FMT LETTER: From Aidil Khalid, via e-mail
Despite utmost hesitation at first from meddling upon the holy teachings of a religion other than mine, I think it is pertinent that I touch on this subject, now that it is the only way I could extend a response to Premjit Singh’s two very interesting recent pieces: ‘A Sikh’s Perspective on the Allah Row (Aug 8, 2013)’ and ‘Further Down the Road on the Holy Name ‘Allah’ (Aug 10, 2013)’.
I hope the readers would be magnanimous to pardon my transgressing upon the purview of a religion that is not my own, and upon a subject that is not my forte, but I shall strive to remedy those shortfalls by citing the relevant references in support thereto. Indeed, as Joseph Davey Cunningham humbly wrote in the preface to ‘A History of the Sikhs’: “One who possesses no claim to systematic scholarship, and who nevertheless asks the public to approve of his labours in a field of some difficulty, is bound to show to his readers that he has at least had fair means of obtaining accurate information and of coming to just conclusions.” [1] I shall keep these wise words in mind while replying to Premjit.
Premjit raised various issues in the two articles, ranging from the history of Sikhism and other religions of the world, to the concept of oneness of universal god; from the idea of pluralism of religious creeds and practices, to his stance to frown upon the claim of exclusive rightness of any one religion; as well as the nature of words and how borrowed terms came to be interchanged between languages.
To avoid obfuscating the issues in those overwhelming overtures, I propose that the thrust of the whole questions be summarised thus: (i) the context upon which the word ‘Allah’ is found in the Sikh holy scripture; and (ii) the risks of corruption to the holy term ‘Allah’ in the Malay language should the usage be liberalised and its meaning reduced simply to mean god as understood by any religions in whatever theological doctrine. I would therefore in this particular piece be dealing only with these two scopes.
I must first state that I am in total agreement with the writer on one very important point. Religion, as indeed he said, is “not a case in law, to be interpreted by all and sundry, no matter how well read or esteemed, based on their own religious beliefs and paradigms.” However on the other hand I think it is also unfair to dismiss the grounds of judgment of an Indian judge who observed that Sikhism began as a reformist movement, simply because the judge is not a Sikh and thereby suggesting that “his opinions and beliefs are…based on the last book he may have read on Sikhism, written by a bigoted Hindu historian.”
If one were to imply that just because a person is non-Sikh or a Hindu he is therefore by default prejudicial against the Sikh religion – and by implication everything he said must be thrashed – then one could also flip the coin and imply reverse prejudice to a Sikh writer for failing to be objective to the religion of his own. It’s really a double-edged sword to argue by default that way, which goes to cut both ways, and would not serve much to finding the solution for the issue that we are dealing with.
That is of course not to say that the learned judge’s observation on Sikhism could never be challenged. To the very contrary, one could very much do so, but only upon proper and objective scrutiny of his full written grounds of judgment rather than at the face value on the mere fact that he is not a Sikh.
If the learned writer had read the full report of the judgment – for which purpose the citation was provided in my previous piece – the writer would note that the judge made it clear that while he was not well versed with Sikhism, he was however assisted by two persons, amici curiae, who guided him through out the case and directed his attention towards the relevant authorities on the historical aspects of the beautiful religion. In this regard, a wealth of historical writings were cited in the judgment, among others the ‘Evolution of Khalsa (Volume 1)’ by Indu Bhusan Banerjee, Introduction to the ‘Adi Granth’ by Trumpp, ‘The Sikh Religion (Volume 1)’ by Macauliffe, ‘History of the Sikhs’ edited by Garrett, as well as the entry on Sikh in the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’.
Now, I could almost already hear the groans coming from some of the readers that all the above materials were written by non-Sikhs.
As much as I’d like to acknowledge that, a couple of things should also be made clear. First, insisting upon the by-default line is double-edged and would not serve our purpose in dealing with this issue, since it is defeating either way. Second, we are not strictly concerned with the rightness or wrongness of the fact whether Sikhism began as a wholly newborn religion or merely a reformist movement within the corrupted Hindu practices. What is more relevant, rather, is the context upon which Sikhism referred, reflected, and even called upon the followers of the other religions, particularly Islam and Hindu. Third, there are indeed authoritative accounts by the Sikh scholars themselves to support this very notion, in which regard the accounts by the historian-writer Khuswant Singh is directly in point.
