# What Is Wrong With Halal Now?



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

The history and idea of us rejecting halal was a symbolic gesture against the forced acceptance of Islamlic principles or faith. 

When Punjab is now ruled by a Hindu Government who are we rebelling against when the rulers are vegetarian?

How can it symbolise anything now , no one is being coerced into eating it and we are not ruled by the Mughals.

It's like we are trying to say "We the Sikhs don't accept this" when no one is even saying you must accept this atleast in India?

The telos or the essential purpose is what is important,when the situation we are in has changed completely, what are we standing up against now?


----------



## Ishna (Aug 27, 2011)

*Re: Query about Jhatka Meat by Shooting in Head*

I don't think those foods I mentioned are offered to a deity. They are blessed often in the name of a god but then the celebrants eat them. I would put deg and langar in the same category, blessed food. Or at least food for purpose, proclaimed as part of a ceremony.

I understand the basis of Sikh practices with food and their relation to Islam and Hinduism specifically, Im just trying to take the ideas which should be universal and apply them to other earthly situations which Sikhi was not influenced by, initially.


----------



## Ishna (Aug 27, 2011)

Some of Gyani Jarnail Singh ji's posts deal with forced halal in modern times, particularly Malaysia. 

Why partake of another religions customs, anyway?


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Dear Sister Ji 
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.
Tao te Ching

We have made our rejection into a ritual,because no one can deny the purpose and context is everything.(By the way ,your shooting Kangaroos thread was my inspiration ),otherwise I never really care what I put in my stomach, as long as I did not steal it ofcourse!
I'm sure religion is not in what you eat if you live near the sea you might eat more fish if you live in a desert you probably don't eat tuna. 
I once knew someone who had been given a bag instead of a stomach ,what would you say is the correct food for him?When did our Guru say don't eat Halal?I thought he said there were no Muslims or Hindu's!
I see only one Religion in the world as I see only one God ,so Religion must be like him, the one truth.
Otherwise what is he going to do with all those 'Muslims' and not to mention those 'Christians'?


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 27, 2011)

Sinner said:


> The history and idea of us rejecting halal was a symbolic gesture against the forced acceptance of Islamlic principles or faith.
> 
> When Punjab is now ruled by a Hindu Government who are we rebelling against when the rulers are vegetarian?
> 
> ...



The boycott of the Mughals was one reason given.

The actual reason is to do with an abhorrence of ritual sacrifice and an unnecessary purifaction of meat.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 27, 2011)

*Re: Query about Jhatka Meat by Shooting in Head*



Sinner said:


> Ishna Ji
> 
> When you know what hunger feels like,you will eat first and ask questions later.Most of us if left hungry for ten days will eat Halal or even each other!
> 
> The rejection of Halal historically was a way of showing the objection to the forced conversion that was taking place. It had a great purpose then but no one is forcing your will now ,so what does it matter either way.



Sinner ji, That is not actually correct.

We  must give the rationale behind prescribing jhatka meat as the approved  food for the Sikhs. According to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only  such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke  of the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption.  However, with the coming of Islam into India and the Muslim political  hegemony, it became a state policy not to permit slaughter of animals  for food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran - the  kosher meat prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the  throat of the animal while reciting verses from the Quran. It is done to  make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the  slaughter. Guru Gobind Singh took a rather serious view of this aspect  of the whole matter. He, therefore, while permitting flesh to be taken  as food repudiated the whole theory of this expiatory sacrifice and the  right of ruling Muslims to impose iton the non-Muslims. Accordingly, he  made jhatka meat obligatory for those Sikhs who may be interested in  taking meat as a part of their food.
Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press 



And  one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is  eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean  kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet  but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to  enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any  good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to  assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with  the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Dear Randip Ji

I thought ritual sacrifice was killing ,as an offering to the Gods,today Halal is known more as a food slaughter method ,albeit it a less humane one?

No contention meant, I'm hardly an expert ,I just looked at the origin to find the the precept or reasoning for the convention or it's adoption.

If we reject it today it must be for the right reasons ,if we reject it for the wrong reasons such as showing the muslims that we don't comply when there is no demand on us in the West and India atleast.The rejection itself becomes ritualistic and empty ,although I feel it should be rejected on humane grounds .


