# Is It Compulsory For A Amritdhari Singh To Marry An Amritdhari Kaur?



## infoseeker (Apr 3, 2010)

Waheguru ji ka khalsa, Waheguru ji ki fateh,
I want to ask a question. Is it mandatory for a Amritdhari singh to marry a Amritdhari gal? or Can he marry to any sikh girl. 
What does rehat maryada says about it? Please let me know the answer.
Thanks in advance.
Gur Fateh


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 3, 2010)

First, I find "sikh gal" offensive.  Since you use "singh" for the male, please use "kaur" for the female.  Better yet would be "Singh" and "Kaur."

According to the SRM (Sikh Rehat Maryada)...

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised                      ought to get his wife also baptised.."  

That is all the SRM says.  Make whatever you can of that.
[/FONT]


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 3, 2010)

at the Anand Karaj the Granthi used to ask the Bride/Groom whether they were both amritdharee (Guru walleh) or NOT..and if not..then to get into the Guruwalleh Brotherhood asap.
Now a days at Majority of Anand karajs I attended..the Granthi SKIPS this..simply because he can clearly see that the Groom must have visited the barber ( shiny new chin raggrrree hoee). regardeless of the FACT that he is carrying a THREE FOOT SWORD to hsow his "Khalsahood credentials" ???.during those days long gone when my dad was granthi..he would SKIP the Anand Karaj when he saw such a groom....how times have changed...
Some Granthis just mumble through the advice ( sometimes he gets into toruble with the family if he lays too much stress on kesh amrit etc as the famaily feels he is specially targettign their son !! Some Gurdwars parbhnadaks have "unoffically banned" granthis form talking about such topics..no kesh, amrit etc even during girpurabs/vasakhi..just a general talk on battle of anandpur etc etc to entertain the crowd...and not offend the ghonas monas etc.
The SRM is actually on the BACKBURNER for MOST SIKHS..all "jathebandis" have their own Maryadas....so they keep MUM when SRM "HUKMNAMAH from AKAL TAKHAT" is raised..BUT bring out sotas and daangs when its time to ..."enforce the Ragi darshan Singh hukmnamah form the VERY SAME  AKAL TAKHAT !!???? is it the same akal takhat ?? then why we have double VISION ??

BOTTOM LINE...its definitley in your favour if BOTH Bride/Groom are of the SAME RELIGION..Sikh..Amritdharee..Taksali..AKJ..whatever...differences lead to..more differences..later !! CHOOSE WISELY for a good long happy marriage...:veryhappymunda1:


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 3, 2010)

The Sikh Rehat Marayada states that a baptized Sikh man should get his wife baptized. This is all it says. But there is a lot more to it than a simple suggestion. Gyani is right about the number of creative ways that "khalsahood" is negotiated, or shall I say subverted.

Why is it not a simple suggestion? What are the real burdens and blessings of amrit sanchaar?

That should make for more interesting dialog. Anyway I hope that it does.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 3, 2010)

I was just reading "*Amritdhari: A Topic Looking for a Good Title" and thinking about commenting there.

I guess I'll comment here, though, as it's more current.  

My opinion, not written in stone.

I can't see for the life of me why anyone not either Amritdhari or working toward it would want to be a Sikh.  Becoming an aspiring Khalsa is really just a second step on this journey.

To begin with the 5 kakkars.  I think anyone who doesn't look like a Sikh is missing a huge part of the Sikh experience.  I would encourage women to tie turban partly for this reason.  (There are others.)  For 20 years, I threw my kakkars away, wanting to escape from being a Sikh.  It didn't work, but it was a sad time of being apart.

I did not always hold this opinion.  For several years after our marriage, Mani was Amritdhari and we both lived the Khalsa lifestyle, but I balked at taking this step.  Only after I was blessed with Amrit did I understand that there is more to this whole Khalsa thing than living according to certain rules, including the study of Gurbani and Naam-jap and such.  Our already strong marriage became even stronger and happier.

