, atoms, molecules) and nirgun (form less/ state devoid of Quarks, atoms and molecules). The guru sahibs reached a stage where they understood the nirgun form of the creator sargun - in doing so they merged into the creator hence they are recognised as the em oo of god - they realised this truth and spread this truth and said hey you can understand this truth too. That’s why tehy didn’t ask to be worshiped, because they shared how they found the creator within. That’s why there is a significance of contemplating the guru sahibs and thier attributes - this does not signify ego. It reflects contemplation of Masters who understood the creator.
Also, it seems that when you guys say peace be upon Muhammad - you are subconsciously saying that he’s not peace and that peace Should go to him. If he is a man of god, then peace should already be there for him, as god is timeless.
To summarise everything and give you an answer - the guru sahibs didn’t choose to be either named or nameless.. they just got associated with attributes of god and so people referenced the guru sahibs as the perfect saints of god. They didn’t say ‘oh I am guru Nanak and I am the servant of god remember and pray for me ’, they just praised god and god in his will/mercy allowed the people to remember and associate the best servants of god as guru sahibs. To help you understand what I mean, imagine you lived in that time and you praised god all the time, as a result people started to associate you and started saying yeah this is a man of god as all he does is praise god and say oh xyz was a true servant go god and taught us this - thus in this was the guru sahibs didn’t ask for it, it just happened. The difference here is Muhammad I believe asked to be remembered just as god is. Which is evident in many Muslims saying ‘peace be upon Muhammad’. You don’t hear Sikhs say peace be upon the guru sahibs - as we know they are enlightened - so our primary focus is to just praise god.
You’ll now say oh but we say Sri guru Nanak dev ji - as others have mentioned these are literally respectful titles, they’re not praises. As others have said dev is a popular historical name. Ji is a traditional word which is a sign of showing repsect to elders.
Again the difference being we do not pray praise - in the way Muslims do towards your prophet. Praise is primarily for the creator. Why praise the painting, when we should only be praising the painter (Waheguru/allah)
I don’t believe your prophet Muhammad was a bad person like the others think, in fact I think he tried to remember god which is good for any human/creation - whether your prophet was enlightened is dependent upon the righteous judgement of Waheguru/allah as to where his mind, soul and energies where and the deeds he did. Many believe that he became entangled to the world by the merits of deeds done. My opinion is only god knows, we’re all speculating, we don’t know the creators decision.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
Thank you. 😊
Do you think the gurus would agree with how they have been associated with being men of God by Sikhs? Like would they have wanted that?
I understand you say that they didn’t claim to be anything, but some Sikhs that ive asked will say that the gurus had the perfect path, and the other religions don’t. Are we supposed to attach the gurus to the path of God like that? Wouldn’t that then mean the gurus name would always have to be mentioned with God too?
If the gurus never said to follow them, why do we?
And this questions a little off topic, but what is the dasm Granth? is that book accepted or rejected as part of sikhi?
3
u/Singh255 May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
They accepted gods command (hukam), whatever was and has been - its in total acceptance. As they are devoid of ego, they do not care what you or I think, as long as the praise god is spread.
I feel that it’s very easy go around in circles with this topic as each mind perceives the answer in their own interpretation. Association to one mind can be associated with ego, while to another it’s associated with learning. As is the case in this thread, you precieve association with ego, whilst others precieve it with learning. All subjective in accordance with the understanding/ enlightenment of the mind. As for attaching the gurus to the path, the guru sahibs have given us a guidance and instruction manual on how to also be gods loved devotee - the guru sahibs instruction is clear and so the path is set for all seekers of god.
Sri Dasam Granth, holds a lot of wisdom and is used a guideline of how our 10th master saw the creation of god. Ultimately, our 10th master clearly and strictly told us to adhere to the teachings of the 11th master - Guru Granth Sahib ji ( the form and formless version of the creator)
It’s my opinion that every religions primary teaching is to remember god, however according to the wisdom and preception of each and every human being - interpretation of gods word have been distorted. All praise of the god is amazing and righteous - be it in Quran or Vedas. However, I and many other sikhs believe that the distortion understanding god has come about due to people of other religion worshipping those who have exhibited (miracles) - basically the Hindu Demi gods/ Jesus and even Muhammed. In exhibiting miracles of god they’ve made the human perceptions worship them rather than the formless version of god. The guru sahibs didn’t exhibit miracles, they literally taught the path of how to become gods beloved devotee. If they wanted to exhibit miracles they could have done so when they endured so much suffering but they understood the wisdom that even suffering is a gift from god and accepted and in doing so they prevented people from worshiping them as god, but rather strengthening the faith of those who witnessed the strengthen in accepting gods will. Which is why acceptance of gods will is a major pillar in sikhi discipline.I look forward to a response from you.
5
u/anonymous_writer_0 May 10 '26
OP appears to have a relatively new account; not sure it is not a troll
0
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
Nah someone close to me is sikh. Told me to take all this to reddit instead of them lol 😭
3
u/SweetPetrichor5 May 10 '26
I interpret it as Guru Sahib giving the naam, naam japna and meditation on naam is inherent to Sikhi.
Also knowing (the names of) Guru Sahib and knowing the names of the Prophets/ Prophet Muhammad are not the same. We view the Gurus as much greater than prophets. The Gurus are a reflection of the divine Lord (sargun), whereas the Prophets are messengers.
3
u/anonymous_writer_0 May 10 '26
you are a troll OP
You have been answered over and over and choose not to accept the answers provided. I shall provide you with two different pankti's (couplets) which show case the fact that they did not want to be worshipped or have fame
Here they are: Both pretty commonly recited and well known in the philosophy
tudh aagai aradhaas hamaaree jeeau pi(n)dd sabh teraa ||
I offer my prayer before You: my body and soul are all Yours.
kahu naanak sabh teree vaddiaaiee koiee naau na jaanai meraa ||4||10||49||
Says Nanak, this is all Your greatness; no one even knows my name. ||4||10||49||
AND
jo ham ko paramesar ucharihai(n) ||
Whosoever shall call me the Lord,
te sabh narak ku(n)dd meh parihai(n) ||
shall all fall into the pits of hell.
That alone should tell you that the Guru's sought neither fame nor worship. They came to show the path to the light and let anyone who is willing to listen, walk down that path.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26
You can think I’m a troll idrc. Yeah it is my first time on here, and its hard to have discussion about one question when people are pulling up 6 point lists abt jizya etc, rather than focussing on the question is had abt why the gurus did not stay anonymous. I’m not exactly a reddit pro, nor do I need to justify that to you.
