Is It A Sin For A Sikh To Marry A Non-Sikh?

[jasi]

there is no sin at all under any circumstances to mary any one you love. sikhism respect every human being alike. sikh means folowers of Almighty,truth and Shri Guru NANAK DEV jI 'S who eleminated all the cast sysytems and region but told us we all come from one light.

but we do recommend that you mary within your own groups which is for good for both couple to understand the traditions and can settle without understanding each other too much.

jaspi

 

[saleen]

I don't know if it is a sin or not. Hindu-Sikh marriages have been successful in many instances because they are both tolerant to each other. Sikh and Christian have been ok as well.

Personally, I would never suggest a Sikh/Hindu to marry a Muslim person. Why? Because of the intolerance shown to other religions in Islam (the concept of {censored}).

 

[jasi]

Certainly I Agree With You . That Is What Mullah Teaches . Otherwise Islam Braces Every One Equal As It Consider All Are Creatures Of God.but When You Fallen Love With Moslim Boy Or Girl Then Love Is Your Relegion And God.

Jaspi

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh
Das thinks that if Muslim guy or Gal converts to Gurmat,then it is OK.Nihungs used other way to test that convertee is genuine by let him/her taste pork.

 

[jasi]

it is pethatic i the see way your explanation that one has to eat pork to prove that one is really a convert to sikhism. by the way you understand very well in love that person will do any thing but please understand that no meat is allowed in sikh relegion. so i ask the same question from Nihang if he can eat any meat?convertion is in the head and heart not bu lables or announcement. there are millions of moslims who respect Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and asking the ways to lead their pious life . they have converted in their heart.

jaspi

 

[kds1980]

<<please understand that no meat is allowed in sikh relegion>>

meat is allowed in sikh religion only halal is banned.

 

[kaur-1]

there are millions of moslims who respect Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji and asking the ways to lead their pious life . they have converted in their heart.

jaspi

Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

If the above is the case, why dont they actually convert to Sikhi not just in their heart!.

Personally, not speaking for anyone on SPN: -

To any Sikh thats marries a Muslim and the Muslim partner doesnt convert to Sikhi. You might as well commit "Hara-Kiri"!!

Blunt comment!, shocking ! No I dont think so. Just remember thats what their ancestors did to Young Sikh toddlers and Sikh Babies infront of their Sikh Mothers!. Gutted the Sikh babies and hang the dead babies guts around the mothers.

Oh dont forget they also speared them and then hang them from this long spear's for everyone to see.

 

[max314]

It's not a sin. It's never a sin.

You can 'convert' yourself into a friggin' car and it still wouldn't be a sin.

It might kick your ego to hear that a Sikkh person has wed a non-Sikkh, but it's never a 'sin' according to Granthian scriptures.

Unlike the Abrahamic faiths, Sikkhi doesn't function on that one-dimensional, tyrannical, inhumane system of 'sin and repentence'.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

As das did talk with taksali brtherns about Convert Muslims (to Gurmat)men amrriyung Sikh girl.They said that it is posible that they sham as Sikh and later take girl to Islam.Since long,pork method is used by Niuhngs to test neo converts.

Das proved by beeef method to Kala Afghana sectt that is not covert of RSS.


so cmoing back to point wheather Gurmat allowes meat or not.

It was more propoganda to let Pakistani possing as Sikh should live in sikh shrines and take only veg food so Vegitrainism was encrouagred.Or else they had to eat Jhataka.

There is line from Tenth Master recorded in Mangal Prakash.Mam Sikh Maas Khai Dij Nahi.My Sikh eats meat and not the Brahmin.So who say meat is not as per Panth needs to understands this.

Sants have valid reason to not to eat meat but they avoid veg food also due to avoiding rich food.Bebcki Rahit is another life style in which meat is unfit.


But these are branches but not the main Panth.