----------



## Ishna (Aug 27, 2011)

Ji, this looks pretty good: http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hertongue/HalalWay.htm

it's not just the method of slaughter but the fact the animal is killed with the bismillah said over it. That is my understanding.

This one has better verses: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabihah


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Isna Ji

Ask the man on the street today what it is and they will say it is a method of slaughter.I doubt anyone will see it as a ritual offering to the Gods. I don't mean to argue with bhena,I just want to get to the *truth* of the matter.The way to God is not through diet, it is through Truth only, nothing else.When you want to make a car go faster, you strip out all the extra stuff , just want to find the universal truth of the matter and not get distracted or weighed down by diet.In the end it does not even matter?


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 27, 2011)

Halal slaughter is accompanied by the exclamation Alah Akhbar! This is also called out and has been for centuries in war, when muslims slayed  their enemies. It is used during executions, such as stonings. 

The use of it in halal slaughter calls forth remembrance of the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in the Jewish Testament...To prove his faith Abraham was ordered by "God" to sacrifice his son. That is where the ritual sacrifice comes in. Muslims consider Abraham one of their prophets.

Today the problem redoubles because in some countries Halal is being used exclusively in restaurants and schools to appease muslim minorities... and non muslims do not have a similar choice. Obviously is expensive to accommodate everyone, yet special consideration is given for halal. Neither observant Jews nor baptized Sikhs are permitted Halal. This causes problems

NOTE: NO SUCH EXCLAMATION ACCOMPANIES KOSHER SLAUGHER AND JEWS DO NOT CONSIDER KOSHER SLAUGHTER EITHER RITUAL OR CONNECTED TO THE SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 27, 2011)

*Re: Query about Jhatka Meat by Shooting in Head*



> And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
> Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.




IJ Singh is wrong about kosher slaughter. I really do wish Sikhs would bone up on this point. Maybe some of my Jewish friends need to sign up and correct this wrong notion. There is no prayer involved in the Kosher slaughter of meat. There is no intention to "enoble" the flesh. Kosher is part of Jewish sanitary law. That only.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Dear Admin 
You are the entity which regulates my madness and for that I am grateful, but did not the obedient Abraham get stopped from actually sacrificing him, so we could see Abraham as the lesson against sacrifice rather than promoting it?

Just a theory.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 27, 2011)

Yes he was stopped. Abraham was stopped after "God" was satisfied with Abraham's depth of faith and obedience. But that does not nullify the point that the Abrahamic God of Jews, Muslims and Christians "tests" humans. The nature of the test is observed in both testaments to evolve over time. Nonetheless this "God" is a feisty, testy and often implacable personality, even offering his "only begotten son" as sacrifice to save humanity in fulfillment of prophesy. None of this...sacrifices, tests of faith, deities with issues, providence dependent on obedience, etc. is consistent with Sikhi.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 27, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Dear Randip Ji
> 
> I thought ritual sacrifice was killing ,as an offering to the Gods,today Halal is known more as a food slaughter method ,albeit it a less humane one?
> 
> ...



The word Halal means pure. There is your clue my friend.

They are basically saying such and such is now pure.

Sikh Guru's thought no point to this.


----------



## Randip Singh (Aug 27, 2011)

*Re: Query about Jhatka Meat by Shooting in Head*



spnadmin said:


> IJ Singh is wrong about kosher slaughter. I really do wish Sikhs would bone up on this point. Maybe some of my Jewish friends need to sign up and correct this wrong notion.



I see your point, but Does not Kosher mean pure, as does Halal?:interestedsingh:


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

*Re: Query about Jhatka Meat by Shooting in Head*

Randip Ji 

I don't know the history only that is was a gesture against Mughal Raaj if there was a specific guideline on slaughter back then I don't know why Hindu's would slaughter anything any way ,
I started the other thread to ask is that gesture still relevant today ,whatever the detail behind our rejection, it still remains a gesture of defiance against the imposition of muslim values on others.If we have free will today it just seems a bit outdated now.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 27, 2011)

*Re: Query about Jhatka Meat by Shooting in Head*

This word "pure" has also been a sticking point. 