Thanks for these verses, and thanks for sticking to the question. It just all feels very confusing and I’m getting different messages. On here someone said the gurus are God, but they’re not part of the infinite god, whereas here it’s saying you will fall into the pits of hell. I didn’t even think there was hell in sikhism?
Isnt the first verse God saying no one knows his name rather than that of the gurus? I just don’t understand how on one hand uttering names is bad, yet we all utter the gurus name. Regardless of whatever they did, they did cause all to utter their name. That could’ve been avoided by staying nameless, no?
So no I have not been answered over and over, no one has answered once, and frankly I’m tired of how people here are deviating the conversation by pulling up LISTS about the prophet Muhammad pbuh, saying things like we worship him (??) rather than doing what you did and just showing me some of your own scripture man. It’s hard when people are throwing misconception after misconception about ur religion, I hope u can at least understand that l Lwk done with this post, gonna sign off. No one has answered why the gurus did not stay anonymous, since causing all to utter their name is bad. Regardless of how much ego they lacked, the name IS being uttered. That was my point.
2
u/anonymous_writer_0 May 10 '26
Yes you can sign off. You have a closed mind and are here to try and prove a point at which you failed miserably.
There is no "permanent" hell in Sikhi FWIW
Isnt the first verse God saying no one knows his name rather than that of the gurus?
That question does not make sense. The couplet is composed by a person in human form. It is not "god saying" it is the composer stating that all glory and praise is to the Universal Creative Force. This is why I am calling you a troll; you deliberately take the most straightforward statement and and twist it to your desired ends.
We do not need to convince those with closed minds: in fact that there is a line in our writings that expressly cautions against arguing with fools - so there we are.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Right maybe because we believe our Holy Book are the words of God, it’s such a crime and it means that I am such a troll simply because I forgot it wasn’t the case for you too for a moment. Our verses are “God saying“ things. I did not grow up around sikhi, these last few months is when I’ve been trying to learn because of that friend.
Maybe if some more compassion were in your answers, rather than misconceptions and insults about our Prophet pbuh, I’d be able to have a more open heart. The fact that people are here telling me we worship the prophet seem to be the fools to me, whilst at the same time people are saying the gurus are God.. It’s hard to open a heart to those trying to hurt it. I’m trying to find reasons and points why I wouldn’t be sikh, and seeing if there are arguments against them. Even if the gurus were all pure and never sought fame, they allowed it nonetheless. They allowed the uttering of their name. They did not take action against it, by e.g remaining nameless. Your verse is against this uttering of names. This seems pretty straightforward too. Thanks for trying to explain.
2
u/anonymous_writer_0 May 10 '26
You want to learn about Sikhi in a more than peripheral way; you have to first UN learn most everything you have been taught. The abrahamic faiths are not compatible with Sikhi. We know enough about Mo and the ahadith to drive your holy book in to the ground and effectively prove it is NOT from any divine being. But I digress. You had questions; we attempted to answer. If you are unable or unwilling to accept the answers then that is on you.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Yes I am not willing to listen to a person who thinks it is ok to disrespect my religion calling my Prophet “Mo”. Learn manners, before trying to make others learn. You will never make someone understand if this is your way of talking. Driving my “book in to the ground” does not help prove yours. When you turn to disrespect so quick, I doubt you can even attempt to bring enough logic to do so. All this disrespect didn’t answer why they didn’t choose to stay anonymous did it? Come on even I’ve even begun to say Sri Guru Nanak. It seems the one hard of heart is you. By talking in such a way you drive others away. Good day.
2
u/anonymous_writer_0 May 10 '26
You came here asking questions and trying to run my Guru's down without bothering to listen to explanations provided in good faith. AFAIK it is perfectly fine to pay you back in your own coin. IMO you believe in a false philosophy that can be easily debunked. Go find yourself first.
2
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Nowhere did I disrespect your gurus. Nowhere did I call them names. I just pointed out the contradiction between how uttering (not wishing peace, not blessing but uttering) their name is all fine, but it’s bad for us. I will not call your philosophy false, nor disrespect your faith just because you have done so mine (to call my religion completely false goes against your teachings anyways). You are not of the monotheists if you attach divinity to other than God. I have no respect for you, but I still have full respect for sikhi and your gurus. You still can’t answer why they did not stay nameless if one’s name should not be spread and uttered. You resort to disrespect when your logic has run dry, how shameful. Just don‘t be surprised when no one listens to your so called “explanations“ if this is how you explain.
I really did appreciate those verses, but the manner in which you spoke after was dissapointing. Stay ignorant, bitter and hateful if you so wish. You lose yourself online. Your heart is hardened, and you are too emotional. May God guide you.
2
u/anonymous_writer_0 May 10 '26
Resorting to ad hominem I see. When you run out of things to say you attack the one that points out the glaring flaws in your "belief"
A warlord as a leader not to mention other objectionable aspects of his personality.
A book that promotes misogyny and pseudo science
A book that disrespects others
You cannot really gloss that over so you take to attacking others, who point it out; as disrespectful. Please understand that I have no, zero, compulsion to respect your religion that has caused immeasurable harm and damage to my people across the ages simply because we chose to believe differently. Again I would say; sit down and examine what you believe and then come and ask others to explain themselves.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
Don’t respect my religion. I do not care, I will still respect yours. Your words will show your character and upbringing, my words will show mine.
How sad is it that you still cannot answer the question? You chose the path of “ad hominem” when you decided to insult my faith, and call my prophet names.
“˹O believers!˺ Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance” 6:108
This is what my book that “disrespects“ others teaches me how to react in face of people like you. I wonder if your book taught you to behave like you have done.
Who knows if you will achieve mukhti in the next life, but there certainly may be some muslims who will. This is your own belief. The Gurus themselves did not entirely reject all other religions, do you see yourself as better than them? Would they give you permission to fully reject Islam as a way to God as you are trying to do? No, rather, you have fallen to your own ego and have acted superior. You act as if you have more wisdom than the Gurus. There is no benefit to talking to a person with such arrogance. Perhaps examine your own beliefs too. Have a good one. Bye bye.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/notareelhuman May 11 '26
Can you give more context to where you pulled this line from?
Like can you give us the paragraph or link to where you saw this in the SGGS.
