Shia Muslim Man Marrying Sikh Woman

[Punjabi110 5]

AoA

 

I am a Shia Muslim man planning to marry a Sikh woman.

Why must I convert a Sikh woman into Islam before marrying her? Can I not marry such woman and then slowly teach her about Islam. ? Most Sikh teachings are just like Islam. So why would it be difficult?

If I live as a Shia Muslim and the woman I marry to who is of Sikh faith live as a Sikh would it be forbidden for me to live with such woman? If forbidden why? what type of punishment will I receive ?

According to Islam, Sikhs are not from Ahle Kitab. We as Muslim men are only allowed to marry Christians,Jews or Zarathustras. However most of Sikh teachings are just like Islam. They believe in one God which is (IK ONKAR in Punjabi) 

 

Sikhs are not disbelievers since they believe in one God they believe in the existence of God.

They are not denying the existence of God.

Ayatollah Saanei

Ayatollah Nasir Makarem Shirazi

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati.

These three well known big Ayatollah's say that all humans are tahir. So if humans are tahir then Sikhs are sure not najis neither are any from other religion backgrounds seen as najis.

 

Regards

Punjabi

 

[Repentant 1,418]

You already answered your question:

 

According to Islam, Sikhs are not from Ahle Kitab. We as Muslim men are only allowed to marry Christians,Jews or Zarathustras.

[Sumerian 6,086]

According to Sayyed al-Sistani, we can't permanently marry a non-Muslim woman based on obligatory precaution, even if they're from Ahlul Kitab. But there's no issue with marrying an Ahlul Kitab woman in a temporary marriage, as per the Sayyed. 

[repenter-gone4awhile 7,302]

You mind using another font? I had three seizures reading this....

[Marbles 16,035]

Bro, for the moment forget what punishment would you receive for a marriage not recognised under Islamic law and tell us if our Sikh Bhabi got any turbaned brothers?

[Punjabi110 5]

I want someone expert to answer me this question.

I asked many questions in this topic. I haven't receive any good answer.

 

Regards

Punjabi

[Akbar673 2,137]

 

I want someone expert to answer me this question.

I asked many questions in this topic. I haven't receive any good answer.

 

Regards

Punjabi

 

 

It seems to me you're not getting the answer that you wish to hear.

 

The fact that she is not Ahle Kitaab is the answer to your question. If she converts before you marry her then that is a different story but as it stands now she has not, thus neither a Nikah nor a Mutah would be valid.

[Saintly_Jinn23 1,214]

It seems to me you're not getting the answer that you wish to hear.

 

The fact that she is not Ahle Kitaab is the answer to your question. If she converts before you marry her then that is a different story but as it stands now she has not, thus neither a Nikah nor a Mutah would be valid.

 

There's nothing to say that mutah with a Sikh woman is haram. If anything, it would make more sense than with Christians, since Sikh's understanding of monotheism is closer to Shi'a Islam than even the Asharites.

[Sumerian 6,086]

There's nothing to say that mutah with a Sikh woman is haram. If anything, it would make more sense than with Christians, since Sikh's understanding of monotheism is closer to Shi'a Islam than even the Asharites.

The fact is, they aren't considered to be from Ahlul Kitab.

[Haydar Husayn 9,671]

There's nothing to say that mutah with a Sikh woman is haram. If anything, it would make more sense than with Christians, since Sikh's understanding of monotheism is closer to Shi'a Islam than even the Asharites.

 

Sikhism isn't a religion of the book. It's a religion that was made up after the time of Islam, and not one of the religions the Imams permitted when doing mutah. So yes, there is plenty to say that it's haram.

[Punjabi110 5]

Sikhs have a good understanding of ONE GOD than most Christians have.

The only problem with Sikhism is, it is not a old religion only 1000 year old.

Where as Christianity and Judaism is old. Before Islam.

[The Light 268]

I think your only option is to try to convert her to Islam first, then marry her. 

 

I know it's very difficult to forget and let go someone you truly love and want to be with, but for the sake of Allah(SWT), you must do it right. 

 

Make dua to Allah(SWT), inshallah everything will go your way. 