I think the main burden of being an aspiring Khalsa are the militant nonAmritdhari Sikhs.  I do not know what their problem is.  Amrit is open to any Sikh willing to accept it.  We are not an exclusive society.  Any Sikh willing to live as a Khalsa is welcome.  We are all learners.   

I'm tired.  Perhaps I'll write more later.  I have much more to say.

*


----------



## harbansj24 (Apr 4, 2010)

This has been discussed in another thread.
The only requirement of SRM is that for a Sikh to be recognised as an Amritdhari is that both the spouses should be amritdharis and if an amritdhari marries a non amritdhari (which is not forbidden) then both should take amrit together to re enter the fold of Amritdharis.


----------



## roab1 (Apr 5, 2010)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> The SRM is actually on the BACKBURNER for MOST SIKHS..all "jathebandis" have their own Maryadas....so they keep MUM when SRM "HUKMNAMAH from AKAL TAKHAT" is raised..BUT bring out sotas and daangs when its time to ..."enforce the Ragi darshan Singh hukmnamah form the VERY SAME  AKAL TAKHAT !!???? is it the same akal takhat ?? then why we have double VISION ??



I think most jathebandis/groups etc. do not think SRM is endorsed by Akal Takht. They hold the opinion that SRM is SGPC which is not Akal Takht.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 5, 2010)

Roab Ji...
I would say so too......BUT...............the Recent Murder of the Nanaksahi Calendar was passed to the "SGPC".....( WHEN the FIVE Takhats couldnt agree on it)........and these SAME "jathebandis" wholeheartedly ACCEPT IT...as IF that was AKAL TAKHAT !!

SO Clearly all of them PICK and CHOOSE !!

1. Example..a Hukmanmah was passed by Ranjit Singh of Akal Takhat agaisnt an Editor of Punjabi daily... ....no one even talks about it and all these same "Jathebandis" are all Pally wally with this Comrade Nastik Editor who PUBLISHED the Sauda Saadh full page advert for RS 1 Lakh when even the Punjabi tribune refused to touch it with a 12 foot pole....YET these same "Jathebandis" are up in arms to enforce the AT Hukmanamah agaisnt Joginder singh of Spokesman Newspaper...In the previous case the Nastik comrade was powerful enough to get the AT Jathedar DISMISSED !!

Many many more such PICK and CHOOSE examples are available...


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Apr 5, 2010)

There should be an intensive 2 week course for the bride and the groom on Gurmat, Sikhi, Sikh History, understanding and how to live the meanings of Lavan etc, etc before they should get married. This should be the part of Rehat Maryada. If this is, then itwill motivate all to take khandei de pahul. This will also make them live and abide by the Gurmat Ideals. 

Marriage is part of the inner growth that takes some time, many times years to mature, then only 'one jyot' appears.

But for the above to happen, we need education for the Granthis so that they can pass their Gurbani wisdom to the others. If not, then this kind of exercise is futile.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sukh38 (Apr 5, 2010)

hi sum may have issues regards next issue but u only became a sikh bak in Guru Jees days when u tuk amrit.  You only become a sikh and can bare the name Singh or Kaur when you take Amrit.

Or the question you can ask is can  a male who hunts eats meat marry a woman whos vegan and who is against animal cruelty ???

Pull Chuk Marfee


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 5, 2010)

sukh38 said:


> hi sum may have issues regards next issue but u  only became a sikh bak in Guru Jees days when u tuk amrit.  You only  become a sikh and can bare the name Singh or Kaur when you take Amrit.
> 
> Or the question you can ask is can  a male who hunts eats meat marry a  woman whos vegan and who is against animal cruelty ???
> 
> Pull Chuk Marfee




I am trying Sukh38 ji to read through the complications of TEXT SPEAK.  Please write in normal English next time. Thank you.

I was also pretty certain that sooner or later your point would be  raised -- i.e., You are not a Sikh unless you have taken amrit.

