Survey of Sikh Sects

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Sikhism is a religion supposedly founded by Nanak (d. 1539), a Khatri Hindu from Punjab, in the very early 16th century.

He is reported to have had an epiphany while submerged in the Kali Bein, a rivulet near the town of Sultanpur Lodhi.

He emerged after three days in the waters and proclaimed “there is no Hindu, there is no Musalman”. 

This proclamation reflects the inner wrangling of Nanak with his setting, northwest India during the Muslim Lodi dynasty.

He was highly influenced by the syncretic tradition of the Bhakti movement, associated with figures like Kabir.

The radical teaching of Kabir and other Bhakti poets may be described as skeptic, antinomian, anti-clerical and egalitarian, would come to characterize Nanak’s own understanding of true religion.

The Guru Granth Sahib contains the writings and sayings of several figures who preceded Nanak, such as Kabir, Ravidas, Namdev, Jaidev, Trilochan, Sadhna, Beni, Pipa, Dhanna, Parmanand, Sain, Surdas, Ramanand and even the great Chishti Sufi saint, Shaikh Farid “Ganjshakar” of Pakpattan (1173-1265), may Allah have mercy on his soul, a disciple and successor of the great Sufi saint Qutb-ud-Din Bakhtiar Kaki (1173-1235), may Allah have mercy on his soul.

But following in the footsteps of the other figures associated with Bhakti, Nanak too became skeptical of ritual, or formalities in religion, often questioning the practices and intentions of the Hindu Brahmins and orthodox Muslims of the scholastic tradition. It is ironic considering that Sikhism of today is highly ritualistic and prescribes a detailed Rehat or code of conduct for its adherents. This demonstrates that over time Sikhism evolved and changed from the original teaching of Nanak to its present condition today.

The figures associated with Bhakti whose hymns and couplets are included in the Granth were mostly from the 15th and 16th century, very close to the time of or contemporaneous to Nanak. Some like Trilochan and Namdev and the eminent Chishti Sufi Shaikh Farid-ud-Din Mas’ud Ganjshakar, may Allah have mercy on him, are from the 13th century.

From this we can conclude that Nanak was influenced by a very specific, in terms of time period and region, set of Bhakti Hindu mystics and poets. He did not really contribute anything novel to this tradition which would make him stand out among them.

During the lifetime of Nanak, a cataclysmic event occurred. The Timurid warlord Babur and his Barlas tribe conquered Delhi from the Lodi dynasty and established the famous Mughal dynasty in 1526.

Yet, Nanak never delivered a prophecy predicting this seismic and watershed event in India’s history. The Babarvani attributed to Nanak are four Sabads in which Nanak laments the misery and destruction caused by Babur’s invasion and his war with Ibrahim Lodi of the Delhi Sultanate, is clearly a composition after the fact.

Incidentally, there is nothing from Nanak or the subsequent Sikh gurus like the prophecies of the Israelite Prophets (Jeremiah, Micah, Zephaniah) forecasting the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the Kingdom of Judah which happened in the 6th century BCE, or the prophecy of Christ Jesus about the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem which happened in 70 CE, or the Prophet Muhammad’s prophecy, as mentioned in the thirtieth Surah of the Quran, foretelling the Byzantine defeat of the Sassanids that was fulfilled when Emperor Heraclius launched a counteroffensive against Eranshahr beginning in 622 CE.

The eminent Sufi saint and mystic Najm-ud-Din Kubra (1145-1221) predicted, on the basis of Kashf and Ilham (divine unveiling and inspiration) the devastating Mongol sack of the wicked Khwarezmian Empire, which occurred by the hand of the notorious Genghis Khan who laid siege to and finally entered and brutally massacred the town of Otrar in December 1219.

Like Nebuchadnezzar, Genghis Khan proclaimed himself the instrument of God’s wrath upon the Muslims for their moral corruption.

Inalchuq, the wicked Khwarezmian governor of Otrar, had provoked Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes to attack when he had executed the latter’s envoys and delegations sent to him.

The Mongol wrath did not stop at Otrar, but continued in the total devastation of Islamic civilization of Central Asia, Khorasan, Iran and up till Baghdad, which was finally sacked in 1258, ending the Abbasid dynasty.