 

[max314]

Gurfateh

As das did talk with taksali brtherns about Convert Muslims (to Gurmat)men amrriyung Sikh girl.They said that it is posible that they sham as Sikh and later take girl to Islam.Since long,pork method is used by Niuhngs to test neo converts.

Das proved by beeef method to Kala Afghana sectt that is not covert of RSS.


so cmoing back to point wheather Gurmat allowes meat or not.

It was more propoganda to let Pakistani possing as Sikh should live in sikh shrines and take only veg food so Vegitrainism was encrouagred.Or else they had to eat Jhataka.

There is line from Tenth Master recorded in Mangal Prakash.Mam Sikh Maas Khai Dij Nahi.My Sikh eats meat and not the Brahmin.So who say meat is not as per Panth needs to understands this.

Sants have valid reason to not to eat meat but they avoid veg food also due to avoiding rich food.Bebcki Rahit is another life style in which meat is unfit.


But these are branches but not the main Panth.

Wow, that's fascinating. I didn't know that.

I've long suspected that vegetarianism was a Brahminical hangover that Sikkhs had wrongly adopted. I'd really like it if you could provide an authority of some type (like an author or a historian) so that people can actually see for themselves that this is indeed true.

Thanks for that.

 

[kaur-1]

It's not a sin. It's never a sin.

You can 'convert' yourself into a friggin' car and it still wouldn't be a sin.

It might kick your ego to hear that a Sikkh person has wed a non-Sikkh, but it's never a 'sin' according to Granthian scriptures.

Unlike the Abrahamic faiths, Sikkhi doesn't function on that one-dimensional, tyrannical, inhumane system of 'sin and repentence'.

"Friggin Car" :}{}{}: Funny!

Max, maybe in the "Matrix World" and if one is a "sentient machine".!

 

[dalsingh]

"It might kick your ego to hear that a Sikkh person has wed a non-Sikkh, but it's never a 'sin' according to Granthian scriptures."

There is a whole Khalsa ethos to consider as well as Granthian principles. Granted that the latter is easier to discern because it is written down clearly whilst the former is shrouded in some mystery.

It may not be a sin but nonetheless it is still a practice that can harm the panth if the children are not familiarised with Sikhi, as is usually the case. I should know, I've seen it happen in my own family.

Aside from the spiritual side of Sikhi (piri) we have to remember the empirical (miri), although quality is always of prime importance, in war and politics today, numbers play a big part. Losing numbers to other races/cultures is not a smart idea in this context.

 

[vijaydeep Singh]

Gurfateh

Wow, that's fascinating. I didn't know that.

I've long suspected that vegetarianism was a Brahminical hangover that Sikkhs had wrongly adopted. I'd really like it if you could provide an authority of some type (like an author or a historian) so that people can actually see for themselves that this is indeed true.

Thanks for that.

Bhai Sahib Ji,

There are some members like Drkhalsa Ji,KDS Ji etc.who know that das has served the intelligience agencies of India.Very recently again we have killed a jihadi of Let(in kahsmeer),who stayed in mnay of our Gurudwara,with Saffron Turban and spex and very good Lehnda dialect of punjabie ,which das is also aware of.

and das knew an Area near Attock,where some intellgience agency guys of Pakistani are trained as how to behave as Sikh.

They avoid the Chhavanis of Niuhngs as Jhatka is done there.Before This AKJ and DDT did oppe meat on other issues but they never bullied.They used coaxing like brothers.

 

[max314]

"Friggin Car" :}{}{}: Funny!

Levity can prove invaluable, partcularly inslightly more sober topics. Keeps the good faith.

Max, maybe in the "Matrix World" and if one is a "sentient machine".!

Ah, my reputation precedes me :}{}{}:

"It might kick your ego to hear that a Sikkh person has wed a non-Sikkh, but it's never a 'sin' according to Granthian scriptures."

There is a whole Khalsa ethos to consider as well as Granthian principles. Granted that the latter is easier to discern because it is written down clearly whilst the former is shrouded in some mystery.