[Muhammed Ali 3,316]

It seems to me you're not getting the answer that you wish to hear.

 

The fact that she is not Ahle Kitaab is the answer to your question. If she converts before you marry her then that is a different story but as it stands now she has not, thus neither a Nikah nor a Mutah would be valid.

 

 

I think he wants to know the reasons for the laws.

[Saintly_Jinn23 1,214]

The fact is, they aren't considered to be from Ahlul Kitab.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean you can't perform mutah with them since the only restriction that I'm aware of is if they are considered polytheists and even then if no one from Ahlul Kitab is available, an exception could possibly be granted to perform mutah with a polytheists since it's lawful for a man to have sex with his slave girl even she's considered a polytheist.

 

 

Sikhism isn't a religion of the book. It's a religion that was made up after the time of Islam, and not one of the religions the Imams permitted when doing mutah. So yes, there is plenty to say that it's haram.

 

Plenty of Muslims living in South East Asia consider Buddhists to be Ahlul Kitab. Iranians consider Zoroastrians Ahlul Kitab. Some in India consider Hindus Ahlul Kitab as well. Mostly because these religions do have their own scriptures that are said to be divinely inspired in some way and are older than the Qur'an, like the Bible. We know Sikhs consider themselves strict monotheists, have their own sets of scriptures and most agree that Waheguru and the who the Arabs call Allah are the same and that Muhammad (pbuh) was sent by Waheguru to the Arabs although he isn't mentioned explicitly in the main Sikh scriptures.

 

While there is an issue with new religions that weren't known during Muhammad's time, I admit, if Sikhs are willing to say that Muhammad (as) and other Abrahamic figures were somehow divinely inspired by God before their own gurus and thus accept implicitly certain aspects of their respective scriptures, then I think that would fit them into the Ahlul Kitab category, even if only based on a legal technicality. The thing is, they HAVE to be able to fit into a category according to Islamic law and either they are mushriks, Muslim or Ahlul Kitab because those are the only three categories for religions that the Qur'an recognizes, and they certainly don't qualify as mushriks and are less so than even some of the Ahlul Kitab religions guilty of lesser shirk, and Sikhs don't consider themselves to be Muslim.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Sumerian 6,086]

That doesn't necessarily mean you can't perform mutah with them since the only restriction that I'm aware of is if they are considered polytheists and even then if no one from Ahlul Kitab is available, an exception could possibly be granted to perform mutah with a polytheists since it's lawful for a man to have sex with his slave girl even she's considered a polytheist.

 

Issue 2406: * A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, and a male Muslim also cannot marry a non-Muslim woman who are not Ahlul Kitab. However, there is no harm in contracting temporary marriage with Jewish and Christians women, but the obligatory precaution is that a Muslim should not take them in permanent marriage. There are certain sects like Khawarij, Ghulat and Nawasib who claim to be Muslims, but are classified as non-Muslims. Muslim men and women cannot contract permanent or temporary marriage with them.

 

Plenty of Muslims living in South East Asia consider Buddhists to be Ahlul Kitab. Iranians consider Zoroastrians Ahlul Kitab. Some in India consider Hindus Ahlul Kitab as well. Mostly because these religions do have their own scriptures that are said to be divinely inspired in some way and are older than the Qur'an, like the Bible. We know Sikhs consider themselves strict monotheists, have their own sets of scriptures and most agree that Waheguru and the who the Arabs call Allah are the same and that Muhammad (pbuh) was sent by Waheguru to the Arabs although he isn't mentioned explicitly in the main Sikh scriptures.

 

While there is an issue with new religions that weren't known during Muhammad's time, I admit, if Sikhs are willing to say that Muhammad (as) and other Abrahamic figures were somehow divinely inspired by God before their own gurus and thus accept implicitly certain aspects of their respective scriptures, then I think that would fit them into the Ahlul Kitab category, even if only based on a legal technicality. The thing is, they HAVE to be able to fit into a category according to Islamic law and either they are mushriks, Muslim or Ahlul Kitab because those are the only three categories for religions that the Qur'an recognizes, and they certainly don't qualify as mushriks and are less so than even some of the Ahlul Kitab religions guilty of lesser shirk, and Sikhs don't consider themselves to be Muslim.

