Interfaith Marriage - Muslim & Sikh
- Thread starter makkanz
- Start date
- Replies 127
- Reads 59K
-
- Tags
- interfaith marriage muslim sikh
- Status
There is no philosphical basis to oppose a marriage between a Sikh and a Muslim. I am no scholar, but if someone can show where such is written I would appreciate it.
The question I guess really comes to one of identity, its definition, its creation and history. That is why there are so many tangents on this thread.
The Islamic invaders of India had a reputation for loot, rape, pillage and carnage. Therefore, most people obviously did not want that to happen to their women. Having said that, it is interesting that in 1947-48 the Pakistani and Pashtun forces in Kashmir did not have problems raping kashmiri women. The simple fact is that many people of India were converted to Islam not through simple choice but through force, intimidation and threat of savagery and rape and murder (sure, some did convert on their own but why would vast Rajput tribes of the punjab convert otherwise --- they still marry into their own castes even today, they did it out of fear).
So, there is no philosophy, only history. Why do the Serbs not freely marry with the Kosovar muslims and bosnian muslims? Why is there a struggle between Christians and Muslims in Sudan? Look at the bloodshed over Jerusalem over the ages. On a personal level, between two people, all of this does not matter. There is and has been a clash of cultures and religion for a long, long time.
I do think however, that these kinds of debates belong among the Islamic community and not small, secular, sometimes struggling minorities. It asks much of those whose identity and way of life are constantly under threat of assimilation to always employ and act upon their duty to be non prejudicial and non biased in the face of bigotry, in the face of bias, out there in the wide world. We as Sikhs already have a hard time holding on to our language, our traditions, our appearance and our identity. Muslims have no such problems, precisely because their ways and identity are clear cut, as is their definition of self and their general lack of ability to debate anyone on the merits of their faith, its actions, its weaknesses or its strengths.
This is not to say you are not welcome, only that you should understand where people on this forum come from and why they may react the way they do. We have no extremist or fundamentalist wing anymore (all wiped out with 1980s Indian government harmi Kutha style action on our people) whom we can comfortably rely upon to carry our traditions forward as the Muslims can. Therefore, the insecurity and angst are sometimes just below the surface.
The question I guess really comes to one of identity, its definition, its creation and history. That is why there are so many tangents on this thread.
The Islamic invaders of India had a reputation for loot, rape, pillage and carnage. Therefore, most people obviously did not want that to happen to their women. Having said that, it is interesting that in 1947-48 the Pakistani and Pashtun forces in Kashmir did not have problems raping kashmiri women. The simple fact is that many people of India were converted to Islam not through simple choice but through force, intimidation and threat of savagery and rape and murder (sure, some did convert on their own but why would vast Rajput tribes of the punjab convert otherwise --- they still marry into their own castes even today, they did it out of fear).
So, there is no philosophy, only history. Why do the Serbs not freely marry with the Kosovar muslims and bosnian muslims? Why is there a struggle between Christians and Muslims in Sudan? Look at the bloodshed over Jerusalem over the ages. On a personal level, between two people, all of this does not matter. There is and has been a clash of cultures and religion for a long, long time.
I do think however, that these kinds of debates belong among the Islamic community and not small, secular, sometimes struggling minorities. It asks much of those whose identity and way of life are constantly under threat of assimilation to always employ and act upon their duty to be non prejudicial and non biased in the face of bigotry, in the face of bias, out there in the wide world. We as Sikhs already have a hard time holding on to our language, our traditions, our appearance and our identity. Muslims have no such problems, precisely because their ways and identity are clear cut, as is their definition of self and their general lack of ability to debate anyone on the merits of their faith, its actions, its weaknesses or its strengths.
This is not to say you are not welcome, only that you should understand where people on this forum come from and why they may react the way they do. We have no extremist or fundamentalist wing anymore (all wiped out with 1980s Indian government harmi Kutha style action on our people) whom we can comfortably rely upon to carry our traditions forward as the Muslims can. Therefore, the insecurity and angst are sometimes just below the surface.
Nadeem
SPNer
Badmash-Ji,
Thank you for a very good post. You have, correctly in my view, indicated the reasons for the insecurity and angst - it is understandable. In philosphical terms there is no problem in Sikh-Muslim marriages in a minority of cases where the memory and teachings of the Gurus will not disappear. From a Sufi point of view, marriages with "People of the Book" [i.e Christians and Jews] is permitted; also permitted are marriages with people who profess belief in the ONE GOD. Sikhism is a special case because of its closeness to both Islam and Hinduism and the most eminent Sufis already accept Baba Nanak as a Divinely Guided Light in this world. Speaking in philosophical terms, non-Muslim women are permitted to keep their own faiths providing that their faith confirms a belief in the ONE GOD and Muhammad as his Apostle. Baba Nanak-Ji, by extension, is a High Saint in Sufism and carries the blessings of the Apostle through his teachings. That does not mean that Baba Nanak-Ji is a Muslim in the conventional sense but it does mean that his teachings on the ONE formless God meet with the same view in Sufism and Sufism is the inward essence of the outward forms of religion. But, as the Sufis say: "God knows Best!"