Returning to Sikhism, the followers of Nanak immediately fragmented when he died in 1539. Here I will list the dozens of Sikh sects, which is by no means an exhaustive list:

Nanakpanthi sect: Early followers of Nanak who did not recognize the succession of gurus after him.

Udasi sect: An ascetic movement of celibate sadhus who followed Nanak’s eldest son called Baba Sri Chand (1494-1629).

Jagiasi sect: Followers of another of Nanak’s sons, Lakhmi Das (1497-1555).

Sanwal Shahi sect: Followers of another disciple of Nanak known as Sanwal Shah.

Gangushahi sect: Followers of Gangu Shah, a disciple of the third Sikh guru, Amar Das (1479-1574).

Hindali sect: Followers of Hindal (1573-1648), another diciple of the third guru Amar Das.

Sat Kartari sect: Followers of Sangat Das, a disciple of the sixth Sikh guru, Hargobind (1595-1644).

Suthrashahi sect: Followers of Suthra Shah (1625-1682), another disciple of the sixth Sikh guru, Hargobind.

Mina sect: Followers of Prithi Chand (1558-1618), son of the fourth Sikh guru, Ram Das (1534-1581). Prithi Chand claimed to be the true successor of his father, as opposed to his younger brother, the fifth Sikh guru Arjan (1563-1606).

Meharbania or Divana sect: Followers of Meharban (1581-1640). They would sing and dance to Gurbani.

Dhirmalia sect: Followers of Dhir Mal (1627-1677), a grandson of the sixth guru Hargobind and rival guru claimant.

Ramraiya sect: Followers of Ram Rai (1645-1689), eldest son of the seventh Sikh guru Har Rai (1630-1661) instead of the eighth Sikh guru Har Krishan (1656-1664).

Nirmala sect: A Sikh sect that claims the tenth guru, Gobind Singh (1666-1708), as their founder, highly influenced by the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy.

Sevapanthi sect: A Sikh order, followers of Bhai Kanhaiya (1648-1718), a disciple of the ninth Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur (1621-1675), which emphasizes altruistic service.

Tatt Khalsa sect: After the death of the tenth guru Gobind Singh, the followers of his widow Mata Sundari (d. 1747) who objected to the innovations of Banda Singh Bahadur (1670-1716) who had mandated vegetarianism, changed the Khalsa Sikh blue color for red, and maintained caste Hindu rituals.

Bandai sect: These were the followers of Banda Singh Bahadur, who had been commissioned by the tenth Sikh guru Gobind Singh for military campaigns against the Mughals and their agents.

Jit Malia sect: Followers of Ajit Singh Palit (d. 1725) another rival guru claimant.

Gulab Raiya sect: Followers of Gulab Rai (1660-1720), great grandson of Sikh guru Hargobind and rival guru claimant.

Radha Soami sect: Followers of Shiv Dayal Singh (1818-1878). They are presently split into two different factions, one led by Prem Saran Satsangi and the other by Gurinder Singh Dhillon.

Namdhari sect: Followers of Balak Singh (d. 1862), and his successors. Their current living guru is Uday Singh. They wear distinctive white turbans and clothing.

Nirankari sect: Followers of Dyal Singh (1783-1855), and his hereditary successors. One of their gurus, Gurbachan Singh, was assassinated by the rival and more dominant Akali Sikhs in 1980. Their current living guru is a woman, Sudiksha Savinder Hardev.

Ravidasia sect: Followers of Ravidas, a Bhakti poet.

Ridvani sect: Founded by Pritam Singh in 1908. They are Sikhs who believe in “Bahaullah”, a synthesis between Sikhi and Baha’i religions.

Nihang sect: A martial Sikh order known for their distinctive blue attire and carrying of larger daggers, knives, swords, spears and other weapons.

Some other distinctive Sikh sects and movements are the 3HO, Panch Khalsa Diwan, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Kutta Marg movement of Narinder Singh, and Sachkhand Nanak Dham.