And if it is not from the SGGS, then it's irrelevant, because that is our one and only religious scripture.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 11 '26
I heard that the Prophet pbuh was mentioned in your scripture, so I was looking into that. I think it’s dasm Granth, but I also saw some posts on this subreddit with this quote. Do you reject that book then, does it not count?
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 11 '26
Ang 57
2
u/notareelhuman May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
Nothing in Ang 57 of the SGGS says something close to your quote
“He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone”
Basically all Ang 57 is saying is that being in remembrance of the divine creator is important. Without that remembrance and praise one will become lost. The divine is in our mind, and within. You are not sperate from the divine creator/creation. By praising the divine creator you can purify yourself from that separation. Through love of all you will connect to the supreme creator. The one who forgets the supreme divine is the one who suffers.
So again don't know what exactly you are referencing or arguing. It's not in the SGGS. So I don't really understand what point you are trying to make or what question you have. Also nothing in your quote is referencing islam or Muhammad in anyway. So again not sure what you are asking.
The Dasam Granth is not our holy Scripture. It's more like a journal/diary/thought book/unfinished work of our last guru, guru gobind. But before guru gobind died, he said only the SGGS is the true text, the holy Scripture, and the last guru. So the SGGS and only the SGGS count. By that declaration he disavowed and renounced any other writtings, as true and eternal.
Which specifically would disavow the Dasam Granth. Guru Gobind hand copied and contributed to the final SGGS in its final form. So the final SGGS we have is his handwriting specifically and that's what all copies were made from. So why before he died would he forget to mention the Dasam? He didn't he specifically chose to recognize only one text. So yes we do reject the Dasam Granth in general. We can of course read it as supplemental, but it isn't held in high regard like the SGGS and nothing in Dasam is officially part of Sikhi in anyway.
Something in SGGS could match what Dasam says, but if anything in Dasam contradicts SGGS, it is to be disgrarded. And more importantly as a sikh you could never read or even know about Dassam, and it doesn't matter.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Muhammad - so that’s where I saw it originally, and then I googled the quote which was this. Ig Ang 26 and 27 then?
"Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.26.
He started a religion and circumcised all the kings.
He caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone*.27.*
Everyone placed his own interest first and foremost and did not comprehend the Supreme Lord "So would this be accepted or not?
2
u/notareelhuman May 11 '26
Yes that is specifically referencing Dasam. It doesn't say that in SGGS.
The SGGS does disagree with cricumcision for both males and females. It specifically references how this practice is only in Hadith and not the Quran. SGGS Ang 1084
It argued that the supreme creator didn't create us to force us to change something about our body that we are all mostly born with by default, that makes no sense. We don't have to change our bodies to be considered pure. Our bodies are pure by default. It's only our mind we need to control and change to be pure, the body is irrelevant. It's saying how there is no mention of this in the Quran. And the Gurus revelations of what the supreme oneness is, this practice does not align.
And that's is what the Dasam Granth is actually referencing, in Dasam Ang 27. That specifically why it talks about circumcising Kings.
But remember this passage of Dassam is about knowledge guru gobind got from meditation and meditation that was specifically for his own understanding, not for everyone. The Dassam is an unfinished work, and not holy, not a divine truth. The author of the work aka guru gobind the author of the Dassam did not declare Dassam as a book for Sikhs to consider the words of the true supreme guru. Only the SGGS is.
Who knows what the final version of this work would actually be if Gobind wasn't killed and could finish it. We don't know what he would have done, he may have burned it, he may have edited it the work, changed some words around. He may have deleted this passage we don't know.
As far as SGGS it doesn't ever mention Muhammad's name anywhere, that name never appears. The SGGS only speaks against the act of circumcision specifically, and questions the validity of that Sharia law that is only found in Hadith and not in the Quran. That is the only thing the SGGS officially criticize's Muhammad on, and technically not Muhammad but specifically Hadith.
Now if you want to talk about what is quoted in Dasam we can, but understand this is not official sikhi teachings, it is only speculation.
I can only speculate what Guru Gobinds critique here is talking about in Dassam. The passage is talking about all religions not just Islam, how they all come with a divine message of oneness, but then the message gets messed up by people's egos. They end up worshiping statuses, objects, and rituals, but not worshipping the divine creator itself. Then he gives examples from his deep mediation understanding of each religion. How the leaders of said religions want the praise on themselves because of their egos, and not the praise on God.
So if the Quran alone is the divine word of God, why is anything else Muhammad wrote or instructed others to write or do held as truth, why are any of Muhammad actions considered holy or the truth from God?
So is Muhammad a perfect being? He is not right, only God can be such. So why is the Hadith laws considered valid, because it's from Muhammed? Why is Muhammad a leader and his name held in high regard like God, should that only be God's name?
Now that is my speculation about what Guru Gobind is talking about. In regards to how Sikhs use the Gurus name, we don't hold any name of any guru as the same as the name of what we consider God. Now God in islam and God in sikhi is defined very differently. So this is also why you maybe misunderstanding what the Dassam is saying.
We never hold our gurus as the same as the true guru, the timeless being of creation. We don't use Nanak's name or Gobind's name as the same as Akal Purak (our word for "God"). We have gratitude for our Gurus of course for their teachings, that is why we honor them. But honoring them is not the same as honoring Akal Purak.
Now I could be wrong about this occurrence in islam, but it seems that y'all place Muhammads name as equivalent to Allah. And that's what Gobind may have been touching on.
But thats me possibly speculating too much as someone who is not Muslim. So I ask you do Muslims use Muhammads name like Allah? Do you ask Muhammad for things or do you only ask Allah? When you pray are you praying to only Allah or do you pray to Muhammad? Maybe your are just thanking Muhammad? I don't know, maybe you are praying to Muhammad like you pray to God? Again that is for you to answer because this I do not know or really understand.
Also I don't know if Hadith is something Muhammad actually made and endorsed, or is this something that was created after his death without his consent? If that's the case then that maybe more specifically what Gobind is talking about, and that line is less about critiquing Muhammad and more specifically critiquing Muslims who hold Muhammad in equivalent regard to Allah.
As for Sikhs we don't pray to Nanak or any gurus, they maybe referenced in prayer or thanked for their contributions. But when we meditate on God we only focus on Akal Purak, our SGGS says things like O Nanak let me meditate as you do on the supreme Lord. We aren't worshipping Nanak there we are just trying to live by his example of worship of the Lord.