 

The above is called a deviation from the orthodox position.

Edited June 6, 2015 by al-Ibrahimi

[Punjabi110 5]

Sanity you do make sense I like your posts.

I agree and I don't see Sikhs as mushriks. They fall in the category of Ahle Kitab.

Most Sunnis don't even find zarathustra's as ahle kitab. But, Iranian Shia scholars put zarathustras in the category of ahle kitab.

[Sumerian 6,086]

The above is called a deviation from the orthodox position.

 

Except the majoos, they are considered to be from the Ahlul Kitab, according to Sayyed al-Sistani.

 

Question: What is the hokm (ruling) about Ahlul Kitab (people of the Book)? Are they clean? How should we deal with them?

Answer: The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. You can follow this ruling when dealing with them.

 

 

http://www.sistani.org/english/qa/search/16795/

Edited June 6, 2015 by al-Ibrahimi

[Saintly_Jinn23 1,214]

Issue 2406: * A Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim, and a male Muslim also cannot marry a non-Muslim woman who are not Ahlul Kitab. However, there is no harm in contracting temporary marriage with Jewish and Christians women, but the obligatory precaution is that a Muslim should not take them in permanent marriage. There are certain sects like Khawarij, Ghulat and Nawasib who claim to be Muslims, but are classified as non-Muslims. Muslim men and women cannot contract permanent or temporary marriage with them.

 

Touche, I suppose. I generally follow Sistani in most areas of jurisprudence, barring only a handful of issues.

 

Though this ruling by Sistani doesn't necessarily rule out sex with the women "our right hands possess" who are polytheists.

 

The above is called a deviation from the orthodox position.

 

Even Sistani agrees Zoroastrians are Ahlul Kitab although he forbids marriage with them (which is a little strange, but he's the marja, I guess), so you can't call that a deviation if you believe he's the most learned in this matter.

 

Now, if you say that Sikhs or Buddhists aren't Ahlul Kitab based on Sistani's rulings, then I can respect your opinion since you're just taking the cautionary route of accepting your marja has good reason.

 

I can't say I really have a definite position myself on where they actually fit in and I suppose I can accept Sistani's position for the most part, but I would still say that if you HAD to fit them into some specific category and not just "none of the above," the only reasonable one is Ahlul Kitab. The only reason a scholar like Sistani probably doesn't consider them Ahlul Kitab is because they're a newer religion that isn't mentioned in earlier Islamic sources, but the same logic that can be used to justify the Zoroastrians being called Ahlul Kitab by many scholars in spite of not being Biblical like Judaism or Christianity could also justify Sikhism if one were to consider the newer birth to be an irrelevant factor. In the case of something like Buddhism, it's a bit more understandable because many Buddhists are outright polytheists or atheists, although Buddhists have no single unanimous position on the matter of God or gods.

 

Another way to look at it though could be that while Islamic law may not recognize a religion like Sikhism, certain factors may allow an individual Sikh to be recognized as part of the recognized Ahlul Kitab faiths. Islam does not pry into the questions of orthodoxy within other faiths, that's why we can still consider Protestant and other new Christian movements like Mormons, Rastafarians, Lutherans, etc. to be Ahlul Kitab and not just Catholics and Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, even if some among these groups don't recognize each other as fellow Christians. If a person considered himself a Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian or a Taoist, for example, and yet had certain beliefs where he didn't mind a Muslim leader counting him among the Jews, Christians, Sabians or Zoroastrians for legal purposes while he still followed the teachings of Buddha, Confucius or Lao Tze, or the Vedas, said Muslim run government has no right to pry into his religious matters any further, even if they don't consider Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism or Confucianism in and of themselves to be Ahlul Kitab religions. So there are legal principles I think where a Sikh or group of Sikhs can still be considered Ahlul Kitab even if certain scholars don't consider "Sikhism" an Ahlul Kitab religion. No Muslim scholar or leader has any right to say a "Christian" can't practice Sikh rituals and follow Sikh scriptures for instance. That's an internal issue for the religions outside Islam. The Muslim ruler can only interfere if it proves to be a serious disruption to the peace.