Halal involves invoking "Allah Akhbar" and Kosher does not. Halal is reliving the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, to demonstrate faith in "God". Kosher does not. No connection at all is made of kosher to the sacrifice of Abraham by Jews. 

To understand kosher slaughter, put it into the bigger framework of dietary laws. Eating shellfish is also forbidden for the same reason: sanitation. No spirituality involved. So if an observant Jew avoids shellfish it is hard to see how any ritual is  involved. He simply does not eat it. Likewise, the same observant Jew will only eat kosher meat, for the same reason. 

Kosher is a way to achieve a level of "cleanliness" by way of a procedure .... a procedure which is traditional, but is not ritual in the eyes of Jews. The origins of Kosher slaughter hark back to ancient times, when it was viewed as a way to achieve a "sanitary" diet. No one knew about bacteria in those days. Kosher slaughter is part of a broader set of dietary laws all geared the same way, for cleanliness, not spirituality. Granted we who are not Jewish may see it as overly obsessive and even overly bound up in  tradition. 


Halal also means lawful. Beyond that, the procedure involves an unmistakable reference to "ritual" and "sacrifice" which never comes up during kosher slaughter. With halal, the entire matter of crying Allah Akhbar with the slaughter of each animal is directly tied to the sacrifice of Abraham in the old Testament, as if Alah himself purifies the meat for his obedient faithful.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 27, 2011)

Sorry, but I disagree. 




> The word Halal means pure. There is your clue my friend.



Halal actually means "lawful."

"Pure" is not a clue but a miscue. There are two different notions of "pure" at work in Halal and Kosher. 



> To understand kosher slaughter, put it into the bigger framework of dietary laws. Eating shellfish is also forbidden for the same reason: sanitation. No spirituality involved. So if an observant Jew avoids shellfish it is hard to see how any ritual is involved. He simply does not eat it....
> 
> Kosher is a way to achieve a level of "cleanliness" by way of a procedure .... a procedure which is traditional, but is not ritual in the eyes of Jews. The origins of Kosher slaughter hark back to ancient times, when it was viewed as a way to achieve a "sanitary" diet. ...Kosher slaughter is part of a broader set of dietary laws all geared the same way, for cleanliness, not spirituality.



http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/quest...out-jhatka-meat-shooting-head.html#post152143


----------



## Annie (Aug 27, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Dear Admin
> You are the entity which regulates my madness and for that I am grateful, but did not the obedient Abraham get stopped from actually sacrificing him, so we could see Abraham as the lesson against sacrifice rather than promoting it?
> 
> Just a theory.


Mind if I answer this? Abraham's faith was indeed tested. This was not, however, a lesson against sacrifice. Immediately after Abraham was stopped from killing his son, he saw a ram tangled up in a bush or tree, supposedly placed there by God to be used as a sacrifice instead of the son. Later in the Bible/Torah there continues to be a lot of mention of sacrifice, with directions supposedly from God as to what, how much, why, by whom etc... It seems God wanted sacrifices as atonement for all sorts of things, even accidental "sins."

By the way, just as Sikhs have a prohibition against eating Halal, observant Jews have a prohibition against non-kosher processed grape products such as wine and juice. They do not want to accidentally drink any wine or grape juice that is from the same batch as wine used in other religions' religious rituals.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Annie Ji

Damn I forgot about the ram ,thanks for correcting me,I still feel the rejection by Sikhs was a symbolic gesture in rejection of the imposition of the ruling classes set of values on the ruled.The oppresion was our enemy, not Halal perhaps, but just a theory of course!


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 27, 2011)

If today one can give argument against then halal then the other 3 kurehits can also be easily challenged .Khalsa was banned from consuming halal ,there are several arguments why they were but no one knows the exact reason


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Kds Ji 

There maybe physical side effects related to the other kurehits so they are a little different and not really a defiant gesture and more to do with healthy living.No disrespect meant to the Rehat, but I question manmade conventions, due to men like us being fallible .


