Hijab

[fatehsingh]

Actually Niranjana, if you try to answer the question I've posted, you will get the answer to the original question. The answer is ofcourse: It depends on the individual circumstance and committee members of the Gurdwara's decision on a case by case status the same way sometimes 'non-sikhs' are allowed to do Kirtan in Gurdwaras and sometimes not. Same applies to the reasoning behind Namdharis' acceptance of musical knowledge from Islamic/Hindu/Singh Sabhia sources who have preserved Hindustani Sangeet with the difference being that Namdharis are not 'Sikhs' in the political sense (i.e. sgpc approved) and do not have the 'debates' on who can or cannot do Kirtan in their Darbars.

[Niranjana]

Fateh Singh,

Again, I beg to differ. The protocol concerning who can "enter the Gurdwara" is firmly fixed by all Sikhs of any description (it is a part of the living tradition, much like keeping Kesh, and as such doesn't necessarily require any further authentification). To spell it out in simple terms:

Anyone can enter the Gurdwara and partake in Langar and the Divan, provided they abide by Gurdwara protocol (i.e. no smoking, not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, have their heads covered, shoes removed whilst in the Darbar etc). This is not subject to the decisions of committee members, it is part and parcel of Sikh practice and etiquette.

The debates on who can do Kirtan in the Gurdwara is understandable given some unsavoury incidents that led up to the, shall we say, executive decision being taken, it is unfortunate that in the aftermath, this has become a "us vs. them" situation...the rest is history.

You are now moving away from your original point which was "(s)peaking of hypocrites..." and the following statement:

"The quote from Gurbani they like to use is 'Manas Ki Sabh Ekai Jaat Pehchanbo' and yet when needed they can exclude certain ppl from being humanbeings altogether!"

If we work with your rationale, then you are implying that the Namdharis are guilty of the above charges (levelled by you) on the following accounts:

1. They are happy to "accept...musical knowledge from Islamic/Hindu/Singh Sabhia sources" yet refer to the same in the most derogatory of manners (i.e. Muslims are our enemies).

2. Also have like the Nihangs a practice of separation for Mazbhis in their divans and langars.

As I said, we are walking towards a flawed discussion here which is really not going to add anything to the wider debate and simply stir up animosity between different groups which can easily be avoided in favour of better discussion.

I leave it to you...I'm sure Tony will be more than happy (and aptly qualified) to pick up things should you wish to pursue this line of argument further.

[amardeep]

Niranjana:

the complications regardin the universal rules of entering the Gurdwara viz. the covering of the head and removal of shoes give some implications as this can not be compared to the removal of the veil.

When a atheist/christian/jew/hindu is covering his head, he is not breaking any rules in his respective religion, whereas a muslim will commit a sin in Islam be removing her veil to enter the Gurdwara. this will make it very difficult for beliving muslim women to enter a Gurdwara, as women are to wear the niqab as per Fatima Zehra

[amardeep]

considering that the princess was a hindu, who knows if this injunktion can also be applied to muslim women wearing the niqab

[tonyhp32]

1. Are you implying that Guru Amar Das would make one rule for a Hindu princess and another for a Muslim woman?

2. According to Islam a woman wears a Niqab in order not to arouse the men. Since in Sikhi both sexes are assumed to be able to control their kaam then allowing a Muslim woman in a niqab into a Gurdwara is an admission that her beliefs (about men unable to control themselves) have validity.

[amardeep]

to begin with i dont even think that this has to do with rules....I think Maharaj here made a political stance on some whole other issues, for instance he refused to see her because she bowed down to muslim opression and he told her to "come as a hindu princess" and not a muslim princes or something similiar. I dont think this has anything to do with rules of how one should attend the Gurdwara.

im still trying to find this sakhi though

[Niranjana]

amardeep,

I am fully agreeable that "one rule for everyone" is a very limited manner of handling items, afterall as a Sikh, I would find it highly offensive should schools impose their "school uniform codes" to the extent that I be required to shave or not be permitted to wear my turban.

I would have hoped that my comments thus far have been calling for a more critical evaluation of the sakhi at hand - in any event, like I said, we should first address our inhouse issue, i.e. the Batra Sangat and their practice of Pardah/"Jhundh" - if this is deemed acceptable (by which I mean 'acceptable' not if they do something which is deemed incorrect then its okay for others to do so as well), then we really have no grounds prevent the woman with a Niqab.

Incidently, the title thread actually questioned the Hijab, which is little more than a fixed 'chunni' of sorts and poses no problems within a Gurdwara setting.

[Niranjana]

"we really have no grounds prevent the woman with a Niqab"

Of course, for the current political climate, we should heed Fateh Singh's comments above - there was an incident back c. 1999/2000 when someone dressed in this manner entered a Gurdwara in Southall and proceeded to throw dirt (including faeces) at the Guru Granth Sahib - thankfully the lady (subsequently rumoured to have been 'possessed' and/or 'mentally challenged' depending on how you wish to see these things) was stopped by the Granthi (who in the process had the excrement fall on his clothing and beard).

Now I am not suggesting that a one-off incident be cause for any knee-jerk reaction, however in view of recent events, particularly the hatemongering calling for "Sikhism to be burnt to the ground" perhaps some acceptable protocol is necessary.

[shaheediyan]

Guru Amardas Ji was a reformer, particularly in the case of women.

Let's look at what Maharaj did for women:

Spoke against Sati.

Promoted re-marriage of widows.

Allowed women to partake in langar and langar seva.

Appointed women as "Manjhis" or administrators, preachers what have you.

Re the pardah, it was one of the Queens of Raja of Haripur that Guru Amardas ji insisted should remove her pardah in oder to have his audience. This was after insisting on the Raja to partake in langar with the lower castes.

Now this could either be because she was Hindu Queen/Princess who was following the customs of Islam, which could be likened to slavery - and this being a lesson for the King rather than the subservient Queen, ot it could be that Maharaj was objecting to the inequality of this practice on a number of grounds.

The Bhatra sangat obviously discriminate. A friend of mine was told she couldn't do kirtan their after their jathaa was invited, but they backed off in the end. See said the women had their faces covered and sat facing another wall as they couldn't look at the kirtani/gyani. Madness.

As Niranaja says, we need to get our own house in order, first.

[deepsingh]

I don't think our house will ever be in order...

so would she be allowed yes oe no

[Guest LJ Singh]

The Panthic Sikh Rehit Maryada (Section Four, Chapter X, Article XVI) states:

“s. It is not proper for a Sikh woman to wear veil or keep her face hidden by veil or cover.”

There should be differentiation between a veil and hijaab. A veil is that which covers the face and body. The hijaab is like a headscarf which covers the head, but leaves the face visible to see. The Qur’an requires women to dress modestly and cover their body and head. The practice of covering the face with a veil is an ancient Arabic cultural practice which has been adapted by Islamic culture (but not instructed in the Qur’an).

 

This may have something to do with it. As it was not instructed in quran and was a cultural practice.