Thank you for a very good post. You have, correctly in my view, indicated the reasons for the insecurity and angst - it is understandable. In philosphical terms there is no problem in Sikh-Muslim marriages in a minority of cases where the memory and teachings of the Gurus will not disappear. From a Sufi point of view, marriages with "People of the Book" [i.e Christians and Jews] is permitted; also permitted are marriages with people who profess belief in the ONE GOD. Sikhism is a special case because of its closeness to both Islam and Hinduism and the most eminent Sufis already accept Baba Nanak as a Divinely Guided Light in this world. Speaking in philosophical terms, non-Muslim women are permitted to keep their own faiths providing that their faith confirms a belief in the ONE GOD and Muhammad as his Apostle. Baba Nanak-Ji, by extension, is a High Saint in Sufism and carries the blessings of the Apostle through his teachings. That does not mean that Baba Nanak-Ji is a Muslim in the conventional sense but it does mean that his teachings on the ONE formless God meet with the same view in Sufism and Sufism is the inward essence of the outward forms of religion. But, as the Sufis say: "God knows Best!"
thank you badmash. That is what i had concluded as well. 25 million sikhs and over 1 billon muslims. It is going to be a struggle and a fight to keep your beliefs, culture and identity. Even if 5 % of the muslims are aggressive in their attitudes towards sikhs that means 50 million if not more. Terrible.I truly can say that i do not have an answer for how this can be solved apart from our religious leaders being more responsible. The other really big problem with islam is that the quran is written in arabic and there two basic problems with that. 1) Most people cannot read arabic and have not read a translation 2) In converting from arabic to another language the true meaning of words can be easily lost. I have no solution for this. The only thing i have in my power is to show respect for my partners beliefs and ensure that we agree on what happens in the case of children.I do believe one thing however, as the world gets more and more integrated with the west, and children are being brought up in western societies. Peoples faiths and beliefs are being diluted over time anyway and we are starting to loose our values slowly but surely, person by person.To me the most important thing to teach our children is right from wrong, love and respect for others, etc etc .. the very things both our faiths attempt to do.My personal situation is more complex than i have discussed in this forum, simply because the complexities can 1) identify the people involved 2) cloud some of the real issues. However, the key thing here is love and the drive to be together and the inability to live apart.
Nadeem
SPNer
Makkanz writes to Badmash as follows: "It is going to be a struggle and a fight to keep your beliefs, culture and identity"
I do not agree with this statement. I do not think Sikhi values or spirituality are likely to disappear any time soon - at least I hope not! Marriages between Sikhs and Muslims are rare but when they do occur they must adopt a position that respects the universal values and teachings of the Gurus given that the teachings evidence the Barakah [Divine Grace] that is attached to them. Consequently, a Sikh who enters into marriage with a Muslim is under no obligation to change his or her religion and are regarded, from the point of view of law, as akin to "the people of the Book" [just as it is the case when Muslims marry Christians and Jews].
I do not agree with this statement. I do not think Sikhi values or spirituality are likely to disappear any time soon - at least I hope not! Marriages between Sikhs and Muslims are rare but when they do occur they must adopt a position that respects the universal values and teachings of the Gurus given that the teachings evidence the Barakah [Divine Grace] that is attached to them. Consequently, a Sikh who enters into marriage with a Muslim is under no obligation to change his or her religion and are regarded, from the point of view of law, as akin to "the people of the Book" [just as it is the case when Muslims marry Christians and Jews].
See what I see now is a perversion of Sikh belief. Because our Gurus were not evil they didn't encourage oppressing other religions/races. What I'm hearing now is that as by extention of this it is ok for Sikhs to marry muslims.
Have you ever read the extant rehit namas? Garbled as they are, a few thing comes through in ALL of them. That is Sikhs should not have sexual relationships with muslims.
And those Sikhs who are saying that philiosophically their is no reason why Sikhs and Muslims should marry need to read a bit more. Even todays rahit nama says we should only marry Sikhs.
Ultimately, Makanz, like I said, you have no interest in Sikhism or Sikhs at all. Just your own personal needs.
Have you ever read the extant rehit namas? Garbled as they are, a few thing comes through in ALL of them. That is Sikhs should not have sexual relationships with muslims.
And those Sikhs who are saying that philiosophically their is no reason why Sikhs and Muslims should marry need to read a bit more. Even todays rahit nama says we should only marry Sikhs.