 

However, even if they are considered Ahlul Kitab, at least according to some scholars like Sistani, it appears that that isn't enough for a person to be allowed to marry them in any way, as Sistani forbids marrying Zoroastrians based on some undisclosed reason of precaution.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Sumerian 6,086]

Touche, I suppose. I generally follow Sistani in most areas of jurisprudence, barring only a handful of issues.

 

I am curious, since when did you start caring about what our scholars say? Plus, at least link to Sistani's website. Pasting his rulings, but not posting your reference makes you look deceptive.

My bad.

 

Issue 2406:

 

http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2348/

 

http://www.al-islam.org/islamic-laws-ayatullah-ali-al-husayni-al-sistani/marriage-part-i-ii

 

Though this ruling by Sistani doesn't necessarily rule out sex with the women "our right hands possess" who are polytheists.

 

Of course it doesn't, but this was about marriage not intercourse.

 

 

Even Sistani agrees Zoroastrians are Ahlul Kitab although he forbids marriage with them (which is a little strange, but he's the marja, I guess), so you can't call that a deviation if you believe he's the most learned in this matter.

 

I acknowledged that in my previous post.

 

 

Except the majoos, they are considered to be from the Ahlul Kitab, according to Sayyed al-Sistani.

 

Question: What is the hokm (ruling) about Ahlul Kitab (people of the Book)? Are they clean? How should we deal with them?

Answer: The Ahlul Kitab (that is, the Jews, the Christians and the Zoroastrians) are ritually pure (tahir) as long as you do not know that they have become ritually impure (najis) by coming into contact with an impure object. You can follow this ruling when dealing with them.

 

 

http://www.sistani.org/english/qa/search/16795/

 

 

 

Now, if you say that Sikhs or Buddhists aren't Ahlul Kitab based on Sistani's rulings, then I can respect your opinion since you're just taking the cautionary route of accepting your marja has good reason.

 

Does any major marja' actually say they're from Ahlul Kitab?

 

I can't say I really have a definite position myself on where they actually fit in and I suppose I can accept Sistani's position for the most part, but I would still say that if you HAD to fit them into some specific category and not just "none of the above," the only reasonable one is Ahlul Kitab. The only reason a scholar like Sistani probably doesn't consider them Ahlul Kitab is because they're a newer religion that isn't mentioned in earlier Islamic sources, but the same logic that can be used to justify the Zoroastrians being called Ahlul Kitab by many scholars in spite of not being Biblical like Judaism or Christianity could also justify Sikhism if one were to consider the newer birth to be an irrelevant factor. In the case of something like Buddhism, it's a bit more understandable because many Buddhists are outright polytheists or atheists, although Buddhists have no single unanimous position on the matter of God or gods.

 

I think it may be due to Ahlulbayt (as) telling us who is from Ahlul Kitab and who isn't...

 

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ فَضَّالٍ عَنِ ابْنِ بُكَيْرٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الْمَجُوسِ مَا حَدُّهُمْ فَقَالَ هُمْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَ مَجْرَاهُمْ مَجْرَى الْيَهُودِ وَ النَّصَارَى فِي الْحُدُودِ وَ الدِّيَاتِ

From Zuraarah said, I asked him (عليه السلام) about the Al-Majoos what is their punishment? So he (عليه السلام) said: ‘They are from the Ahl Al-Kitaab….

• Source:
• Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 10, ch. 14, pg. 188, hadeeth # 36

  Grading:

• Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH)

  --> Milaadh Al-Akhyaar, vol. 16, pg. 386

Credit to Nader Zaveri for this translation

 

Overall, yes, Sikhism is a new and innovated religion, and that may be a factor to why the ulema declare them as najis or non-kitabi, but I don't know.