So, what do you have to say to the majority of the 20-25 million people of Punjab origin  worldwide who have been raised in "Sikh" families but have not taken  amrit? Are you saying they are not Sikhs? How do you plan to break the  news to them? 

Most importantly - This thread pertains only to amritdhari Sikhs. And it  is not about the question Who is a Sikh? So what is the point you are  trying to make about following the rehit as it relates to anand karaj?   Your point escapes me.


----------



## sukh38 (Apr 5, 2010)

Well my point is that how can a Gursikh marry a non Sursikh ur either a Sikh or not.  Well i would`nt need to its simple could any one be admited into Akal Purk Ke Fauj back in Guru Jees Day NO!!!! you had to be amrithari! have a strickt rehait.  Like it or no we so called sikhs think we are sikhs because we go to the "temple" on a sunday but we forget that Sikhism is not just a religion but a way of life.


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 5, 2010)

Here is a quick reply - something to consider. According to the Nihang rehat a male may marry a Hindu woman - who is expected to convert after marriage. The daughter in a Nihang household may only marry within the Sikh faith. Did you know that Nihangs have their own rehat? Did you know that there is more than one rehat beside the Sikh Rehat Maryada.? Did you know they do not match on every point related to marriage?  and other topics as well? 

All of this is an excursion into un-related discussion. Please address the question put forward in the thread title.


----------



## sukh38 (Apr 5, 2010)

*To bad I had to delete your post. Next time post facts and control your sarcasm. Thank you*


----------



## infoseeker (Apr 6, 2010)

i apologize harinder kaur ji for the word sikh gal as it appeared to be offensive to u. I must have used kaur instead. 

as far as the topic is concerned, i read all the replies, its not clear from the SRM wordings whether its a hukam to gursikhs or just a suggestion. i think its better to ask from Panj Payaras and take the decision.

I am agree with u all that its better for both the individuals to be amritdharis for a better understanding and better way of living and to walk on the Guru Ji's told path.

Thanks to all who tried to help. Waheuguru Chardi kala ch rakhe.:happysingh:
Bhul chuk maaf,
Gur Fateh


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 6, 2010)

Infoseeker ji, it's a pretty common oversight.  This is just my attempt to raise awareness.

I would like to add a comment.  Whatever the "rule" may be, the best, happiest, most stable marriage for Sikhs is between two Amritdharis.  There is nothing quite like a true Khalsa marriage with one jyot in two bodies.  It's a lot of work to get there, but the work itself is a lot of fun.

However the "rule" may be interpreted, why settle for second best?

:happysingh:  + :happykaur: = :thumbsuppp: , :thumbsupp:


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 6, 2010)

infoseeker said:


> i apologize harinder kaur ji for the word sikh gal as it appeared to be offensive to u. I must have used kaur instead.
> 
> as far as the topic is concerned, i read all the replies, its not clear from the SRM wordings whether its a hukam to gursikhs or just a suggestion. i think its better to ask from Panj Payaras and take the decision.
> 
> ...




Sorry to interrupt.

It is not a suggestion. It is required of amritdhari. And your idea of seeking guidance from the Panj Pyare is excellent.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 6, 2010)

Narayanjot Kaur said:


> Sorry to interrupt.
> 
> It is not a suggestion. It is required of amritdhari. And your idea of seeking guidance from the Panj Pyare is excellent.



Narayanjot ji, the English version is ambiguous.  Is the Punjabi more clear?  

And I agree that asking Panj Piyare is the best suggestion.  Why did none of us think of suggesting it before?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 6, 2010)

Mai ji

On ambiguity

There is a concurrent thread being discussed right now in which the ambiguity is obvious. http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8803-is-sin-sikh-marry-non-sikh.html

That relates to whether a Sikh may marry a non-Sikh. I see ambiguity there. 