Similar to the mind boggling fragmentation of Shi’ism over petty disputes of succession to the Imamate, many of these Sikh sects listed emerged over disputes to the office of guru. While the so-called orthodox Sikhs or Akalis believe in a succession of ten gurus ending with Gobind Singh, after which the text of the Guru Granth Sahib remains the guru, other Sikh sects recognize a living guru instead, such as Nirankaris, Namdharis and Radha Soamis.

Why isn't the Name YHWH in Quran?

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

At the burning bush, Allah spoke to Moses and revealed to him:

اِنَّنِیۡۤ اَنَا اللّٰہُ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّاۤ اَنَا فَاعۡبُدۡنِیۡ

I am I, Allah, there is no god except Me, so worship Me

(Surah 20, Ayah 14)

The words Innani Ana, which literally mean “I am Me” especially in conjunction with the narrative of what Allah said to Moses at the burning bush is certainly a confirmation and indication of what is mentioned about the Name of God in the Book of Exodus:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם

And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you

(Exodus 3:14)

The words Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh meaning “I am that I am” are referred to in the Quran as Innani Ana “I am Me”. In this Biblical verse, God says His name is Ehyeh “you shall say to the sons of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me”. This is the meaning of God’s greatest Name, the Ism al-A’zam in Islamic tradition, regarding which the Prophet Muhammad said that It can be found, among other places, in Surat Ta Ha:

اسْمُ اللَّهِ الأَعْظَمُ الَّذِي إِذَا دُعِيَ بِهِ أَجَابَ فِي سُوَرٍ ثَلاَثٍ الْبَقَرَةِ وَآلِ عِمْرَانَ وَطَهَ

“The Greatest Name of Allah, which if called by He responds is in three Surahs: al-Baqarah, Ale Imran and Ta Ha.” (Sunan Ibn Majah)

The Ayah I have quoted in which Allah says انني انا “I am Me” to the Prophet Moses is the fourteenth verse of Surat Ta Ha.

Now the divine Name YHWH occurs in the Hebrew Bible a little under seven thousand times. It is the most frequent and repeated Name of God in the Old Testament, outnumbering the Name Elohim which occurs a under three thousand times.

Exodus 3:14 is essentially giving the etymological significance and meaning of the divine Name YHWH, and therefore so is the fourteenth Ayah of Surat Ta Ha in the Quran.

So it is a valid question as to why doesn’t the divine Name YHWH occur directly and plainly in the Holy Quran? Why instead is there an Islamic tradition from the Sunnah about the Ism al-A’zam (Greatest Name) though it is never spelled out plainly what that Name is?

I believe the reason for this is that the divine Name YHWH (even I am not spelling it out plainly for a reason) is because the Name is so holy, being the Greatest Name of all the many Names of God, that Islam does not want the people, especially Muslims, speaking or pronouncing it casually. This in fact indicated in the Third Commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain; for YHWH will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).

By at least a little before the time of Jesus, the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible in circulation, had Kyrios, Greek for Lord, written in place of the divine Name YHWH. This was a Jewish tradition, at least by that time, that the divine Name YHWH should not be uttered out of reverence and fear, a tradition that the Jews have preserved till the present.

Likewise, the divine Name YHWH never appears even once in the New Testament. In those places where the New Testament quotes a passage from the Old Testament in which the divine Name YHWH is mentioned, it has substituted it with Kyrios.

For instance, John the Baptist quotes Isaiah 40:3, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord [Kyriou]” (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). Isaiah 40:3, in the original Hebrew, has the divine Name YHWH, but the Gospels have rendered it Kyrios in Greek, meaning Lord, in keeping with the tradition of not uttering or writing the divine Name YHWH. 

Jesus quotes the Shema, “Hear O Israel; the Lord [Kyrios] our God is one Lord [Kyrios]” (Mark 12:29)

From this we can conclude that Jesus likely did not utter the divine Name YHWH, at least not casually or frequently, but instead, like the Pharisees, would have said Adonai. He would have said the Shema the way Jews say it today, not saying the divine Name YHWH, but substituting it with Adonai “my Lord”.

