By Abu Adeeba & Abu 'Abdur Rahman

(Original Source: http://www.islam-sikhism.info/rebut/non_con/non_con03.htm)

INTRODUCTION 

There is a breed of Sikhs who have committed intellectual hari-kari in a desperate attempt to vindicate their acceptance of a religion they know to be contradictory. 

Their contention is two-fold: 

1. God is all-Powerful (Omnipotent); thus, not subject to nor bound by human logic; that is, the fundamental laws of bi-valued logic.[1]
2. Since God transcends human logic; thus, He can do all things.

Based upon these premises, these Sikhs have no problem in unashamedly acknowledging their understanding of God to be contradictory as delineated in their scripture - Sri Guru Granth Sahib. 

They further dispute the accusation made by Muslims that the theology-proper of Sikhism is contradictory and false, as wholly unjustified, contending that Sikhism rejects the argument as errant. Instead, they conveniently adopt an inexplicably irrational approach to try and justify their indefensible stance. 

In this article, insha'Allaah (God-Willing), we will respond to this issue. 

A PARADIGM-SHIFT AWAY FROM RATIONALITY

"They [Sikhs] are wholly different from other Indians, and they are bound together by an objective unknown elsewhere."[2]

These Sikhs postulate that Truth is God, and God transcends rationality; but, since man is bound by rationality, man is incapable of consciously knowing the Truth (God); and up until man transcends the conscious (rationality) to become one with God, the Truth will remain elusive. 

However, such a postulate is convoluted and self-defeating since we assert that Sikhism is contradictory not on that which is claimed to be transcendent, but that which is subject to observation: That which is proposed or stated; that is, the Guru Granth Sahib, which is a book of propositions. Hence, when a Muslim states that the Nirgun-Sargun concept of God is contradictory, it is not that the Creator is contradictory, but rather the man-invented theology-proper of Sikhism that is contradictory and false. 

To assert that a paradigm-shift be made when one attempts to determine the truth or falsity of a necessary proposition concerning God, on the basis that the said proposition transcends rationality, is self-defeating.
Why?
To begin with, any meaningful interpretation of a given proposition can only be made by the use of one's rationale.
And since the proposition is tangible, it is subject to rational scrutinisation, which allows one to determine its truth or falsity. Thus, one does not need to become one with God to determine the truth-value of an alleged divinely revealed proposition. 

For example, Sikhism's concept of God is that He is both Nirgun (attributeless, formless, transcendent) and Sargun (attributed, personal, immanent, diffused in creation, manifest)[3] at the same time, which of course is contradictory.  

Is it possible for one to make a paradigm-shift away from the use of human reasoning to other than human reasoning to disprove this contradiction?

• If the answer is yes: the one asserting this will have to make recourse to human reasoning and rationale in order to prove that a non-rational approach is needed to disprove this contradiction. Hence, the argument is self-defeating and false.
• If the answer is no, then a paradigm-shift is impossible.
• If the answer is that an answer cannot be given because it transcends rationality, then a claim to truth cannot be proven since it is impossible to conceive. Therefore, their belief is no truer than the one who brazenly states that 'the moon is made out of cheese'!

Hence, to postulate a paradigm-shift away from rationality is self-defeating and impossible. 

GOD CAN DO THE IMPOSSIBLE 

Since truth is only determinable through the use of rationality, one is bound by this in one's understanding of God.
Thus, how plausible is the claim that God can do everything? 

The stupidity of the claim that God transcends rationality; and thus, can do everything, is again a self-refuting argument. 

When God is said to be able to do everything, the correct interpretation is that he can do everything possible. The conclusion is, therefore, that God is spoken of as omnipotent in as much as he is able to do everything which is possible absolutely.

The scholar 'Ali ibn Abil 'Izz (d.792 AH), in his commentary to the great book of Islamic Creed by Imaam At-Tahaawi (d.321 AH), wrote:  

Allaah's saying: "Allaah has power over all things." (Qur'an 59:6)
...As for the followers of the prophetic way, they believe He has power over everything. Thus, everything that is possible is included in the above statement. As for what is impossible by itself, such as, a thing both existent and non-existent [contradiction] at the same time, has no meaning. Their existence cannot be imagined. It cannot be considered as 'a thing' by anyone endowed with wisdom.[4]

Whatever does not imply a contradiction is, therefore, among those possibilities in virtue of which God is described as omnipotent; for that which implies contradictions cannot be true, right or correct; since no intellect can conceive of it. 

It is impossible to conceive of that which transcends the rationale; thus, impossible to argue that God can do anything that transcends the rationale - since it is incomprehensible; thus, a meaningful interpretation is impossible to forward. Therefore, as we said above, in the case where God describes Himself, such descriptions are subject to rational scrutinisation. 
Thus, to say that God transcends rationality, and conclude from that that He can do anything, is impossible and self-refuting.
Hence, it is impossible to conceive of that which is impossible. 

CONCLUSION 

This so-called 'self-realised' approach by these Sikhs is not only incriminatory, but also indicative of the highest degree of compounded ignorance[5]  and blind-following.[6]

We have proven that it is impossible to determine the truth or falsity of that which is impossible to conceive.
We have also shown that a paradigm-shift away from rationality to determine the truth or falsity of a necessary proposition concerning God, on the basis that the said proposition transcends rationality, is self-defeating.
These two fundamental factors refute the claim that God can do anything because He transcends rationality. 

But, as for the one who begs the question and doggedly maintains that God transcends logic and rationale and can thus do impossible things; thereby rejecting the law of non-contradiction, then one must conclude that the truth or falsity of God's Truth is impossible to determine. 

If one were to affirm that God is true, how would one prove this affirmation when God can do impossible things? Such an affirmation would also be a negation at the same time since God can do the impossible - truth would be rendered meaningless. 

What would it take to shake the foundations of logic? An impossible universe; if the nature of the universe were such that it could totally change every second, if this is even conceivable, the laws of logic would not be applicable. Fortunately, we do not live in such a universe; we could not, there would be no 'we'. This type of universe is not possible and cannot be given meaning precisely because it contradicts reality, rationale and logic.

"Will they then not use their intellects?" (Qur'an 28:60)