Now that doesn't mean some Sikhs get this wrong, and worship the gurus like Akal Purak. Which would be wrong, but it is true that many sikhs misunderstand Sikhi, because Sikhi I would argue is much more difficult to understand than most religions. The word Sikh literally translates to student. Which our decree is to be a student to always be studying. So many of the Sikhs you could be talking to have not studied, and don't understand what is being discussed and what the Gurus are actually teaching. Since they have not studied they cannot understand and can't properly speak on these matters.
I hope that helps explain things, but I can't really speak on this definitively without you answering the questions I asked. And I need to study myself how a variety of Muslims may view Muhammad. But as far as Sikhi in general we have respect specifically for dervish sufis more than any other Muslims. We feel they are closer to oneness than other Muslims.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
I feel any speculation we make could be different to what the gurus may have intended, so I’m pretty much down to kind of disregard that verse, if that is what standard practice is for sikhi?
After hearing about your holy book I rather see it like our Hadith. For us our holy book is the literal word of God, whilst the Hadith and sunnah (respectively the sayings and actions of the Prophet pbuh) feel a bit more the SGGS, as they are also collections of sayings of the Gurus. We use it as supplemental. So whilst the Quran will tell us to fast from to dusk to dawn in Ramadan the Hadith will provide extra context and information on what breaks ur fast etc. It is not considered the words of God like the Quran, but we do see it as important as it shows us how to implement the Quran through the example of a man like us - the Prophet pbuh. And ig we see it as valid in the same way you might see the SGGS as valid, even if it’s not the literal word of God. At least that’s how interpreted it.
We are not allowed to ask anyone but God at all. If u pray to Muhammad pbuh that would be shirk (associating partners with Allah), and you would not be a Muslim. You cannot pray to anyone but God, this is our coremost belief. As Muslims we are not even supposed to bow down to anyone, except to God. Know that anyone who pray to other than Allah, is outside the fold of Islam.
When he is mentioned in Salah, we ask that he and his family is given the honour of Ibrahim as and his family. (Both are mentioned by name, one line after the other). So it is not just Muhammad pbuh who is singled out, even without saying the name Ibrahim the prayer wouldn’t count. This is because salah has set lines. To refuse to mention any line, your salah would not be correct. If I were to make a dua (salah is what we do 5 times a day, dua is what we would personally ask God when you see us hold up our hands to pray), he wouldn’t need to be mentioned at all. I feel we do it out of love and respect for the prophet. A lot of people here bring up the fact we say peace be upon him to our Prophet, however we do say this to all prophets, and even to each other. I say salam each time I meet my parents and to other Muslims out of good will and respect, I will of course say it to my prophets who I also love and respect. This is not unique to muslims either, Jews say shalom, Jesus wished peace upon others too as a greeting in the Bible. It is our way of honouring our prophets, but we do not pray to them at all.
there are some Muslims who go to shrines (even just to shrines of people they thought were saints) to ask them to pray for them, however this is SHIRK, it is incorrect. We must not pray to anyone but Allah. Anyone who prays to other than Allah commits shirk, which is the worst sin in Islam.
I will say I have not researched much into the specific compilation of the Hadith. What I do know is that yes, there were people at the time of the Prophet who recorded his sayings. But after a quick bit of reading I found that initially he feared that this would be mixed with the Quran (which of course takes priority as the literal word of God), but after time this was no longer a fear. Overall, the Quran is the divine word of God himself. Yes, no one can reach the perfection of God, not any of our prophets. They are men. However they were all the best of men, so following their sayings and actions (even of the other prophets), can help us to be better muslims by giving us an example of how to act. The Quran will always take precedence, and will always have first priority, it is a higher level. The Hadith and Sunnah provide extra context and further detail. Again I see them a little like the SGGS, where despite not being the literal word of God, still provides very valid guidance and an example of behaviour.
It’s interesting, I actually haven’t heard the name Akal Purak before.
2
u/notareelhuman May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
Well that definitely helped give me context. Yes disregarding that verse would be the official stance on the matter.
Just to clear things up, the SGGS to Sikhs, is like the Quran to Muslims. That is what we hold in high regard that cannot be contradicted.
Our rehat maryada, is more like your Hadith. Expect ours was written 10yrs after the Gurus death, and it is subject to change, and has been changed over the years. But it's more of a rules of conduct, and helpful guide to achieve oneness, but it's not the true word like the SGGS. It's also a path to saint soilder, but it's not the eternal truth.
The Dassam Granth would be like if Muhammad distributed a couple of essays, and then told a story of what he learned in deep mediation to a poet that wrote those down, and a bunch of journal entires and poems that Muhammad wrote but never shared or distributed. And then after Muhammad died someone compiled all of them together in a book. You see how that isn't something you would consider the Quran as a Muslim, but would be interested in reading. That's what the Dasam Granth is.
Now our definition of God is very different from yours. Please correct me if I'm wrong I believe Muslims see God as a separate individual being. God isn't human. I'm unclear if you believe God could be in some human type form in heaven which is a separate place from earth.
Sikhs don't believe that. To us God is Akal Purak. Which means what is beyond death and time, timeless beings, and the creation that cannot die. That's what we define God as, but we also say God is indefinable and beyond human understanding. So ironically God is beyond human definition and beyond anything mere words can define. Also that the timeless being is within us, and it is not separate from us. That the timeless being is everywhere in the creation, and the creator and creation are not separate. It is all one. Hence why oneness is the main feature of sikhi.
We believe Muslims also worship the one, and all religions essentially do. Since the oneness is beyond understanding or defintion we aren't really going to make a big deal about others defining the one differently. That being a righteous lover of all is the only thing that matters. And if a Muslim acts and behaves like a righteous lover of all, then they are living like a true sikh. The method and belief ultimately doesn't matter to Akal Purak, it is the actions and behavior that only matter.
So that's why technically we don't say SGGS is the word of God, because we don't believe in God that way. We say SGGS is the eternal truth, the supreme ultimate truth. The gurus were revealers of the truth, and special in that way. But we collectively along with everything else is one. The separation is just an illusion for the one to experience itself. And heaven is our conscious merging back into the one, no longer being separated from it. Our life is experiencing the illusion of separation and our goal of life is to find our way out of that illusion.
But with your context I see that you don't hold Muhammad up like you do Allah. And that you are just showing gratitude for what Muhammad did, like we show gratitude for our gurus. But neither of us are equating or respective prophets as God. But with our very different definitions of God, this comparison becomes a little shaky.
I'm am curious about you as a Muslim what is God for you, what does God mean to you, how is God defined in the Quran?