----------



## Ajuni (Aug 27, 2011)

Sat Sri Akal my friends,

I was under the understanding that Sikhi does not consume halal meat because of the way it is slaughtered. That the throat of the animal is slit and the animal is still alive and drained of its blood, which to me seems a tad inhumane...(personally)

Isn't the meaning of jhatka meat, that the meat is slaughtered in one direct blow, so that the animal is not alive and it does not suffer. 

Is this correct?

Sat Sri Akal


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 27, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Kds Ji
> 
> There maybe physical side effects related to the other kurehits so they are a little different and not really a defiant gesture and more to do with healthy living.No disrespect meant to the Rehat, but I question manmade conventions, due to men like us being fallible .



How they are different.the beleif that uncut hair are not important is becoming more and more popular .I don't see any physical side for keeping uncut hair


----------



## Ishna (Aug 27, 2011)

Sinner Ji, thanks for continuing the discussion.

I'll put myself out there with this one.

1. The reasons for non-consumption of halal for me outweight the reasons to consume it.  Even if I wasn't a Sikh, I would still be wary of eating something processed according to another religion's rites.

2. Keeping the prohibition against halal reinforces community identity.  It feels good to do what the rest of your group is doing, and support the reasons for doing so.  As long as you don't follow blindly.

3. It is a constant reminder to be vigilant against oppression.

4. If you take Sikhi and SGGS on the philosophical level only, no one would become Khalsa, you couldn't tell the difference between a Sikh and a non-Sikh, and Sikhi dies as a vibrant living religion.  The ceremonies and traditions Sikhs have now largely come from the community itself and from history.  If you take all the Sikhs off the planet today, wipe out the history, give SGGS to some curious onlooker, they won't be wearing turbans, they will eat anything they want, they'll cut their hair, but they'll still get up for amrit vela!


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 27, 2011)

Isna bhen Ji
I have some muslim friends and it always puzzled me if it's ok for those kind souls why is it not ok for me.I look at everything for universal maxims.Like thou shall not Steal. Anything that divides us I tend to overlook .They are adopting something in the name of religion and we are rejecting it in the name of religion. Hopefully Kfc is not kurehit but if the devil was to offer me a 10 pce bucket, I might not ask if it is Jhatka ,the question I would ask is how many legs!


----------



## Ishna (Aug 28, 2011)

If non halal is ok for us, why isn't it ok for them? The argument goes both ways and given the evidence I see, I would personally choose the method of least cruelty. But that takes us away from the problem of halal for Sikhs today and into the realm of personal human choice.

When it comes to division, insisting all animals be slaughtered the Islamic way regardless of the society seems not divisive but conquoring. Allowing all to chose their own method of slaughter is better. And for Sikhs, we choose not to kill our animals in the name of god, or in a method which has been commanded by god or else we sin against god. We just kill it!

If we all gave up, we'd all be eating halal, no choice.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 28, 2011)

Aurengzeb gave all these "arguments"  in order to convince Guru Teg bahadur Ji to CONVERT. He said..How Nice IF ALL united and there was only 1 religion for all Indians...Guru Ji told him..now there are 2 - Islam and Hinduism..after I am dead..there will be 3 !!! (Sikhism !!)
SIKHISM has always stood for FREEDOM of CHOICE..and Guru Arjun Ji and Guru Teg baahdur Ji gave their LIVES for this FREEDOM to worship the way we like.
This is Valid for all time and in all countries....Sikh bows to NO ONE !! except Akal  Purakh.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 28, 2011)

Gyani Ji

A Sikh should bow to all mankind but bend for none then he is a real Sikh.



Sinner said:


> Dear Spn Admin
> 
> Seriously humans are mammals ,the rehat says anything killed with a swift stroke is ok, so we are allowed to eat eachother, according to our Rehat.


 
There was merit in the Guru's rejection under threat of death, they defied their rulers ,what punishment are the Sikhs today facing by rejecting it?In 500 years moss has grown on our religion, slowly,slowly, like it grows on my roof .Either Halal and Jhatka are both wrong or both right , as logically what is right for one soul must be right for another.


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 29, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Annie Ji
> 
> Damn I forgot about the ram ,thanks for correcting me,I still feel the rejection by Sikhs was a symbolic gesture in rejection of the imposition of the ruling classes set of values on the ruled.The oppresion was our enemy, not Halal perhaps, but just a theory of course!