It is, therefore, strange that some Christians today insist on uttering and fully pronouncing the divine Name YHWH. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have made this point one of their salient features in dissenting from normative Christianity. They often argue that “Apostate Christendom” is guilty of having removed the name Jehovah from the translation of the Bible (and they have restored the name Jehovah in their New World Translation), but fail to explain why that name never once occurs in the Greek New Testament, even in a Hellenized form, which would be Iao. Jehovah itself is an Anglicization of a possible pronunciation of YHWH, though not the one most scholars contend is the actual one.

The Holy Quran, like the Gospels and the New Testament, has not plainly referred to the divine Name YHWH, not because it is unfamiliar with or denies the Name, but because it wants to discourage Muslims from saying or writing it down casually due its extreme holiness since it is the Ism al-A’zam (Greatest Name), thereby preventing unintentional sacrilege.

And Allah and His Apostle know best!

Molinism and the Problem of Evil

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Molinism is a theological attempt to answer the problem of evil, and an attempt to reconcile God’s sovereignty and omniscience with human free will. Its author was Luis de Molina (1535-1600), a Spanish Jesuit priest. 

The key teaching of Molinism is that God selects and creates a world, one out of infinite possible worlds, on the basis of His foreknowledge of what every person will freely do in their given circumstances.

A good analogy is a game of chess; God moves His pieces on the basis of His foreknowledge of which exact moves His opponent will freely make in reaction so as to result in a victory for Himself in the game. This knowledge of what a person will freely choose to do in a set of given circumstances is termed middle knowledge.

When first introduced, the doctrine of Molinism was fiercely opposed by a rival Catholic monastic order, the Dominicans. In my view, the Dominicans rightly objected to Molinism for essentially making God’s will and plan dependent on the human will. It is a mild form of dualism, that does not give due regard to God’s total sovereignty and independence. However, after a series of debates and discussions, the Catholic Pope decreed that both the Dominican and Jesuit/Molinist views were legitimate and forbade them from declaring each other heretical.

The Dominicans had characterized Molinism as a recycling of the earlier heresy of Semi-Pelagianism; man takes the first step freely after which God responds with His grace leading to his salvation. In thinking about Semi-Pelagianism I was reminded of the Hadith Qudsi in which Allah, holy and exalted is He, says about man:

وَإِنْ أَتَانِي يَمْشِي أَتَيْتُهُ هَرْوَلَةً

If he walks toward Me I run toward Him

Someone might mistakenly think that, based on this Hadith Qudsi, man must take the initiative in seeking God, and only then does God respond eagerly and make the way easy for him to reach Him. But we orthodox Sunni Muslims believe that even man’s initiative in seeking Allah has been created and determined by Allah, Who creates and determines everything.

The doctrine of synergism, that salvation is the result of cooperation between God and man, does not appear to be compatible with Sunni Islam. The Holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:

 وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّهُ لَنْ يَنْجُوَ أَحَدٌ مِنْكُمْ بِعَمَلِهِ

Know that none from among you can be saved by his work (Sahih Muslim)

Rather, it is purely by the mercy and grace of Allah through which a person is saved:

وَلاَ أَنَا إِلاَّ أَنْ يَتَغَمَّدَنِيَ اللَّهُ بِرَحْمَةٍ مِنْهُ وَفَضْلٍ

“Even I cannot be saved except if Allah envelops me in a mercy from Him and grace.” (ibid)

Concerning the problem of evil; the objection raised predominantly by atheists, that if God is able but unwilling to prevent evil in this world then He is malevolent. This is the objection that applies to us Sunni Muslims, because we reject the alternative notion that God is willing but unable to prevent evil in this world. We obviously disagree with the conclusion that introducing evil into this world, allowing it to be and not always preventing it despite the capability to do so is necessarily malevolence itself. It is in fact a childish argument that allowing evil to exist in this world makes God evil.

Yes, there is evil in this world and God has decreed that it happen but for the purpose of elevating man and giving him the opportunity to prove himself righteous. And as a reward for that righteousness God will admit man into another world in the afterlife in which there is no evil whatsoever.