I don't see any ambiguity regarding amritdhari in the SRM.   What ambiguity are you referring to?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 6, 2010)

Please also see the reply of forum member harbhansj earlier in this thread.  <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2">

</td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">  *harbansj24*






 <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_123823", true); </script>  







  </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="middle"> 
</td> <td width="100%"> 
</td>  <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">  Enrolled:  Feb 19th, 2007
 Location: Delhi India
 Age: 61
  Posts: 442



























 </td> <td width="100%">   
</td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top">  Thanks: 876
                                        Thanked 753 Times in 308 Posts                           

 </td> <td width="100%">   
</td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"> 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 </td> </tr> </tbody></table>          
This has been discussed in another thread.

The only requirement of SRM is that for a Sikh to be recognised as an  Amritdhari is that both the spouses should be amritdharis and if an  amritdhari marries a non amritdhari (which is not forbidden) *then both  should take amrit together to re enter the fold of Amritdharis.*​


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 6, 2010)

The SRM says only  (* CHAPTER XI, *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_*Article XVIII)*_[/FONT]:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised                       ought to get his wife also baptised.."  

A simple statement which is very confusing to my already confused mind.  It says "ought to" not "must."  In English, I think there is a difference in meaning.  Also, it assumes that the "baptised" is the male.  Of course that is not always the case.  [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IMO, the SRM  needs some serious revision and clarification.  At the same time, I would hate to see Sikhi become a legalistic religion.[/FONT]  Of course, the rules will alweays be more strict for the Khalsa than for those who have not yet been blessed with Amrit.  
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
In the event that one of the pair is not Amritdhari, the Gurmat Rehat Maryada (Damdami) is explicit.  They can get married, but cannot have sexual relations.  
[/FONT]


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Apr 6, 2010)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> The SRM says only  (* CHAPTER XI, *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_*Article XVIII)*_[/FONT]:
> 
> "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]q. A baptised                       ought to get his wife also baptised.."
> 
> ...



The SRM was drafted by those whose English was obvioulsy a  Second Langauge..hence these ambigious words...

1. But take it this way....the MALE is no doubt always mentioned....but  the inherent meaning can always be inferred to mean BOTH SEXES. Now a  days there is a wee bit too much "liberalism"...too many smarty pants  types dissect and surgically operate on word by word..looking for  "flaws"....so they object to the Creator-EK Oankaar beign called  God..Lord..HE...etc etc. IF the drafters of the SRM were to write "Male"  (female as well)...EK Oankaar (also God, He, Lord etc etc) in each  instance..the Document will become seven times its size..and soem  finicky person will still find fault with soemthing else...becasue its  the SPIRIT and not the LETTER thta is important.

2. Secondly the SRM drafters were obvioully PUNJABI ORIGIN..so they  operated in a Punjabi Enviornment..their language, their vocabulary,  inferences etc are based on PUNJABIAT....and in Punjabi environment many  things seem different to one from a Solid Yorkshire background..a  German Background or to a RedIndian person ( sorry...Native American !!) Punjabiat is male centric..

3. Take the SGGS as an example..in this context..the ONE and ONLY "MALE" person is The Creator- EK Oankaar !! ALL others are FEMALE/wives/sisters/mothers..whatever.. and Gurbani is GENDERLESS when it delcares..TU Mera PITA  (Father) TU Mera MATA (Mother) Tu mera Bharata..Tu mera Rakaah sabhni thaiin....He is Mother/father/Brother/everything in ONE....so SIKH SRM need not worry about "male" female etc vocabulary...

4. The Damdami taksaal  Maryada on.."can marry..but no sex.." is akin to what we see in shops..SEE no TOUCH !!
This is a LUDICROUS  proposition..whats the POINT of getting married if children are not to be produced ??? Isnt this a Blackmail way of forcing a person to chhak Pahul ??

5. The word "OUGHT" and not "MUST" in the SRM is 100% Correct. Acording to Gurmatt..a perosn cannot eb FORCED into Amrtidharee status..it has got to eb VOLUNTARY !! Thus ought is correct interpretation..of Gurmatt ideals.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


----------