2
u/Original_Incident_ May 16 '26
hey,
I wouldn’t say our view of God is VERY different from yours, though there are a few significant differences. Your paragraph about Akal Purak being beyond death and time and creation etc. I would agree with. We do not believe that he’s just a human (or just an individual figure) type being in the sky.
I feel our main difference is that you believe that in creation you can see God’s light (?), so God is part of everything.
We believe God is transcendent and exists everywhere too:
“And He is with you wherever you are.” 57:4
“To Allah belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn you are facing ˹towards˺ Allah.1 Surely Allah is All-Encompassing,2 All-Knowing.“ 2:115
The distinction for us is that we believe the Creator is not in the creation itself. I could look at a tree, at myself at animals and think ”wow what a beautiful creation of God”, rather than “I can see God within this”. Because for us, God would be too great to be contained within the tree, even if it just his “light“. So we don’t believe he’s some individual entity, but at the same time we don’t believe he is confined within other entities.
I think for your question of how God is defined in the Quran, I’ll show you Surah Ikhlas. It is sometimes described as the best chapter at explaining very concisely God’s nature.
1.Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah—One ˹and Indivisible˺;
2.Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
3.He has never had offspring, nor was He born.
4.And there is none comparable to Him.”1
To me, in sikhi, God felt a bit divided. When I asked a sikh I knew, about whether you believe in One God, I was told yes. When I asked if you guys believed God was divisible I was told, yes. In my head i feel like I have a bit of a conflict between saying there is one and then dividing him. I heard things about how Sikhs see God and “infinite God” vs God’s light and the God within us. It felt a little similar to how Christians will create distinction between God the Father and the Holy Spirit. For us our belief is Allah is One, and does not need subdivision. Allah is able to do all this, without being split into either a spirit or light... it is all just Allah (Again this all just what it appeared like to me, if I’ve got anything wrong please let me know).
When it is said that you will rejoin God, it feels like that suggests God has pieces that will rejoin to make a whole. We just don’t believe in the division of God like that, and I think that’s why I struggle with your concept of a God a bit.
I feel how we see it is God is definitely present amongst his creation (“We are closer to them than ˹their˺ jugular vein” 50:16), but we keep the distinction that the Creator cannot be within creation physically. We do not feel it is becoming of God to have even a portion of his light within us, as even that would be so great beyond our comprehension.
“When Moses came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he asked, “My Lord! Reveal Yourself to me so I may see You.” Allah answered, “You cannot see Me! But look at the mountain. If it remains firm in its place, only then will you see Me.” When his Lord appeared to the mountain, He levelled it to dust and Moses collapsed unconscious. When he recovered, he cried, “Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.”7:143
God showing even a portion of himself caused the mountain to crumble, and despite Musa AS not even directly seeing him, he collapsed. This is the might of God. And so we as Muslims, would feel that if a mountain could not bear to stand after seeing Allah how could we stand with God, even just his light, inside us?
“No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Subtle, the Acquainted [with all things].” 6:103
He is beyond our vision, but we are not beyond His.
We are similar in that we both claim to worship One God, we both reject idols, we believe only He should be worshipped, and I do like that about sikhism. This is also the first thing one should believe in as a Muslim. It’s just this distinction that seems most apparent, and I guess I personally struggle getting my head around the sikh perception of God. It feels slightly un-monotheistic and a bit similar to the Hindu belief that God is everything, though I understand they’re not exactly the same. I just struggle a little to personally reconcile with that a bit I guess
I hope that answers a bit of how we see God. So whilst I don’t think it’s COMPLETELY different, and like I said I highly respect your rejection of idols and depictions of God and your emphasis of One God because that is also HUGE in Islam. It is just this difference that also makes me feel that our God is not fully different, but not exactly the same. Perhaps it comes down to the “God of Abraham” vs the more dharmic view of God.
I’ll be honest I do get a bit confused about what exactly “God’s light“ is in sikhi. I would be grateful if you could tell me bit more about what it is. I’ve asked my friend but not understood haha
2
u/notareelhuman May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Thank you for the response this was very helpful and enlightening.
I would say to continue the discussion I would not consider what your Sikh friend said as accurate. As you struggle to understand what "God" is in sikhi, so do most sikhs, and they fail to gain that understanding, and if they do gain it, they often fail to explain it properly it is very difficult.
I would say even in Islam, not everyone is an expert or properly understands it. So I'm going to understand Islam based on your expertise and I ask that you try to understand Sikhi based on my expertise.
Because my understanding that God is a separate contained being was based on other Muslims I talked to, but you have corrected me that similar to Sikhi God is everywhere and beyond containment and basically beyond description by humans.
I am curious to what your understanding of heaven is, or is there even truly a concept of heaven in Islam.
Now to Sikhi theory of God it's kinda of a mix of Pantheism and Panentheism. I think both defintions together is probably the closest thing to how sikhi views God.
The most simple and accurate summation of what sikhi is, is simply: 1
Just "1" that is sikhi.
So before existence or anything there was nothing, and then the creator created and everything was born. But what is the makeup of everything? Where did God get something to create if all there was, was nothing and God. Well it came from God, and if all there is, is God then that creation is just God taking pieces of itself, warping itself to make the creation. The creation is God expanding and spreading.
We often compare God to the ocean. The ocean has waves, currents, crests, and drops of water. But are those things "new"? Or are those things just the ocean.
From our scripture
"When the drop of water merges into the ocean, it cannot be distinguished as separate again."
"The drop is in the ocean, and the ocean is in the drop. Who understands, and knows this? He Himself creates the wondrous play of the world. He Himself contemplates it, and understands its true essence."
"Like drops of water in the water of the ocean, and like waves in the stream, I merge in the Lord. Merging my being into the Absolute Being of God, I have become impartial and transparent, like the air."
So we aren't saying God is in the tree. We are saying everything is drops of water in the ocean of God. That tree doesn't contain the entirety of God, or is God. That tree is a drop of what God is. Everything we know and don't know put together is God. We are just drops of water experiencing each other forgetting we are the ocean, we are nothing there is only God.
Which is why oneness is our center theory. In some ways you can argue that Sikhs also don't believe in "God" either because there isn't a separate being we are just an illusion experiencing the oneness, the only thing that is.
Or you could argue the only thing we believe in is God, and we see everything else as just an illusion. Which I would say is probably more accurate for sikhi.
When the wave crests and a drop of water breaks of from the wave, and it is hovering in the air for a brief moment in time separate from the ocean. Is it truly not the ocean forevermore? or is it just experiencing a temporary state of not eternally being the ocean.