 

 

Another way to look at it though could be that while Islamic law may not recognize a religion like Sikhism, certain factors may allow an individual Sikh to be recognized as part of the recognized Ahlul Kitab faiths. Islam does not pry into the questions of orthodoxy within other faiths, that's why we can still consider Protestant and other new Christian movements like Mormons, Rastafarians, Lutherans, etc. to be Ahlul Kitab and not just Catholics and Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, even if some among these groups don't recognize each other as fellow Christians. If a person considered himself a Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian or a Taoist, for example, and yet had certain beliefs where he didn't mind a Muslim leader counting him among the Jews, Christians, Sabians or Zoroastrians for legal purposes while he still followed the teachings of Buddha, Confucius or Lao Tze, or the Vedas, said Muslim run government has no right to pry into his religious matters any further, even if they don't consider Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism or Confucianism in and of themselves to be Ahlul Kitab religions. So there are legal principles I think where a Sikh or group of Sikhs can still be considered Ahlul Kitab even if certain scholars don't consider "Sikhism" an Ahlul Kitab religion. No Muslim scholar or leader has any right to say a "Christian" can't practice Sikh rituals and follow Sikh scriptures for instance. That's an internal issue for the religions outside Islam. The Muslim ruler can only interfere if it proves to be a serious disruption to the peace.

 

Sikhism as a religion does not prescribe itself to Christianity or Judaism, whilst those other movements do. 

[Saintly_Jinn23 1,214]

Of course it doesn't, but this was about marriage not intercourse.

 

Well, I assumed that the OP was primarily concerned with intercourse. I figured that if he could somehow establish a relationship with this Sikh girl (consensually, of course) that would allow her to be considered by Shi'a Islamic legal principles to be "possessed by his right hand," he might be able to satisfy his desires to be with her without any guilt. But he would have to ask a mujtahid, not anyone on this forum, for the final word on how to go about doing that.

 

 

I acknowledged that in my previous post.

 

Sorry, I had already typed that up before I saw your second response.

 

 

Does any major marja' actually say they're from Ahlul Kitab?

 

Not that I am aware of, but then, most of the maraji reside in the Middle East and so have never had any extensive interaction with large numbers of the followers of faiths more East. Were a marja of significant training to emerge from China or Tibet, the question of the Buddhists' place could be dealt with more comprehensively, but we have to try to operate on the principles of Sistani and other major scholars in Iran and Iraq.

 

 

I think it may be due to Ahlulbayt (as) telling us who is from Ahlul Kitab and who isn't...

 

Even so, there's a certain logic we can glean from Ahlul Bayt's statements regarding religions who don't fit into the Biblical category like Zoroastrians that may be able to help us to deal with religions that Ahlul Bayt didn't explicitly deal with. Again, because "Christians" are considered Ahlul Kitab, we can't exclude Protestants from the category of "Christian" even if a Roman Catholic protests, nor can we exclude Catholics from the same protection offered to Protestants if the Protestants protest because they feel Catholics are not Christian.

 

 

Sikhism as a religion does not prescribe itself to Christianity or Judaism, whilst those other movements do.

 

I'm aware of that, but I'm just saying that if in certain hypothetical situations, with the Sikhs' own consent, they could receive the benefits of being Ahlul Kitab while still practicing and believing as Sikhs and this wouldn't have to contradict any of the jurisprudential principles set by most of the major scholars. If a Sikh retained all of his Sikh leanings and yet maintained a purely superficial appearance of being a Christian or a Jew or a Zoroastrian in such a way that felt most at harmony with the teachings of the Sikh Gurus, the Muslim rulers under whom he lives wouldn't have the right to say "You're not really a Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian..." and withhold the benefits of being a dhimmi from him solely based on that opinion. And in such a situation, maybe marriage might even be possible under those pretenses.

[Iskandarovich 282]

You already answered your question:

 

According to Islam, Sikhs are not from Ahle Kitab. We as Muslim men are only allowed to marry Christians,Jews or Zarathustras.

Can we also marry a Rasta-woman as Rastafarians believe in the Bible as well.

[Abu Hadi 8,753]

 

Sikhs have a good understanding of ONE GOD than most Christians have.

The only problem with Sikhism is, it is not a old religion only 1000 year old.

Where as Christianity and Judaism is old. Before Islam.