Commentary on Select Verses of Surah 43 (Part 1)

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Salutations and peace upon you, my master, Apostle of Allah

Allah جل جلاله says:

اِنَّا جَعَلۡنٰہُ قُرۡءٰنًا عَرَبِیًّا لَّعَلَّکُمۡ تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ

Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Quran that you may comprehend

(Surah 43:3)

Allah never says that He created the Quran. But here He says He made the Quran Arabic. There is the subtle difference between make and create. Hence, Allah says:

وَلَا تَجۡعَلُوا اللّٰہَ عُرۡضَۃً لِّاَیۡمَانِکُمۡ

And make not Allah a target for your oaths

(Surah 2:224)

It is obvious that here the act of making Allah a target of one's oath does not mean creating Allah. So it is correct to say the Quran is مجعول "made" but not مخلوق "created". The Holy Quran is the speech of God, and God's speech is one of his divine attributes that is eternal, uncreated.

Allah says:

وَکَمۡ اَرۡسَلۡنَا مِنۡ نَّبِیٍّ فِی الۡاَوَّلِیۡنَ

وَمَا یَاۡتِیۡہِمۡ مِّنۡ نَّبِیٍّ اِلَّا کَانُوۡا بِہٖ یَسۡتَہۡزِءُوۡنَ

And how many a Prophet We sent among the earlier ones?

And there came not a Prophet to them except that they were to him ridiculing

(Surah 43:6-7)

Allah reveals, in the form of a rhetorical question, that the number of Prophets who preceded our master the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم is rather large. Some narrations mention that there were around 124 thousand Prophets. Allah and His Apostle know best! The vast majority of Prophets sent by God were to the Children of Israel, and therefore, most of the Prophets mentioned in the Holy Quran were Israelite Prophets (Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Samuel, Elias, Elisha, Job, Jonas, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Jehiah/John the Baptist and Jesus). Only a few non-Israelite Prophets are mentioned, namely, Shu'aib, Salih, Hud and of course the Prophet Muhammad عليهم السلام

But without exception each and every Prophet was mocked and ridiculed. And those who ridicule a Prophet—one who is the most beloved to God Himself—are indeed among the most debased and wretched of creation. Such blasphemy without sincere repentance sends a soul straight to eternal damnation in the lowest and most terrifying depths of the fire of Hell. Till this day, the blasphemers use their blasphemy and mockery of the Prophets as a means to demoralize the Believers and make them doubtful or ashamed of their Faith.

فَاَہۡلَکۡنَاۤ اَشَدَّ مِنۡہُمۡ بَطۡشًا وَّمَضٰی مَثَلُ الۡاَوَّلِیۡنَ

And We destroyed those stronger than them in power, and the example of the earlier ones has already past

(Surah 43:8)

The idol worshiping Quraysh of Mecca, the primary opponents of the Prophet Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم were not a great kingdom or regional power unlike the Pharaoh of the Exodus who opposed Moses, or even the warlike people who were wiped out during the Great Flood after having rejected Noah. Consider also the scattering and erasure of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BCE, an obstinate nation that repeatedly and arrogantly belied the warnings delivered to them by ancient Israelite Prophets to repent from idolatry. They too were relatively stronger than the clans of Quraysh and the other Arab tribes in their vicinity—who did not even possess a proper polity—on the eve of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. The purpose of the Ayah is to impress upon them that they should not feel secure in opposing the Prophet Muhammad صلي الله عليه وسلم despite the odds against the latter in terms of raw numbers and influence in the region at the time of the revelation of this Ayah. Allah says:

وَلَئِنۡ سَاَلۡتَہُمۡ مَّنۡ خَلَقَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضَ لَیَقُوۡلُنَّ خَلَقَہُنَّ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡعَلِیۡمُ

If you were to ask them who created the Heavens and the Earth they would say, "the Mighty, the Knowing created them both"

(Surah 43:9)

The pagan Arabs affirmed not only the existence of Allah—the invisible God Who had no image or idol to represent Him—but that He alone is the Creator. But confessing belief in a Supreme Deity, Who alone is the Creator, and alone has possession over all things, is not sufficient to save one from Shirk of polytheism if one believes in other deities alongside the One God and worships anything or anyone besides Allah, even if he acknowledges that what he worships is not independent of Allah. This is because it is not only Tawhid to believe in a single Creator, a single Supreme Being, but the Tawhid of Islam requires that we worship nothing but Allah. Allah سبحانه وتعالي says:

وَالَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ الۡاَزۡوَاجَ کُلَّہَا وَجَعَلَ لَکُمۡ مِّنَ الۡفُلۡکِ وَالۡاَنۡعَامِ مَا تَرۡکَبُوۡنَ

لِتَسۡتَوٗا عَلٰی ظُہُوۡرِہٖ ثُمَّ تَذۡکُرُوۡا نِعۡمَۃَ رَبِّکُمۡ اِذَا اسۡتَوَیۡتُمۡ عَلَیۡہِ وَتَقُوۡلُوۡا سُبۡحٰنَ الَّذِیۡ سَخَّرَ لَنَا ہٰذَا وَمَا کُنَّا لَہٗ مُقۡرِنِیۡنَ

وَاِنَّاۤ اِلٰی رَبِّنَا لَمُنۡقَلِبُوۡنَ

And Who has created everything in pairs, and has made vessels and beasts whereon you ride.

That you may settle yourselves firmly on their backs and when you are securely seated thereon you may remember the favor of your Lord and say: Holy is He Who has subjected this to us, while we had not the strength to subdue it by ourselves.

And to our Lord surely shall we return.

(Surah 43:12-14)

Muslims universally recite this Quranic prayer upon seating themselves in any vehicle, including modern cars, trains and planes. Modern vehicles and forms of passenger transportation may all linguistically be named fulk, which literally means a moving vessel. While in premodern times it was primarily used in reference to sea faring vessels, the same word may certainly apply to modern-day vehicles like automobiles, trains and airplanes.

Allah, holy and exalted is He, says:

اَمِ اتَّخَذَ مِمَّا یَخۡلُقُ بَنٰتٍ وَّاَصۡفٰکُمۡ بِالۡبَنِیۡنَ 

Has He taken [for Himself] from that which He created daughters and privileged you with sons?

(Surah 43, Ayah 16)

This rhetorical question highlights that the polytheist Arabs believe their “goddesses”, meaning their idols, namely, Lat, Manat, and Uzza, are the daughters of Allah, and likewise that the Angels are His female children, yet prefer for themselves sons. But if one of them were to have a daughter, the next verse describes his condition:

ظَلَّ وَجۡہُہٗ مُسۡوَدًّا وَّہُوَ کَظِیۡمٌ

His face becomes blackened and he becomes filled with suppressed rage and sorrow

(Surah 43, Ayah 17)

Some understand this passage to mean there is inherently no difference between sons and daughters in terms of worth, but that it is hypocritical for the polytheists to ascribe daughters to Allah while they prefer sons for themselves. And Allah is free of having any children, male or female. But elsewhere in the Quran, Allah says about the polytheist belief that He has daughters while they prefer sons for themselves:

اَلَکُمُ الذَّکَرُ وَلَہُ الۡاُنۡثٰی

تِلۡکَ اِذًا قِسۡمَۃٌ ضِیۡزٰی

For you males and for Him females?!

That is surely an unfair division

(Surah 53, Ayah 21 & 22)

I consider this an objective statement and not merely a rhetorical response. In other words, it truly is unfair if one person has sons and another daughters. The one who is given sons is favored, in the apparent, because the male is inherently of greater worth and value than the female, as Allah says:

اَلرِّجَالُ قَوّٰمُوۡنَ عَلَی النِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللّٰہُ بَعۡضَہُمۡ عَلٰی بَعۡضٍ

The men are in charge of the women because Allah has given excellence of some of them [men] over some [women]

(Surah 4, Ayah 34)

When we consider that the greatest creation of Allah, and the one who is most beloved to Him, namely, the Prophet Muhammad, صلى الله عليه وسلم is male, and likewise that the Prophets and Apostles of God were men; Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Elias and Jesus عليهم الصلاة والسلام were all men, then it becomes apparent that in the sight of Allah the male is inherently superior to the female. The point is not to denigrate the female but to elevate the male. Though all humans are accountable to God and He shall deliver justice to everyone, male and female, the male has been granted faculties, intelligence, strength, a drive and understanding above and beyond what the female naturally possesses. For this reason the man has greater responsibility and is burdened with more challenging duties than the female. His threshold for enduring pain and suffering is higher and so God tests him to a greater degree than the woman.

To be continued…