Ah, see, I have a very particular opinion on the relationship between Khalsasim and Sikkhism.

I've said it a few times on this board before, but I'll make it clear once again now.

Essentially, I don't think that Sikkhism is a 'religion', though I believe that Khalsaism is.

The reason for this is very simple: the Guru Granth Sahib promotes equality, secularism, non-discrminatory, non-divisional views on living with a God who is featureless, formless and timeless. It rejects the notion of rituals and routines, and it discards the importance of wearing particular clothes over the content of one's character. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Dassam Granth, on the other hand, teaches that a Khalsa is above all and that a Khalsa should not consort with non-Khalsas. It teaches of a God who is wrathful and vengeful, and places importance on certain rituals (e.g. taking amrit) and codes of practice and dress (e.g. the Five K's, etc).

Weighing up the two sets of information, it would seem to me that the way of the Khalsa measures up to all the distinguishable requisites of a religion, whereas Sikkhism is almost entirely independent of that.

The Khalsa, it seems, was forged very deliberately into a warrior cult or religion in order to protect those universal, non-institutional teachings of the Granth and to enforce its principles. A 'necessary evil', one might say.

Of course, given the amount of time and the proximity with which Sikkhism and its warrior Khalsa cult have lived side-by-side has meant that many Khalsaist influences have trickled down and eventually set upon the now-accepted image of Sikkhism. But, in my view, the two are always going to be essentially separate, though historically linked.

So, in a nutshell:

• 'Religion' = Organised group with a set of ritualistic codes and practices.

• Guru Nanak does not create this, but rather condemns the dependence on such things.

• Khalsa created by Tenth Master as an organised group with a set of codes and practices (e.g. taking amrit, Khalsa dress-code, heralding the sword).

• Tenth Master saw that creation of warrior religious group was a necessity to defend humanity's human rights that the Guru Granth Sahib said all men posessed as a birth right.

• Tenth Master declared Khalsa a 'superior' being who would we rewarded by God unlike non-Khalsas and that interacting with non-Khalsas was condemned by him - a necessary paradox if a Khalsa warrior was to give his/her life to a higher cause without question (e.g. Plato's theory that religion is a noble lie).

It may not be a sin but nonetheless it is still a practice that can harm the panth if the children are not familiarised with Sikhi, as is usually the case. I should know, I've seen it happen in my own family.

Aside from the spiritual side of Sikhi (piri) we have to remember the empirical (miri), although quality is always of prime importance, in war and politics today, numbers play a big part. Losing numbers to other races/cultures is not a smart idea in this context.

Indeed, and my short analysis above illustrates why this is so.

Bhai Sahib Ji,

There are some members like Drkhalsa Ji,KDS Ji etc.who know that das has served the intelligience agencies of India.Very recently again we have killed a jihadi of Let(in kahsmeer),who stayed in mnay of our Gurudwara,with Saffron Turban and spex and very good Lehnda dialect of punjabie ,which das is also aware of.

and das knew an Area near Attock,where some intellgience agency guys of Pakistani are trained as how to behave as Sikh.

They avoid the Chhavanis of Niuhngs as Jhatka is done there.Before This AKJ and DDT did oppe meat on other issues but they never bullied.They used coaxing like brothers.

That really is quite incredible. You have a remarkable (ex-)job. Thank you very much

 

[dalsingh]

"Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Dassam Granth, on the other hand, teaches that a Khalsa is above all and that a Khalsa should not consort with non-Khalsas. It teaches of a God who is wrathful and vengeful, and places importance on certain rituals (e.g. taking amrit) and codes of practice and dress (e.g. the Five K's, etc)."


I don't know where you got that information from but it is majorly wrong. The Dasam Granth doesn't contain ANY of that stuff. Nothing about amrit, a vengeful God or dress.