I disagree. The rejection was not just of the ruling classes but a rejection of a way of thinking-that food has anything to do with God and this is still valid. It was a rejection of the symbolism in the Halal process and this is still valid. It is also a rejection of the inequality inherent in the process of producing halal as only certain people are allowed to partake in the slaughter ritual-this is still valid.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 29, 2011)

Dear Way Ji ,You have a good point there, but does that not mean our religion by approving it has inadvertently put an element of symbolised approval into jhatka?


----------



## Ishna (Aug 29, 2011)

As has been previously said, the SRM doesn't specify jhatka for a Sikh.  A Sikh can technically eat anything they want as long as it's not halal.  The discerning Sikh will read and absorb Gurbani and learn that moderation is good, and that some foods are more appropriate than others (stick to simple diet, don't eat too much sugar, etc).  I don't know about you but I've got a long way to go with all that yet!!!

On the other hand, I was talking to a colleague some time ago about obsessive compulsive disorders and the ritualistic behaviours that go along with it.  My colleague explained to me that it's more difficult to eradicate a behaviour - it's easier to replace one behaviour with another.  Now I'm not saying Sikhs, Hindus or Muslims have OCD (not saying anything about wudu, hehehe, just kidding), but when you come from a history of there being ritual and rules around food, it may have been difficult for some people to just abandon a food-related behaviour, so jhatka was encouraged as an alternative, perhaps?  I don't know, just thinking out loud.


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 29, 2011)

Sinner said:


> Dear Way Ji ,You have a good point there, but does that not mean our religion by approving it has inadvertently put an element of symbolised approval into jhatka?



How? Jhatka is not mandated nor limited in definition.

Jhatka has nothing to do with God.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 29, 2011)

Dear Way ji and Isna Ji

Thnakyou for atleast being interested in my mad questions and sorry for the delay in responding, I was fixing my roof.I find it helps to do some practical stuff during holidays and philosophy inbetween.I must admit it's nice to engage with my fellow Sikhs, even if I lose most of the time, as we have not discoursed Way Ji let me try to dig myself out of my self made hole.What I meant to say that we have made it a prescribed or approved thing and so as there is there no instruction in gurmat it must be ritual ,tradition or convention to eat jhatka.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 29, 2011)

I do think the thread has run its course. Two points repeated over at least 2 pages:

1. Jatkha is not mandated for Sikhs.
2. Animal cruelty is not relevant to this discussion.
3. Religions differ in the importance they place on the consumption of meat, and its method of slaughter.... because they are different religions.

If we cannot add to the current content, the thread needs to be closed. Please read beyond the last 2 or so comments to review what has already been stated. Thank you


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 29, 2011)

ANYONE can do "Jhatka"...muslim..christian..hindu..sinner or saint !! its STILL JHATKA....but NOT for Hallal...i CANT do "hallal" although i can shout Allah hu Akbar just as loud as my muslim neighbour...???? ONLY a Certified MUSLIM can make a dead cow Hallal !!
This is a very important POINT sinner ji....BUT....on the human scale...its the opposite..he he...while everyone can be a "sinner"only some can be SAINTS !! Ha ha


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 29, 2011)

Spnadmin I think you are right and thanks for your understanding and clarification.I now intend to be vegetarian on Mondays and Tuesdays and will eat Jhatka on Wednesdays and Thursdays I will fast Friday to Sunday. But does anyone think I might be spending too much time on dietary habit and have forgotten religion is the enterprise of the soul.


----------



## kds1980 (Aug 29, 2011)

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> ANYONE can do "Jhatka"...muslim..christian..hindu..sinner or saint !! its STILL JHATKA....but NOT for Hallal...i CANT do "hallal" although i can shout Allah hu Akbar just as loud as my muslim neighbour...???? ONLY a Certified MUSLIM can make a dead cow Hallal !!
> This is a very important POINT sinner ji....BUT....on the human scale...its the opposite..he he...while everyone can be a "sinner"only some can be SAINTS !! Ha ha



Very good point a very large number of Jhatka butchers are lower caste Hindu's.
If you leave Religion out of slaughter method then almost every kind of meat is jhatka