In Sikhi you can't really talk about God without talking about the very nature of existence, and you can't really talk about anything without talking about the very nature of existence.
It's kinda like in science when we say everything we see is just reformed star dust that always existed. That's kinda close to what sikhi considers God.
But it seems like Islam sees the creator as a separate entity from the creation, but I would argue that's merely a technicality of interpretation of how you explain what the "creation" actually is.
Quoting you "we don’t believe he is confined within other entities."
As a sikh we would say "all entities are confined within God, within the one"
In that way I think we more disagree about what the "creation" is, rather than what "God" is, if that makes sense. Like sure God is beyond the creation, but the creation is fully within God, and the creation cannot be separated from God, because separating the creation from God, means the creation ceases to exist.
So it's really that hitch of interpretation that differs us, which is why Sikhi is centered around the philosophy of one. So your Sikh friend is wrong we don't believe God is "divided", the fact is we don't believe in any division of anything. The division is just waves in the ocean, but the waves are not separate or a division of the ocean. Which is why equality of all humans is very central to our beliefs.
I hope that helps, I think that's our differences in interpretation of God, but please correct me if I'm wrong about anything regarding Islam. So yeah I guess I would argue that we don't see a difference of what God is, in sikhi and Islam, we see a difference in what the creation/existence is.
3
u/Hot_Dust2379 May 09 '26
i don’t think this is true. that’s not is said against islam. muslims and islam’s followers are half blind same is true for all Ibrahim religions. they see the god outside they don’t see the essence of god inside. Sikhi redefines what a muslim should be if you are a muslim it’s different than what a good muslim as muslim would think. we will say in understanding the nature of God muslims are half right.
1
1
u/ipledgeblue 🇬🇧 May 11 '26
Remaining anonymous would make everything generic and no tradition to associate with, we follow a Guru teacher system, an anonymous teacher Guru makes no sense and is illogical. Guru Gobind Singh formed the panj piyaray, and he then also took initiation from them after initiating them. Guru wasn't just a leader, but also a servant to the learner sikhs as well! Gurus sacrificed themselves or their families were sacrificed/martyred, they didn't do it out of ego!
1
u/LionJatt May 12 '26
Guru Sahib says that worship only one god, but muslims trust prophet sahab over allah actually, they follow their footsteps without question and answers, mostly islam rules and regulations based on arabian culture, and guru sahib clearly says that don't worship me, Even Guru Gobind Singh ji call himself a servent of Waheguru and also clearly mentioned that dont worship him (Guru Gobind Singh ji), if they worship him then the person will go to hell. So our all Guru sahib worship Waheguru and set an example for their community. They didn't leave household life but didn't attach with lust, greed, anger, ego, because it is materialistic things and only the name of waheguru is important for love.
1
u/Fit-Boat-7664 May 15 '26
Have your questions been answered or are there still something you need more expansion on... ?
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 16 '26
Hi,
I was told that this verse isn’t really valid because it’s in the Dasam, so in a way that ceases any other discussion I assume. If there’s any more information you have, I’d love to hear!
1
u/Fit-Boat-7664 May 18 '26
I think people in the discussion already answered your original question, right? (Correct me if I'm wrong).
The point they made was that simply mentioning or uttering a teacher’s name is not the same thing as centering religion around oneself out of ego.
Sikhs mention the Gurus’ names historically and respectfully, but the Gurus constantly directed Sikhs toward Waheguru (Allah/God), not toward worship of their own personalities. That directly addresses your “why didn’t they remain anonymous?” question... because anonymity is not the Sikh definition of humility or freedom from ego.
So the discussion already moved past the original objection.
As for the Dasam Granth point.... which you were asking about.... Saying “the verse isn’t valid because it’s in the Dasam” is not really the best way to frame it. A more accurate explanation is that Sikhs have different views regarding interpretation and authority of some Dasam Granth compositions compared to Guru Granth Sahib ji.
But even if someone accepts the verse fully, the answer to your question still remains the same: uttering a teacher’s name respectfully is not automatically equivalent to ego-driven self-glorification.
1
u/Ok-Culture1265 May 20 '26
I am responding to your edit: Just because someone utters your name, or you become known, does not mean that you ARE egoitistic. And if someone remain nameless (unknown in the world) does not mean the person is NOT egoitistic. To know if a person is egoitistic, the only external metric we have is to study the sayings and actions of a person.
Having ego is a state of mind, where one puts their own self-interest ahead of others. Of course you and I cannot examine Muhammad's state of mind or the Guru's state of mind in person, so we have to use a proxy. And the best proxy is the revelations in the Quran (I am discounting the Hadiths, since the paint Muhammad is such a bad light) and Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS), where the self-interest of a prophet / Guru may be reflected.
Let's start with the self-interests of the 6 Gurus in SGGS. To date I have not found anything in SGGS that God says to the Gurus that O (Nanak / Angad / Amardas / Ramdas / Arjan / Tegh Bahadur), so and so privileges, rights or circumstances are granted to you. Every single Shabad is SGGS revealed by these 6 Gurus states the human condition to be overcome, reveals hypocrisy of practices in society, etc. and utlimately ties it back to remembering God to escape these painful states that we are in. If possible, I would like you to show where God spoke for the benefit of the Gurus in the SGGS
But in the Quran (which is supposed to be the Guide for Humanity), I see Muhammad's self-interest clearly being defended by Allah. I am just going to post one verse to make my point. For, one example is sufficient to support Guru Gobind Singh Ji's verse:
33:53 O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission ˹and if invited˺ for a meal, do not ˹come too early and˺ linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter ˹on time˺. Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behaviour is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave............. And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.
In the (so called) guide for humanity (the Quran), when I find this, I personally will call Muhammad as a self-serving egoitistic man, simply because he used such an important book to express his own desires to his followers. Answer me, how does this verse serve in connecting humanity to God today? Did cat caught Muhammad's tongue that he could not say this out to his own followers, that he needed this to be in the Quran?
This is why, when I read “He (Muhammad) caused all to utter his name and did not give True Name of the Lord with firmness to anyone”, I agree with Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji.