Rather it is a compilation of stuff from the last Guru's period, not exclusively by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The largest portion of it is simply translations of puranic mythological material probably by the poets the Guru had in their darbar.

I find it difficult to accept your idea of a separtion between Sikhi and Khalsa. Khalsa was the final form that contained all of the spiritual side you mentioned but also an added practical realistic dimension to deal with some harsh realities of life and survive them. Sikhi as you view it, in my opinion, is incomplete without it. It then simply boils down to hippy stuff, remember the Khalsa ensured the survival of Sikhi. When times are bad, it is Khalsaism (as you put) that will pull us through.

 

[max314]

I don't know where you got that information from but it is majorly wrong. The Dasam Granth doesn't contain ANY of that stuff. Nothing about amrit, a vengeful God or dress.

Rather it is a compilation of stuff from the last Guru's period, not exclusively by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The largest portion of it is simply translations of puranic mythological material probably by the poets the Guru had in their darbar.

I will try and provide citations, because I do remember reading texts that disclosed these ideals. I believe that they were necessary to motivate an otherwise peaceful community into a fearsome army ready to stand against those who denied human beings their human rights. The kara is a donkey's collar. The donkey only responds to punishment and reward (the carrot and the stick, as it were), and Guru Gobind Singh Ji understood that this herd of donkeys who had the capacity to act like savages under the incorrect leadership needed to be strapped up and pushed forward with the right drive.

As I say, I will attempt to provide citations at a future date.

I find it difficult to accept your idea of a separtion between Sikhi and Khalsa. Khalsa was the final form that contained all of the spiritual side you mentioned but also an added practical realistic dimension to deal with some harsh realities of life and survive them. Sikhi as you view it, in my opinion, is incomplete without it. It then simply boils down to hippy stuff, remember the Khalsa ensured the survival of Sikhi. When times are bad, it is Khalsaism (as you put) that will pull us through.

I agree with you on one point, and disagree on another.

I agree that Khalsaism was completely necessary (as I stated in my earlier post) in order to enforce the principles of light in a time of darkness.

A country makes laws to instill justice and a sense of principle within the nation, but without a police force or military force ready to uphold those principles, those laws become little else other than {censored} in a stiff wind.

However, I disagree that the Khalsa as Guru Gobind Singh Ji created it were the "final form".

It appears to me that the Khalsa were the contemporary form that was created as per the requirements of the time. Indeed, Sikkhism talks of the perfection of God's creation; the universe. And one of the defining features of the universe is the occurence of change and evolution. How we view Sikkhi today is not the same as it was viewed in either Guru Nanak Dev Ji's time or even in Gobind Singh Ji's time. The Gurus were fully aware that changes would occur, which is why they created the akal takht in order to allow the Sikkh populus to become a self-governing nation that was not bound by the Dassam Granth, but was bound only by the Guru Granth Sahib (which, by the way, contains nothing of turbans, dress codes, etc...this is all in the Dassam Granth).

Guru Gobind Singh Ji had the choice to promote the Dassam Granth to the state of Guruship, but he did not do so. This was because the writings in the Dassam Granth - like the wearing of the turban, etc - were of historical and principle value, but they were bound by their time. Unlike the Guru Granth Sahib, it did not contain actions and principles that were not bound by time. And Guru Sahib knew this.

Therefore, it is my contention that the form of the Khalsa as given by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and detailed in the Dassam Granth may indeed have been the "final form" of the Khalsa...but only until that time. Had Sikkhism started in the West or in more recent times, I doubt the "final form" of the time would be the same as it is now. And rightfully so, because evolution and change is the Will of God.

 

[dalsingh]

Khalsa principles, even if you strip away the external paraphenalia is still current and the true blueprint for a Sikh society in my view. The underlying principles are actually excellent for a modern society, equality, bravery, justice, positive identity, even democracy (I'm no big fan of the western version BTW).

I disagree that the Khalsa isn't flexible, the Sarbat Khalsa meetings of the 1700s were way more egalitarian and democratic then most of the stuff going on in the west at the time.