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 29, 2011)

Any Moslem having reached puberty is allowed to slaughter after saying the name of Allah and facing Makkah (Mecca).
The animal should not be thirsty at slaughter time.
The knife must be sharp, to minimize the time and hence save the animal pain associated with the slaughtering process.
The knife must not be sharpened in front of the animal because it may cause undue stress to that animal
The slaughter is to be done by cutting the throat of the animal or by piercing the hollow of the throat, causing the quickest death with the least amount of pain.
The name of Allah has to be mentioned before or during slaughtering, since the Creator is the granter and taker of life; the name must be said by a member of the Moslem faith.
Meat slaughtered by people of the Jewish or Christian faith (People of the Book) may also be eaten.
The blood must be completely drawn from the carcass.

_Quran: Surah 6:121.
Eat not of (meats)
On which Allah’s name
Hath not been pronounced:
That would be impiety
But the evil ones
Ever inspire their friends
To contend with you
If ye were to obey the
Ye would indeed be Pagans_

Saud Twaigery and Diana Spillman, An Introduction to Moslem Dietary Laws, Food Technology, February, 1989

After all is said and done, if halal meat is not available to muslims, then they may eat non halal meat.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 29, 2011)

_Quran: Surah 6:121._
_Eat not of (meats)_
_On which Allah’s name_
_Hath not been pronounced:_

_If were a muslim I would interpret that stanza as reminding me to say grace or be grateful for what I eat even couldn't they just pronounce Allah before eating a meal._


----------



## Ambarsaria (Aug 29, 2011)

Sinner said:


> _Quran: Surah 6:121._
> _Eat not of (meats)_
> _On which Allah’s name_
> _Hath not been pronounced:_
> ...


Sinner veer ji you are little confused compared to confused ji who is usually less confused compared to most including yours truly  :grinningsingh:

Many times, if not most times, the person doing Muslim slaughter may not even eat any of the food that such has so created.  The question becomes that somehow the act of killing is going to be done in the name of God so nobody feels guilty doing so.  

_This creates a behavior issue._  Beheading of humans!  Well it is done in the name of God or Allah by some Al-Qaida or such group or the Taliban hence no inhumanity is felt or conveyed.  Desecration of dead bodies of enemy troops or Kaffirs (almost all not of the Book people).  The Sikh history of tortures by Muslims.  Same is done to stone people to death in Iran today.

Are these things related, I sure believe these are!

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 29, 2011)

Behavioural actions are learnt by habitual repetition...a very personal example. In our fmaily we have 8 humans and 8 dogs. Now among us..we have some humans who simply cant bear to see the dogs watching us eat ice cream..cake..barfee..even daily roti etc...and we share it all..saying..here one piece for ME..one for you..one for you..one for you..and so on....and we also have one in our family..who as a child was raised in a single mum fmaily and deprived of such things..all she could do was watch the richer neighbour kids eat whole apples and chicken drumsticks...so what she does when a dog approaches..is kick it away....SHOOOOOOOOOOO bad boy..go away...and you wont beleive it..now the dogs also wont even bother to stick their ears up..much less wag their tails and go rushing..they know they wont get a bone but a kick...whereas the rest of us dont even have to call them...they all line up ina  circle and step up forward as their name is called one by one..one Bite for ME..one for Tiger..one for Lovely..One for Angel..and so on..no rush..no push..calmly playing musical chairs !! AFTER a life time together..and almost 4 years of having these dogs...we are unable to change the character of this one family member... our Present day Propserity/abundance of resources/unlimited food and variety...loses to the "hunger" of 50 years ago....!!:interestedkudi:


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 30, 2011)

Gyani Ji Sometimes a human acts more like a dog and vice versa and maybe you can take a person out of poverty but you can't take the poverty out of the person.

Ambarsaria Veera I was born confused but if hallal is based upon that quote it is not the only interpretation for what is written and not a great basis for employing 'special' people in slaughter houses, why not say Gods name later like when preparing the meat, as all it says is pronounced?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Aug 30, 2011)

> why not say Gods name later like when preparing the meat, as all it says is pronounced?