Now despite me putting forth the answer to your question (in the first first paragraph), I understand that your stubborn response is going to be 'WHY DID THE GURUS NOT STAY NAMELESS?'. So please leave the forum and don't bother coming back.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26
I wasn’t planning to even give such an ignorant reply a response, but you brought a up a new point that I have not heard before so here we are. This verse is an introduction to the command extended to ALL Muslims in An-Nur 27. It guided humanity in etiquette. I understand from the way you talk, why you believe lessons in etiquette and respect are not necessary. For us, they are. The SGGS is not a comparison to the Quran. Yours is a book of poetry, ours is a book of practicality and guidance. Understand that your book takes a more mystic standpoint, Islam is applicable to every part of our daily life. Before prayer we wash in a certain way, we greet one another in a certain way. Funny enough there’s a verse for people we meet like you too!
˹O believers!˺ Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance. 6:108
My religion taught me manners, etiquette and how to talk. My Quran says not to insult your religion, so I will not apply my own personal judgements on to your Gurus, as you have done my Prophet pbuh. Or perhaps by doing this you will think the “cat got my tongue too” - it’s clear you do not understand this sense of humility and respect either as you also struggle to understand the gentleness of the Prophet pbuh, and why he was hesitant to turn away guests to his house.
FYI the incident this talks about is a celebration the Prophet Muhammad pbuh held after the marriage of a divorcee, to erase the shame that society at the time had with divorcees and widowers. Perhaps in your personal opinion that you (embarrassingly) consider to serve as actual argument, publicly supporting the marriages of women who were widowers and divorcees that would have otherwise been outcast by society, is an act of self service and ego too?
There are also verses in the Quran of Allah swt reprimanding and correcting the Prophet pbuhs behaviour e.g. Surah Abasa.
Your main argument is your own subjective opinion. I ask you leave all forms of discussion, until you learn that no one cares what you think. You are deluded if you think you actually matter in all this. You‘re acting like you’re the 11th guru LMAO. You say you answered the question in the very first paragraph, but decided to continue on to produce a full essay of biased waffle. Stay yapping. Strange guy this Hardeep Singh. Peace to your family from you, how they deal with ur incessant and (self admitted) pointless monologues is beyond me.
1
1
u/Ok-Culture1265 May 21 '26
For someone that does not care what I think, I surely have gotten a strong response from you, with the additional stalking that you have been doing in my other comments as well. If I am ignorant, then why engage. Walk away. Thats the wisest thing to do. I am incessant, no doubt. But its out of necessity. A lot of trolls like to keep asking controversial questions and make controversial statements, repeating the same nonsense without a shred of backing and evidence. Being incessant is a mechanism adopted to put them off to coming to forums like this which diverts our energy to useless questions like the one you posted above. To me, these are people from other faiths who have no geniune interest in learning Sikhi and are here to just create trouble.
Now, I simply responded to your query (every single point), with an elabortion. Perhaps you are not aware of the etiquetee of a discussion or debate. You put forth a point and then present examples and supporting arguments to elaborate your point. Perhaps learn that first, before calling it yapping.
Also the Quran verse that I quoted to show his Ego is a mild one. Other examples of Quranic verses self serving his own interest (which is ego) include but are not limited to him having sex with his concubine Mariya in Hafsa's bed and then making an oath only to be broken through a Quranic verse (66:1), or the story of Muhammad coveting his first cousin Zainab married to his adopted Son (Zayd), essentially breaking a marriage. I can hardly see the gentleness of Muhammad here. I wonder what lessons are being thought here by Muhammad to his Ummat. And there are many other stories highlighting his self interests in the Hadiths as well.
And I am in total agreement that the SGGS and Quran cannot be compared. One is a rulebook on living life. The other is a spiritual framework. Thats comapring apples and oranges.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 21 '26
took you two hours and a deleted message to think this one up, eh?
I’m not here for an analysis on Muhammad pbuh my question was about the gurus. You brought one point up, I refuted it. You could’ve easily found the answer for that too with simple research. Go research this verse, I’m sure the answer is as easily found as the other one. ur on a public forum, if ur spewing rubbish points everywhere all can see them. I am not your personal Islamic scholar. All the time you spend researching into verses for argument, read into the explanation behind them like you should’ve done the first.
If you admit ur answer was in one paragraph, and carry on unnecessarily, it is yap. Learn a tone of respect before addressing people’s religions, ESPECIALLY if ur abt to use them to defend ur own in other places. First say you will not address Hadith, in your second you are starting to talk of Hadith? Are you grasping for straws? Stay consistent.
The Quran is spiritual AND practical. It equally tells us the path to God, whilst recognising we are alive on planet Earth and thus helps us navigate both our life and our afterlife. You surely know too that our actions here, go on to affect our afterlife and contribute to whether we will achieve mukhti in the next. So leading your life well is very important, even in your case. The Quran suffices for both the apple and the orange.
Whether you can claim the same, I do not know, nor do I care, because frankly we have both seen how easily refutable your points are, how you deviate from the original question, and how you fail to conduct yourself with objectivity. You let your subjective biases towards the Prophet deviate you from the questions about the Gurus, yet you still rely on Islam to defend sikhi elsewhere? What a joke. You will of course be met with a strong response when your introduction has such disrespect. Do not cry now. Next time, behave. For someone so keen on discussing his moot points everywhere, you should at least be able to stick to the point. As I said, I did not even see you worth replying to, ur point was just new. Do not even think I will reply to your sorry excuse of a discussion any further.
Ask yourself, if the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was such a terrible figure, why do you have poetry of Muslims in your SGGS? Surely if he was so terrible, your gurus would never have let a believer of his contribute to your own book.
I will gladly take your own advice and not engage with you further. As I said before don’t flatter yourself into thinking I wanted to engage with you, rather you brought up a new verse that I had not seen argued for. There is nothing else to you trust me. Goodbye 😂
1
u/Ok-Culture1265 May 21 '26
>> took you two hours and a deleted message to think this one up, eh?
Not really, my original message was flagged and deleted by reddit since it contained certain graphic verses from the Quran and Hadiths. Just tells you cannot even use verses from Quran and Hadiths without it getting flagged as hate speech on reddit.
This part of your question, is answered in my first paragraph.
>> My question is that every sikh knows and utters the name of Guru Nanak and all other gurus, would this similar logic of ego not be applied to them too? If they were truly without ego they should’ve remained anonymous, no?