Ultimately, Makanz, like I said, you have no interest in Sikhism or Sikhs at all. Just your own personal needs.
Nadeem
SPNer
Dear DalSingh,
Yes, infact sexual relations with Muslims or Hindus could lead to the dilution of Sikhi values altogether and could therefore be interpreted as contrary to higher message brought by the Gurus. The value of the Rehit Namas, which came several generations after Guru Gobind Singh, have varying degrees of applicability in response to different situations and conditions. As I said in my previous posts, marriage between Sikhs and Muslims are the exception and not the rule because the teachings of the Gurus demand complete unity between body and soul. However, deep respect for universal values in a marriage is also rare but when it does occur, it cannot be contrary to the teachings because such values are a recognition of the truth of Sikh Dharma. There is a difference between the complete dilution of Sikhi values through marriage with "outsiders" and the implicit recognition that what the Gurus established on earth was the Will of God. If we accept the latter and reject the former, it does not automatically result in the complete rejection of "outsiders". It all depends on the individuals in question, whether as Sikh or as Muslim, and what each believes their spiritual orientation aims to achieve.
Yes, infact sexual relations with Muslims or Hindus could lead to the dilution of Sikhi values altogether and could therefore be interpreted as contrary to higher message brought by the Gurus. The value of the Rehit Namas, which came several generations after Guru Gobind Singh, have varying degrees of applicability in response to different situations and conditions. As I said in my previous posts, marriage between Sikhs and Muslims are the exception and not the rule because the teachings of the Gurus demand complete unity between body and soul. However, deep respect for universal values in a marriage is also rare but when it does occur, it cannot be contrary to the teachings because such values are a recognition of the truth of Sikh Dharma. There is a difference between the complete dilution of Sikhi values through marriage with "outsiders" and the implicit recognition that what the Gurus established on earth was the Will of God. If we accept the latter and reject the former, it does not automatically result in the complete rejection of "outsiders". It all depends on the individuals in question, whether as Sikh or as Muslim, and what each believes their spiritual orientation aims to achieve.
No even rare exceptions. The Gurus never condoned marriage between Sikhs and Non Sikhs. That is fact. What you are saying is entirely your own interpretation. Totally contrary to the Sikh way of life.
Again you claim to be a friend to Sikhs but are condoning anti Sikh activity.
How do you hold this position?
Again you claim to be a friend to Sikhs but are condoning anti Sikh activity.
How do you hold this position?
Nadeem
SPNer
Dalsingh writes: "Again you claim to be a friend to Sikhs but are condoning anti Sikh activity."
I wrote the following: "Yes, infact sexual relations with Muslims or Hindus could lead to the dilution of Sikhi values altogether and could therefore be interpreted as contrary to higher message brought by the Gurus"
How is it that you misinterpreted what I said? The exceptions do occur, whether or not this fulfills the need for Sikhi values or not. So, my question was, if Sikhi values can still be maintained in a marriage to someone who is not Sikh, what philosophical reasons might be given?
I wrote the following: "Yes, infact sexual relations with Muslims or Hindus could lead to the dilution of Sikhi values altogether and could therefore be interpreted as contrary to higher message brought by the Gurus"
How is it that you misinterpreted what I said? The exceptions do occur, whether or not this fulfills the need for Sikhi values or not. So, my question was, if Sikhi values can still be maintained in a marriage to someone who is not Sikh, what philosophical reasons might be given?
Nadeem
SPNer
Dear Vaapaara,
No merry go round at all. I am quite happy to leave this subject alone. I am only interested in the philosophical aspects of the question. In a sense, it requires an unemotional response.
Clearly, if you read the threads, other Sikhs have given the opposite opinion to your own. But one of the great features of all great philosophies is the ability to discuss things in a disinterested way without making assumptions. Exploring philosophical ideas can be an exhausting process but if we realise that it is an activity that is independent of our instincts and emotions then we begin to appreciate its universal value. This applies to all faiths equally. So, to clarify once again, the interest is not personal but philosophical; it is about how we understand relations with people of other faiths. The same questions can be applied to other faiths directly. Its just interesting to know how Sikh thinkers explore these concepts in a constructive way given their special interest in the universal message of Baba Nanak Ji [Peace and Blessings on Him]. I hope you get the picture?
No merry go round at all. I am quite happy to leave this subject alone. I am only interested in the philosophical aspects of the question. In a sense, it requires an unemotional response.
Clearly, if you read the threads, other Sikhs have given the opposite opinion to your own. But one of the great features of all great philosophies is the ability to discuss things in a disinterested way without making assumptions. Exploring philosophical ideas can be an exhausting process but if we realise that it is an activity that is independent of our instincts and emotions then we begin to appreciate its universal value. This applies to all faiths equally. So, to clarify once again, the interest is not personal but philosophical; it is about how we understand relations with people of other faiths. The same questions can be applied to other faiths directly. Its just interesting to know how Sikh thinkers explore these concepts in a constructive way given their special interest in the universal message of Baba Nanak Ji [Peace and Blessings on Him]. I hope you get the picture?