It's obvious isn't it?
You won't feel guilty if you eat it in the name of God. You won't see the suffering of thousands who go hungry, while you hog everything in your plate for yourself. That leads to poverty! 

Lol

The issue is desensitization, not "doing things in the name of God". There is nothing wrong with halal meat/slaughter/eating/in the name of God, what is wrong is that we have desensitized ourselves to any understanding of it.

Backing up a little bit to the beginning posts:
What deeper feelings, emotions, thoughts, realizations are the Abrahamic religions trying to arouse in an individual with the seemingly outrageous things they say? This is important as we quickly point out deeper truths in Sikhism but only seem to grasp superficial truths of other religions.
.
.
.
What does it really mean to sacrifice anything to God? What is the essence of sacrifice?
.
.
.
What does it mean to sacrifice to God as a result of seeing one's own sins?
.
.
.
What does it mean to say a Sikh him/herself is a sacrifice to God?
.
.
.
In what manners are food and God related and unrelated?
.
.
.
What does it really mean to go through something like this:


> I now intend to be vegetarian on Mondays and Tuesdays and will eat  Jhatka on Wednesdays and Thursdays I will fast Friday to Sunday.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 30, 2011)

Bhagat Veer Ji, Thankyou I understand now, I will incorporate some hallal too ,can you suggest on what day I eat Kurehit?


----------



## findingmyway (Aug 31, 2011)

> After all is said and done, if halal meat is not available to muslims, then they may eat non halal meat.



If this is the case then why do Muslims create a fuss that they can't eat halal? Why is so much of this country becoming halal? Not all Muslims prescribe to this sentence as many of my muslim friends refuse to eat non-halal.


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (Aug 31, 2011)

Way Ji maybe for the same reason Sikhs strike up a fuss if they can't eat jhatka !Most muslims don't really know why they do something ,nor do the Sikhs there are just alot of sheep out there !Ours are dressed as lions but all follow eachother like sheep!


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 31, 2011)

findingmyway ji

It is right there on the link I posted. 

Reference: Saud Twaigery and Diana Spillman, An Introduction to Moslem Dietary Laws, Food Technology, February, 1989,

It gets even more confusing. Some sources say slaughter may be by any one of the people of the Book. That would include Jews and Christians. 

I too am banging my head. Political visibility? Political identity? For a fact...there is a restaurant nearby me where I eat and is owned by a Palestinian Arab. A very nice man. I asked him if he purchased and served only halal meat. His answer... only on special occasions by special order. The over head is too high and it is too bothersome to have both kinds.

As i type I am thinking. In a country under Sharia law, halal would be mandated as a political matter. Religion and politics are not separate but intertwined. Sharia law is imposed, minorities have to find their place. In a country having a large or growing muslim minority, halal would be something to lobby for. So that a minority religion,Islam, would have its place among decision makers, and would not have to find its place among other religions. Two and maybe more kinds of hue and cry.

In answer to your question, here is another question. Do you think the politicos are courting votes? Are the corporations doing market research and deciding where the present and future consumer markets will be? Sold in volume, halal can be more profitable than suiting each and every religious group. That is basically what my Arab neighbor was telling me. He sees no profit margin having both halal and non halal. If the percentages shift, he may change his mind.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Aug 31, 2011)

spnadmin said:


> findingmyway ji
> 
> It is right there on the link I posted.
> 
> ...



Malaysia is NOT under Shariah Law...its under the Constitutional laws left behind by the Departing British....BUT our POLITICAL SYSTEM is under Majority Muslim rule ............and thus ALL non PORK meat is mandatory HALLAL. No non-hallal lamb, beef, deer chicken meat etc can be imported or sold. ALL Supermarkets, fast food chains like mcdonald kfc etc serve ONLY HALLAL. Most Restaurants have HALLAL certification prominently displayed. (ONly exception are solely Chinese pork serving restaurants)
PORK sellers in wet markets (severely restricted to Majority Chinese residential areas only) have separate stalls selling PORK and these are either very far away and separated or otherwise WALLED UP to be out of sight of muslims who may be offended. On the otherhand cow carcasses are openly displayed and non-muslims are expected to just ignore that and squeeze through !!
Thus of "necessity" all food caterers even for Sikh weddings etc serve only Hallal Chicken/lamb...take it or leave it. Those who sell fresh chickens at wet markets have to employ Hallal certified Muslims to slaughter the live chicken...and they will NOT "Jhatka" for you even if you require it ( the old days the Chinese stall owner would do that for SINGH....but not NOW becasue ONLY Muslim butchers can be employed at such stalls...This was allowed to happen gradually over time as the Chinese etc dont actually bother whether their chicken etc is hallal or not...to them its no difference....and the Hindus are majority vegetarian or too poor to afford chicken anyway..so its again a non-issue for them too...leaving the Sikhs alone...for the Sikhs.........