Max, some words on the Dasam Granth:

"Guru Gobind Singh Ji had the choice to promote the Dassam Granth to the state of Guruship, but he did not do so. This was because the writings in the Dassam Granth - like the wearing of the turban, etc - were of historical and principle value, but they were bound by their time."

Firstly, teh Dasam Granth was compiled well after Dasmesh Pita's demise. Even at that time their was argument about putting all of the writings together. It was agreed that it would be put together if two Singhs (Mehtab and Sukha) suceeded in their assasination attempt on Massa Ranghar, who had taken over the Harmandir Sahib complex with his force (Moghul backed) and was using it for dancing and drinking in an act of defiance and sacriledge. They suceeded in beheading him and escaping the guards with his head, hence the book was put together.

It doesn't mention the stuff you seem to be implying is in their from my studies (which are far from exhaustive!) and most of the writing is not even religious. But some of it is clearly from Guru Gobind Singh Ji, and we can read his conceptualisation of Waheguru from it. They do not take anything away from Gurbani but add to it with a martial tone. I'm talking about Akal Ustat and Jaap Sahib here.

In the end I think that a balance of what you call Sikh values and Khalsa values are true Sikhism.

Degh Tegh Fateh
Sant-Sipahi

Practicality and military preparedness couple with compassion and spirituality.

One without the other is incomplete.

 

[H_Singh]

I am bringing this topic back out because I maybe facing this very situation in the near future. I know cultural norms and societies norms say we must stay within Sikhi and not marry outside it, but is this the final word in the Shri Guru Granth Sahib. Though from the limited amount I know there is nothing stated specifically anywhere, and going by the basic tenants of Sikhi, equality, tolerance and acceptance, that it is ok. I also understand that compatability is the only issue, beliefs, cutting of the childrens hair among other things. What if you partner did believe in what Sikhi did, and she did agree not to cut the childrens hair, then what issue remains? I do want to become an Amritdhari, but I know there is strict code of ethics that must be followed, will me marrying a non-Sikh make it impossible for me to follow the Khalsa?

I have been raised in western society, so my thinking is of western basis.
I think nothing of cultural or societies norms nor do I follow the sheep, I will follow only what is right. I do not care what another person thinks if they view me with prejudice, nor do I accept ignorance. I do not want to violate Sikhi, or the Khalsa in marrying a non-Sikh, i'm looking for all points of view.


Is there anywhere in Sikhi scripture that specifically condemns or says not too marry a non-Sikh?

I ask for assistance from the sangat.

 

[kilemba]

Is it a SIN , that I cannot say, I am from a mixed background and my grandmother accepted Sikhism and was baptised, And we have been brought up in Sikhism, but still face the discrimination from "pure" sikhs who see us as tainted, We do not choose where we are born but can choose which path to follow. Sikhism has the highest ideals, but do we practice what is there in the SGGS . To define this as sinful is passing judgement , and it is not up to us to pass judgement on others.

 

[Lee]

"It might kick your ego to hear that a Sikkh person has wed a non-Sikkh, but it's never a 'sin' according to Granthian scriptures."

There is a whole Khalsa ethos to consider as well as Granthian principles. Granted that the latter is easier to discern because it is written down clearly whilst the former is shrouded in some mystery.

It may not be a sin but nonetheless it is still a practice that can harm the panth if the children are not familiarised with Sikhi, as is usually the case. I should know, I've seen it happen in my own family.

Aside from the spiritual side of Sikhi (piri) we have to remember the empirical (miri), although quality is always of prime importance, in war and politics today, numbers play a big part. Losing numbers to other races/cultures is not a smart idea in this context.

This line of reasoning has always held a faint odour of sickness to me.

Why are numbers a big part, why does it matter if we lose numbers to other races (no such thing as race BTW) or cultures (doesn't that smack of racist attitude?) or even other religons?