In an interview in 2003 with the Sikh Review, the author of the definitive book ‘A History of Sikhs’ was asked about the contentious issue on the identity of Sikhism. The relevant questions and answers between the journalist JS Tiwana and Khuswant Singh, verbatim, follow thus:
Q: What about the statement that Sikhs are Keshadhari Hindus. You also wrote in “Mistaken Identity” in the Wall Street Journal of Oct 12, 2011 that Sikhism is a branch of Hinduism. We had a very heated discussion on this in our Sikh Diaspora forum on Internet.
A: That is correct. Sikhs are Keshadhari Hindus. Their religious source is Hinduism. Sikhism is a tradition developed within Hinduism. Guru Granth Sahib reflects the Vedantic philosophy and Japji sahib is based on Upanishads.
Q: These are quite loaded statements. You could be accused of blasphemy, and summoned to Akal Takht.
A: They don’t have the guts to summon me. They only go after the weak and the timid. Why don’t they summon Ranjit Singh who claims he is the real Jathedar of Akal Takht? Pashaura Singh talked to me after appearing before Akal Takht Jathedar. I told him “what is the point now? You should have contacted me earlier.” No scholar should be summoned to Akal Takht. Is it a religious place or a Kotwali (police station)? [2]
Abundance of arguments
Having quoted the above, I must stress one thing. It is never my intention to determine as to which is right or wrong. Those are the purviews of the scholars, and I am not one. And I am also aware that the view articulated by Khuswant Singh is indeed controversial and some quarters had even accused him of distorting history.
But being mere laypersons in the field of theology as well as Sikh history, suffice would it be for us to note that this is a highly disputed and contentious area. And this, we must verily acknowledge, before we could ever proceed further.
There are abundance of arguments for both ways, but regardless whichever directions one conclude, it seems that it would not alter the very premise upon which we are concerned with: namely that the Sikhs refer to god mainly as Waheguru; and that despite the word ‘Allah’ could also be found in their scripture, those are due to their references to the religion of Islam, and in some context, even calling upon the Hindus and Muslims. In this regard, it is interesting to note the manner in which the learned writer cited Guru Nanak in his article from the passage in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, pages 53-57:
“O pious Saints, the Lord Allah is Inaccessible and Infinite. Sacred is His Name and Sacred is His Place. He is the True Provider of All.”
I would have hoped that the writer would just continue a couple of lines down, for had he done so, certainly he would find the following lines:
“[T]he Shaikhs, the mystics, the Qazis, the Mullahs and the Dervishes at His Door – they are blessed all the more as they continue to reading their prayers in praise on Him.”
Read in such context, the term ‘Lord Allah’ above is clearly in connection with, in reference to, or even made in a conversational form, to the Muslim sheikhs, mystics, qazis, mullahs, and dervishes.
And in any event, even if we were to assume that is not the case, and presume shall we that there is no connection whatsoever between the term ‘Allah’ in the scripture with the Muslims’ belief, the point simply is that the attributes emanating from such usage – having been vaguely conceived in such a manner and context – are really theologically neutral. It does not contradict the semantics of the word ‘Allah’ as understood in a well established, firmly grounded, and deeply rooted origins in the Malay language (as brought forth from the Arabic), to which the Muslims verily insist on guarding from any alteration.
By contrast, this is not the case should the word God or Lord in the English Bible be translated into Malay as ‘Allah’. The attributes of god as understood in the theological concept of trinity could never be reconciled with the attributes of ‘Allah’ as understood in the Malay language. To do so would be invoking a manifest error of translation to which no self-respecting linguist could ever accept. We know that Abdullah Munsyi in the 19th century who was not a linguist but a clerk in the colonial office, made such error. Now is indeed the time that we must correct what has long been overdue.
Attempting to level the ground when the ground is clearly not levelled, between the Sikh’s usage of the word ‘Allah’ with the Christian’s trinity concept of God or Lord, would only cloud and clutter the problem that we are dealing with. That the contexts upon which the respective usages are clearly distinguishable is something that should not be neglected.
And to glibly extend the argument by saying that since the word is found in the Sikh scripture it must therefore be allowed to be used by the Christians as well – and those of any other religions in whatever manner or whichever theological concepts they may have – would serve nothing but further befuddlement. We must never lose sight of the very underlying scope: that the objection is specifically only against the alteration of the meaning of the word, as understood in the Malay language, not Arabic, not English, neither any other languages.
I am also quite surprised when the learned writer accused me of “a complete and reckless untruth” for having stated that the Sikh scripture also made reference “to various other texts among others the Hindu texts as well as Islamic”. I would have thought that the writer should have known better that there are dissenting opinions even amongst the Sikh scholars on this very point.