The Only alternative is to go for PORK/wild Boar or buy live chickens and bring them home.


----------



## spnadmin (Aug 31, 2011)

Gyani ji

I think you are describing yet another 3rd categpry. The tyranny of the majority. Thanks for pointing that out. Religious rules are used by a political mass as a kind of power source to impose its will. Not that different from stating that a political majority is doing God's work even if the work that is being done is done mindlessly, or is barbaric.  This category is the category where religion is corrupted by politics. The corruption may be a marriage of convenience because the members of the political mass are of the same religion. 

What can a minority do if there are no constitutional structures to stop a stampede by the  majority? A passive response makes a lot of sense on a rational plane if there are ont barriers to tyrany of the majority, or the people and processes that are there to prevent the tyranny, and protest the minorities, either will not work, or are useless.

Does much of this boil down to an old Wall Street adage? "Follow the money." Then you will know what will happen next.


----------



## palaingtha (May 12, 2015)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> The history and idea of us rejecting halal was a symbolic gesture against the forced acceptance of Islamlic principles or faith.
> 
> When Punjab is now ruled by a Hindu Government who are we rebelling against when the rulers are vegetarian?
> 
> ...



Today you are advising Sikhs to eat Halal (Muslim way of slaughter) meat, next day you may advise to accept Quoran since GOD is one for the entire Humanity. No Sir, we must adhere to the Hukam of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, which is as per the Booklet, (Sikh Maryada)


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 15, 2015)

Veer Ji
Let me qualify this in Montaignes words that "everything I say is by way of discourse and nothing by way of advise"

Let our main course be of iron and our 'five a day 'and say what we must say but don't forget to play.


----------



## palaingtha (May 15, 2015)

Scarlet Pimpernel said:


> Veer Ji
> Let me qualify this in Montaignes words that "everything I say is by way of discourse and nothing by way of advise"
> 
> Let our main course be of iron and our 'five a day 'and say what we must say but don't forget to play.



Let me not hear that do not appeal to me, even if SAAG that contains Iron, for if one takes too many times, he will excrete Iron Rods! hahaha


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 22, 2015)

I have been thinking about Halal meat and the rule of SRM  for us not to eat it. There is no mention of Kosher meat though although both serve the same to please some god.In fact the word Kosher is used interchangeably  all over the western world meaning clean or better food,e.g. salt etc etc. They have cleverly taken out the slaughter of animals to please their god from the word kosher and made it more acceptable. I am sure many of us have eaten sandwiches from delis in NY and most of them are kosher.

Slaughtering animals with the air guns is a common practice for most of the meat killed in the world that we consume. Jatka is only if we do the killing ourselves.

Now coming back to my point about Halal and Kosher meat, it is their problem/guilt/fear factor with their deities to please them which has nothing to do with us as Sikhs.

After this thought, I do not find any problem with eating either Halal or Kosher and it is only me.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Awakeand Singh (May 21, 2016)

spnadmin said:


> Halal slaughter is accompanied by the exclamation Alah Akhbar! This is also called out and has been for centuries in war, when muslims slayed  their enemies. It is used during executions, such as stonings.
> 
> The use of it in halal slaughter calls forth remembrance of the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in the Jewish Testament...To prove his faith Abraham was ordered by "God" to sacrifice his son. That is where the ritual sacrifice comes in. Muslims consider Abraham one of their prophets.
> 
> ...




*And, in any case, may I point out that Muslims believe that it was Isma'il (Yishmael) - and not Yitzhak (Isaac) - who was brought as an offering.*


----------