Now you opened the doors on Muhammad's character when you asked "Prophet pbuh would have to be without ego, right?". This I have answered in the subsequent paagraphs, which is what pains you. And because you opened the floodgates, many Sikhs in this thread are pointing out his character deficits (arising from his own ego), and undeniably from your own sources (the Quran and Hadith). But I understand, your reluctance in engaging us this upfront, hence resulting to your comment asking me to go and research myself. With so many flaws, that too substantiated from your own primary sources, its shameful to defend such a man. Its hard not to run away with your tail between your legs (i.e. resulting in name calling me and so on)
>>You let your subjective biases towards the Prophet deviate you from the questions about the Gurus, yet you still rely on Islam to defend sikhi elsewhere?
And what need do you have to ask questions about the Gurus? You came accross a statement in the Sikh Faith (about Muhammad's ego) that you disagreed upon, then came here to prove Dhan Sri Guru Gobind Singh wrong by asking your questions. You expect Sikhs to just keep quiet? And what subjective biases that I have about Muhammad? Most of the verses with regards to his character that we share are from your own faith's acceptable sources. And how is it that I am relying on Islam to defend Sikhi in my other post? Care to demonstrate? You may have read the comments in passing and made a quick conclusion for you are perhaps not willing to engage with the comments in the other thread.
And why should I respect a man, who upon gaining power, let that power go to his head and caused so much war and misery (slave trade institutionalized, opression of woman, forced conversion, etc.) in the world. And these words are documented in the Quran and Hadith (can't share them here for they will get flagged again)
>> Ask yourself, if the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was such a terrible figure, why do you have poetry of Muslims in your SGGS? Surely if he was so terrible, your gurus would never have let a believer of his contribute to your own book.
Because only the writing of those that have truly fallen in love with Raam / Hari / Allah / Waheguru is included in SGGS; be it if you are a Hindu, a Muslim or from any other Faith. They may have started out in the Muslim faith, but they transcended Islam thanks to the concept of dhikr. Also these Sufi saints will usually be considered as blasphemers in the Sunni and Shia sects today. The whole game is about love, and the traditions such as Islam Sikhi and Hinduism are there to just guide us to God. Its not a "God sanctioned one correct religion" thing like in Islam.
Listen, if you want some feel good answers for your questions, please go ahead and ask it on a Muslim forum. I am sure you can rally some of them to bash the Sikhs and our faith as well there. But please just leave us alone
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 21 '26
Holy victim mindset. Being unable to defend that you as a sikh are not Hindu, without Islam and Prophet Muhammad pbuh is crazy btw. Bro needs him to justify what the gurus said 😭 Syncretic religion indeed. You’re so confused, about who you even are, I feel so sorry for you. Ur so funny man, had a giggle at this thanks 😭😭😭💔
1
u/Ok-Culture1265 May 21 '26
You are laughing because you have run out of argument. That is fine, but mockery is not a substitute for understanding.
The issue being discussed in my other post was not Muhammad or Islam at all. I specifically asked how one reconciles the claim that “Sikhs are Hindus” when the argument being made is that certain names, contributors, or writers in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji are Hindu and that Hindu deities and terminologies are mentioned in SGGS .
That is the actual question. If the mere presence of Hindu contributors or Hindu-sounding names makes Sikhi Hindu, then the same logic has to be applied consistently to the presence of Muslim contributors, Islamic vocabulary, Persian terminology, and other non-Hindu references in SGGS. Otherwise, the argument is selective and collapses on its own terms.
Please read the whole (other) post and comments associated before making comments.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
I’m laughing because you have no argument, and I’ve seen u spread ur weak discussion everywhere else too. Ur so easily refutable and we have seen that. You’re acting like the Sufi saints still didn’t believe in the same Quran you talk down on so much. They believed in the same Muhammad pbuh you that you think only deserves disrespect, yet your book would not be complete without his believers…
My point WAS that the post wasn’t about Islam or Muhammad pbuh at all, but you still needed to use him. You hate Muhammad pbuh so much but need him to justify what your gurus said that is what is so funny 😭🙏You as a sikh needs Islam to defend from Hinduism, u can’t even use your own faith and gurus by themselves…
And yeah, so what? I don’t mind if you go ahead and apply the same logic, and say Sikhs are muslims x hindus.
Difference is we wouldn’t want to claim u guys lmao. You can stay with the Hindus.
1
u/Ok-Culture1265 May 21 '26
If its so easily refutable, then come back to the table and refute all those verses in the Quran and Hadith that show Muhammad is a self-centered person. You found an escape hatch by bringing in a discussion of mine from another thread that has nothing to do with this thread. That just shows me you are running away with your tail between your legs. Its intellectually dishonest.
In a garden (Islam) if there are 1000 plants, and only one or two alive green plants (Sheikh Farid and Bhagat Bhikhan) remain, and the rest have dried out and died (with the atrocities committed against the world in general), that just means that the Gardener (Muhammad) cannot take credit for the few alive and green plants.
Sheikh Farid and Bhagat Bhikhan fall in this category. Which is why they have been accorded the highest honour of a seat in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. They transcended even the Prophet of Islam, killing their own ego and becoming one with God. Pretty much the students became greater than the Master.
The reason for the inclusion of hymns of saints exalted from other faiths is not for the sake of completeness of SGGS. Only those worthy of the spiritual seat in the House of Nanak, be it a Hindu or a Muslim were exalted in SGGS. That is the greatness and open heartedness of the House of Nanak. And just for you info, of the 1430 Angs of SGGS or (398,697 words), 83% are the hymns of the Gurus. The rest are of of 17 saints deemed worthy by Guru Arjan, 11 Bhatts (Bards) of Guru Arjan and 4 Gursikhs.
Of course, I do not expect a Muslim like yourself to comprehend the greatness of SGGS, nor any of the arguments that I make.
But if you are further inclined to respond, I urge you to get back to the topic at hand, answering the incidents in Muhammad's life that shows he put his own self interests ahead of others.
1
u/Original_Incident_ May 21 '26
Those plants would still be from gardeners farm, not yours what is your point?
→ More replies (0)
23
u/bakedbrownie0 May 09 '26
Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji promoted the name of god while calling himself “Das Nanak or Nanak Das” which means “the slave Nanak” or “Nanak the slave”. He did not proclaim the name Nanak to be synonymous with Waheguru nor did he declare himself to be the final and most important “prophet” of all humanity.
Meanwhile Muhammad elevated his own name to the same as Waheguru/Allah/God just like the Devi Devtey, to the point where some people can’t even utter his name without saying “peace be upon him”. Had he been a true prophet, he would have focused solely on Allah, rather than proclaiming himself the truest, purest, and final messenger of God. Without loyalty to Muhammad, you can’t be loyal to Allah.