The scholar Gurinder Singh Mann, for instance, noted in ‘The Making of Sikh Scripture’ that there are a particular school of thought amongst the Nirmala scholars, asserting that “Guru Nanak accepted the authority of the Vedas and that the Adi Granth…contains the essential Vedic wisdom”. [3] Further the historian-writer Khuswant Singh in an interview in a BBC documentary produced by John Das entitled ‘Sikhs’ had also said that the teachings of Guru Nanak “drew inspiration from the ancient Hindu texts, mainly the Upanishad.” [4]
That the history of the compilation of the Sikh canonical text consists of a whole science of its own goes to show how complex the subject is. Scholars study carefully and thoroughly, and they dispute even to the minutest details. When the scholar Dr Pashaura Singh, for instance, wrote his infamous thesis, ‘The Guru Granth Sahib: Canon, Meaning and Authority’, an unsavoury controversy erupted, and he was accused of blasphemy for having suggested that Guru Arjan changed theologically and linguistically the hymns of Guru Nanak, and having done so, passed it off as the latter’s.
He was thereafter asked to appear before the highest seat of temporal and religious authority, where he verily pleaded guilty, but in later writings, for the sake of academic integrity and in the lights of available evidence before him, he continued to reiterate the same stance despite his earlier repentance. [5] His critics attacked the supervisor under whom he wrote the thesis, WH McLeod, accusing the latter of being an orientalist and thereby inherently and by default prejudicial. Thereafter a more reactionary rather than academic compilation of critical response was published entitled ‘Planned Attack on Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy’, consisting of vitriolic rebuttals against the academic thesis. [6]
We agree to disagree
The reason that I narrate all the above is this. If alterations to the semantics of important key terms to fundamental theological concepts is something that does not warrant our attention and should be left to its own fate – as Premjit said in his article that “no human could ever taint those high titles [and] they are beyond polluting” – then why did the Akal Takht summonned Pashaura Singh for having written an academic thesis that threatened the sanctity of the Sikh theological doctrine?
Be that as it may, let me reiterate that I am not particularly concerned with the rightness or wrongness of whichever schools of thought (if it could be called as such), neither do I whish to promote one over the other. Not only do I have no reason to do so, I am also far from capable to. But I find it ironic that while the writer had given an ultimatum demanding “proof for [my] claim, or retract [the] statement with an apology,” he had also in the very same breath acknowledged that the writings of the revered Muslim sufi, Sheikh Farid – whose religion is Islam if that is not clear enough – were indeed included in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. What more proof would he be seeking then? And what better explanation would there be to the fact that the context upon which the word ‘Allah’ appearing in the Sikh scripture is theologically not in the same level ground with the Christians’ concept of God – and thereby should not be used as an argument to extend such usage in the Malay language?
It is in this regard that a very enlightening article by Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, a fellow at Himpunan Keilmuan Muslim (HAKIM), rings very true, wherein he said that the “elimination of meaningful difference is no way to promote respectful discourse.” [7] One need not be apologetic to the fundamental differences that exist between one religion and the other in order to be respectful to each other. What is needed, rather, is the acknowledgement that there are indeed differences – fundamental ones at that – and we verily accept such plurality. Being in denial of such differences is not the way forward, neither it is healthy for a long run harmonious inter-religious relationship.
There’s nothing wrong in saying that I believe my religion is right, and yours not; likewise there’s nothing wrong for you to say that you believe in the rightness of your religion, and mine not. That is what lines like “we agree to disagree” or “to each, his own” are really meant for.
When the Muslims understand the term ‘Allah’ in the Malay language as the One who neither begets nor begotten (Quran, 112:1-4), there is no way that we could be referring to the same Lord or God as per referred to by the Christians, bearing in mind the attributes and concepts of trinity. It goes against logic to say so, for the difference is so fundamental.
Yes, there is indeed only one God, and to that extent we can agree. But beyond that would mean an ultimatum: either your understanding of god is true or mine is. And so we agree to disagree.
It is like when two children quarrels – one said the colour red is the most beautiful, the other said green the most stunning – then came an adult trying to act all wise by asserting that actually red and green are both the same colour, so they could stop quarrelling. What utter lie! Only a blind-pseudo-wise adult would say such a thing! What needed to be taught to the children, rather, is firstly to acknowledge that the two colours are indeed different, and their attributes not the same, but despite that, they each are entitled to their own respective preferences. Of course if the adult wanted to be scientific he could also explain the spectrum of colours through prism, but even to do that, he must verily acknowledge the differences between the colours first! Eliminating meaningful difference at the pretence of unity is nothing short of hypocrisy.