ISDhillon
SPNer
- Dec 13, 2005
- 192
- 14
"Its just interesting to know how Sikh thinkers explore these concepts in a constructive way given their special interest in the universal message of Baba Nanak Ji"
The interest is in the gurshabad which was passed on from 1 - 10, nanak is no exception to this. The body is a vehicle for the word today paper is the vehicle and the temporal aspect resides in the corporate body politic of the khalsa.
The interest is in the gurshabad which was passed on from 1 - 10, nanak is no exception to this. The body is a vehicle for the word today paper is the vehicle and the temporal aspect resides in the corporate body politic of the khalsa.
To start, you dont need to say [peace and blessings on him]. Guru Nanak is the bestower of peace and blessings upon all humanity, muslims hindus alike. Don't make assumptions on sikhism, its not same as sufism or islam. Guru Nanak is the one Guru of all existence.
one is bowing towards the mecca, the other bows in no direction.
one is suppressing freedoms of women, the other one is free.
one believes God is only in mecca, the other believes God is everywhere.
one belives only Allah is the God, rest are kafirs, The other believes the God of all Religions is the one and same.
I could go on, The teachings of Guru is, they have two bodies but one soul, such is the principle of marriage in sikhism. Hope you get this beautiful picture.
You are going merry-round and you should put the subject to rest.
one is bowing towards the mecca, the other bows in no direction.
one is suppressing freedoms of women, the other one is free.
one believes God is only in mecca, the other believes God is everywhere.
one belives only Allah is the God, rest are kafirs, The other believes the God of all Religions is the one and same.
I could go on, The teachings of Guru is, they have two bodies but one soul, such is the principle of marriage in sikhism. Hope you get this beautiful picture.
You are going merry-round and you should put the subject to rest.
Nadeem
SPNer
ISDhillon writes: "The interest is in the gurshabad which was passed on from 1 - 10, nanak is no exception to this."
I am not sure I understand your comment. Please help to clarify. Are you saying that God transcends rationality, and that He can do anything?
I am not sure I understand your comment. Please help to clarify. Are you saying that God transcends rationality, and that He can do anything?
Nadeem
SPNer
Vaapaaraa writes:
"one is bowing towards the mecca, the other bows in no direction.
one is suppressing freedoms of women, the other one is free.
one believes God is only in mecca, the other believes God is everywhere.
one belives only Allah is the God, rest are kafirs, The other believes the God of all Religions is the one and same."
Is this an accurate way of understanding other faiths?
"one is bowing towards the mecca, the other bows in no direction.
one is suppressing freedoms of women, the other one is free.
one believes God is only in mecca, the other believes God is everywhere.
one belives only Allah is the God, rest are kafirs, The other believes the God of all Religions is the one and same."
Is this an accurate way of understanding other faiths?
ISDhillon
SPNer
- Dec 13, 2005
- 192
- 14
your response has nothing to do with the quote but i see where youre going with this. Please clarify your understanding of the term "transcend rationale".
Clearly, you are the king of assumptions, I stand with the opinion of other sikh brothers and sisters on this forum.
Nadeem
SPNer
You are entitled to your opinion but you will be making a major mistake if you reduce this discussion to a debate between Sikhs and Muslims. Clearly, other Sikhs do not hold you view as other Muslims do not hold mine. The discussion is philosophical not religious. Be warned!
Nadeem
SPNer
The warning is in relation to assumptions - not in relation to people. Please correct your understanding!
Nadeem
SPNer
Dear Shernee,
JO BOLE SO NIHAL, SAT SRI AKAL!
I think you may think that advancing a philosophical position is advancing a narrow religious point of view - be careful!
If a classmate warns me not to make a mistake in grammar, is he attacking me personally? I think some - a small minority - of people in this Forum simply need to chill out! This discussion is not personal, it is philosophical and rational. Please don't spoil it.
JO BOLE SO NIHAL, SAT SRI AKAL!
I think you may think that advancing a philosophical position is advancing a narrow religious point of view - be careful!
If a classmate warns me not to make a mistake in grammar, is he attacking me personally? I think some - a small minority - of people in this Forum simply need to chill out! This discussion is not personal, it is philosophical and rational. Please don't spoil it.
- Status
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
Latest Activity
-
-
How different are messages of Buddha and Founding Guru Nanak of Sikhs!
- Latest: GurpreetSinghShinh
-
-
Translations Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib: The Difficult And The Contradictory
- Latest: GurpreetSinghShinh
-