 

 

If you want to go down that road, every single religion that I am aware of have a concept of Tauhid(One God) in that religion. Hinduism has the idea of Brahma, Taoism has the idea of the Tao, even the Arab Mushrik at the time of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) had the concept of Tauhid as part of their religion. But Allah(s.w.a) called it Shirk. Shirk doesn't necessarily mean that someone or some group worships more than One God(s.w.a), but it means that they associate other things with God(s.w.a) (partners) and believe that those things have power that is independent of God(s.w.a). For example Hindus believe that God(s.w.a) or Brahma, as they call it, can reside in a form(an idol), and as long as this occurs, that form has power of will that is independent of God(s.w.a). This is Shirk in the classic sense. They believe that God must come down in the form of an idol in order to manifest his power, i.e. in order to forgive, cure, etc. So they believe that God(s.w.a) needs a partner, i.e. the idol in order to act. Anyone who believes in this is a mushrik. If you believe that Allah(s.w.a) can be contained by a form, then you have made that form a partner with Allah(s.w.a), if you believe that Allah(s.w.a) can be contained by time then you have made time a partner with Allah(s.w.a), if you believe Allah(s.w.a) can be contained within a person, then you have made that person a parter with Allah(s.w.a). I could go on, but I don't want to sound like the Shirk police, but you get the idea, i hope. 

 

Christians and Jews, although there are ideas within both these religions that are Shirk(for example God(s.w.a) coming down to earth in the form of a man, or Jacob wresting with God(s.w.a) and defeating Him(s.w.a) auzubillah, ) the basis of the religion is Tauhid and they have a book (The Taurat) that was originally from God(s.w.a) although there are many man made ideas that have crept in over the centuries. The fact that the basis of these religions is Tauhid is a judgement that only Allah(s.w.a) can make and no human being can make this judgement because no human being has ALL the necessary knowledge to make this calculation.. 

 

In Islam, religion falls into exactly three categories, and these categories were defined by Allah(s.w.a) in the Holy Quran and authentic Hadith from Imams of Ahl Al Bayt(a.s). 

 

1) Islam. The True Religion from Allah(s.w.a)

2) Ahl Al Kitab (Judaism, Christianity,Sabeans)

3) Every other religion (there are thousands or hundreds of thousands of them)

 

If the girl or women has a religion that is in category 3, we cannot marry them. Simple as that. 

Muslims, Christians, and Jews together are about 2/3 of the population of the earth. Why you cannot find a girl or women to marry from that large group is something I cannot understand. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Abu Hadi

[Punjabi110 5]

I'm follower of marja Grand Ayatollah Sayed Sadiq Shirazi.

If you have any fatwa from him about this please let me know.

Sanity I like your posts.

[alirex 999]

 

I'm follower of marja Grand Ayatollah Sayed Sadiq Shirazi.

If you have any fatwa from him about this please let me know.

Sanity I like your posts.

 

 

People usually like post of those users who are talking in favor. And if you already makeup your mind to go with your own rules, then why wasting other's time ?

 

Its your duty to know what your Marja said. Here is your Marja website : http://www.english.shirazi.ir/ and here is Ask a Question Link : http://www.english.shirazi.ir/ask-a-question

[Saintly_Jinn23 1,214]

 

I'm follower of marja Grand Ayatollah Sayed Sadiq Shirazi.

If you have any fatwa from him about this please let me know.

Sanity I like your posts.

 

 

If you like my posts, read this one:

 

FOLLOW YOUR MARJA

 

I only gave my personal opinion based on a more open minded reading of the rulings from Sistani, whom I follow primarily in most issues though not exclusively. But the opinion of the office of Ayatollah Shirazi is a completely different matter. You should consult him and his representatives about your problem and obey them.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Saintly_Jinn23

[Fresh-imaan 75]

Brilliant posts saintly mashaAllah.

Walaikumsalam wa rahmatullah OP. Brother, I know what you are going through. Trust me. I know of a Shia Muslim woman in love with a Sikh man. But she CAN'T marry him. It's as Islam has stated. Similarly in your situation it CAN'T happen. I doubt there is a single marja who allows Sikh and Muslims to marry. As much as they are lovely people. Allah' s rules always have wisdom in them. There is no other way except help her read the kalima. IF SHE WANTS. There is no compulsion in religion. Then there is really no point in trying to justify what is clearly haraam. I will pray for you Punjabi110. 

Iltemase duas, 

Fresh-imaan

Edited January 7, 2017 by Fresh-imaan