As for the learned writer’s claim that the fundamental cleavage from Hinduism could not have been made only during the time of the 10th guru since Guru Arjan as the 5th guru had already espoused breaking free from Hinduism, I sense this to be rather masked under disingenuous, if not deliberate, obtuseness.
The judgment of Khundkar J, from which the argument sprang, clearly states that Guru Nanak strived to achieve the purity of Hinduism in Vedic times. The word ‘Hindu’ in this particular context therefore could be understood as to have two meanings. One is the alleged corrupted practice prevalent during Guru Nanak’s time; and the other is the pure monotheistic religion. Keeping in mind of the differing schools of thought, Guru Arjan’s espousing breaking free from Hindu could very well be in reference to the former, and as such is no way contradicting the quoted passage of Khundkar J’s observation that it was only during “the time of the 10th and last Guru, Gobind Singh, that a fundamental cleavage from Hinduism was attempted.”
It astonishes me when the writer even attempted to make a comparison between the dawning of Sikhism with the birth of Islam while citing Wikipedia as his reference of authority. Being an online portal that is open to outside editing, Wikipedia is never a reliable source for any topic of discussion, especially ones as complex as religion. It could be used as a starting platform for further research, but never a reference point. And this coming from one who questioned the validity of a judgment because supposedly religion is not “to be interpreted by all and sundry” is even more dumbfounding.
The proper thing to do should the learned writer had honestly intended to make a fair comparison would be to refer to the more authoritative writings rather than a mere open portal where any Tom, Dick and Harry could put just about any unsubstantiated claim. The popular book by Martin Lings entitled ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ would be a good starting point. [8] Had he done so, he would know that the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad, may the blessings of Allah be with him, was indeed the very same religion that was preached by the other Abrahamic religions in its original uncorrupted form. He even acknowledged the prophethoods of Moses and Jesus, and any Muslim who refutes this is no Muslim at all. And the Holy Kaaba was never a pagan temple – nay, my learned friend! – it was rather built by Prophet Abraham as the sacred house of Allah. And it was only due to later corruptions to the religious beliefs that the Arabs created various idols to which they worshiped as intermediaries between them and Allah, some of which were placed within the site of Kaaba.
Thus came Prophet Muhammad, may the blessings of Allah be upon him, to preach against such corruptions of faith.
Before ending this piece that unfortunately runs at undue length, let me clarify one last thing. I meant it with all my heart when I made the following remark in the previous piece: “By all means, use and utter the word ‘Allah’ all you like, sing the many anthems of the various states that have the word ‘Allah in their lyrics, or say insyaAllah should you feel like it – so long as the meaning and attributes ascribed to the proper noun is not corrupted, no one is going to complain.”
I believe many Muslims share the same view, as much as those actually came naturally to me. It was not only upon summoning “great courage” that I could say such a thing, as Premjit would like to believe, as if to imply that by so saying I was going against my belief, and perhaps also of many others. Nothing could be further from true, because that is the very point itself: that the objection has always been only to the alteration of the meaning and semantics of the word in the Malay language. And the reason is for fear of unwarranted shifting to the firmly rooted theological concepts emanating from it. Never has it been about claiming ownership to the word – as some quarters would relentlessly try to portray very simplistically – neither has it been to prevent the Christians from freely professing their religion.
Aidil Khalid is a lawyer practicing in Seri Kembangan, Selangor. He is neither a scholar in theology nor history, but a curious reader of both.
References:
[1] Joseph Davey Cunningham, “A History of the Sikhs: From the Origin of the Nation to the Battles of the Sutlej”. Oxford University Press (1918) pp xxv
[2] JS Tiwana. “An Interview with S Khuswant Singh: Our Grand Old Man”. The Sikh Review (2003) pp 13-15.
[3] Gurinder Singh Mann, “The Making of the Sikh Scripture”, Oxford University Press (2001) pp 10.
[4] John Das, “Sikhs”. BBC Birmingham (1997). Film.
[5] Balwant Singh Dhillon, “Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition: Myth and Reality”, Singh Bros. Amritsar (1999) pp 32
[6] Bachittar Singh Giani, “Planned Attack on Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib: Academics or Blasphemy”, International Centers of Sikh Studies Chandigarh (1994)
[7] Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, “Elimination of Meaningful Difference is No Way to Promote Respectful Discourse”. The Malay Mail Online, Aug 2, 2013, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/elimination-of-meaningful-difference-is-no-way-to-promote-respectful-discou
[8] Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’. Inner Traditions (2006)
Also read:
