# Halal Or Not Halal: What Is The Difference? By Amar Prakash Singh



## Tejwant Singh

*Halal or Not Halal: What is the Difference? *

By Amar Prakash Singh

I have always found the concept of Halal very mystifying. Recently there has been much comment about the subject, especially the controversy over comments made by Inder Singh Ghagga that stated that Guru Nanak may have eaten Halal. With this in mind, I wanted to really look at what Halal is and what the Gurus said about.

According to the Rehit, one of the transgressions of a Sikh is to not eat the meat of an animal slaughtered in the Muslim way.I believe that we have confused how an animal is killed and what Halal really is. It is a moot point that there is no humane way to kill an animal. If you believe that it is unacceptable to eat a chicken that has had its throat slit and bled to death but somehow find it acceptable to eat a chicken that has died by having an electrode shoved up its rectum and electrocuted, you are totally missing the point.

What really makes something Halal is not the method of killing but the fact that some ritual or prayer has somehow made the food sanctified or purified in order to make it acceptable and thus every thing else as unacceptable. There should not be any food that is acceptable or unacceptable to a Sikh because Sikhs have no such rituals.

With this said, I find that the group that is most upset about the comments about Guru Nanak eating Halal, the Akhand Kirtini Jatha, has a diet that is almost a text book example of the above definition of Halal.

Let's take a look at what the Gurus had to say about Halal.

"Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food." Guru Arjan page 1084

To Guru Arjan, the only thing that would make a food not blessed would be to earn it non righteously.

In fact, the aim of a Sikh is to become Halal and be purified by the knife in order to be “attached to the Lord.”

"First Mehl: The knife is Truth, and its steel is totally True. Its workmanship is incomparably beautiful. It is sharpened on the grindstone of the Shabad. It is placed in the scabbard of virtue. If the Shaykh is killed with that, then the blood of greed will spill out. One who is slaughtered in this ritualistic way, will be attached to the Lord. O Nanak, at the Lord's door, he is absorbed into His Blessed Vision. 2 "Guru Nanak page 956

The only thing that a Sikh should consider as Halal is a Liberated One.

"FIRST MEHL: The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?" Guru Nanak page 1289

What I believe the Guru is saying is that food is food and it is foolish to argue about what we should eat. How can there be a sin committed when all we are doing is eating to survive. Then how can a sin be committed if the meat is Halal or not. It is in the mind of the individual if it is Halal or not. I choose to see nothing as Halal and I believe Guru Nanak would have also. I believe that if the food that was served to Guru Nanak was Halal, the food that he ate was not. Eating has nothing to do with spiritual attainment and neither is the manner that it is killed.

Later he writes:

“Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.” Guru Nanak page 1289

Here the Guru is saying that vegetarians who look down their noses at people who eat meat are also fools. I remember a conversation I had with a woman from 3HO. I mentioned that someone who we both knew ate meat. Her reply was: 'Then how can he be an Amritdhari Sikh?' This is exactly what Guruji condemns in the above.

When I took Amrit, not eating meat was a part of the vows. I realize now that whether you eat meat or not, should not be a requirement of a group but the choice of the individual.

Transition into Infinity


----------



## Randip Singh

VaheguruSeekr said:


> *Halal or Not Halal: What is the Difference? *
> 
> By Amar Prakash Singh
> 
> I have always found the concept of Halal very mystifying. Recently there has been much comment about the subject, especially the controversy over comments made by Inder Singh Ghagga that stated that Guru Nanak may have eaten Halal. With this in mind, I wanted to really look at what Halal is and what the Gurus said about.
> 
> According to the Rehit, one of the transgressions of a Sikh is to not eat the meat of an animal slaughtered in the Muslim way.I believe that we have confused how an animal is killed and what Halal really is. It is a moot point that there is no humane way to kill an animal. If you believe that it is unacceptable to eat a chicken that has had its throat slit and bled to death but somehow find it acceptable to eat a chicken that has died by having an electrode shoved up its rectum and electrocuted, you are totally missing the point.
> 
> What really makes something Halal is not the method of killing but the fact that some ritual or prayer has somehow made the food sanctified or purified in order to make it acceptable and thus every thing else as unacceptable. There should not be any food that is acceptable or unacceptable to a Sikh because Sikhs have no such rituals.
> 
> With this said, I find that the group that is most upset about the comments about Guru Nanak eating Halal, the Akhand Kirtini Jatha, has a diet that is almost a text book example of the above definition of Halal.
> 
> Let's take a look at what the Gurus had to say about Halal.
> 
> "Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food." Guru Arjan page 1084
> 
> To Guru Arjan, the only thing that would make a food not blessed would be to earn it non righteously.
> 
> In fact, the aim of a Sikh is to become Halal and be purified by the knife in order to be “attached to the Lord.”
> 
> "First Mehl: The knife is Truth, and its steel is totally True. Its workmanship is incomparably beautiful. It is sharpened on the grindstone of the Shabad. It is placed in the scabbard of virtue. If the Shaykh is killed with that, then the blood of greed will spill out. One who is slaughtered in this ritualistic way, will be attached to the Lord. O Nanak, at the Lord's door, he is absorbed into His Blessed Vision. 2 "Guru Nanak page 956
> 
> The only thing that a Sikh should consider as Halal is a Liberated One.
> 
> "FIRST MEHL: The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?" Guru Nanak page 1289
> 
> What I believe the Guru is saying is that food is food and it is foolish to argue about what we should eat. How can there be a sin committed when all we are doing is eating to survive. Then how can a sin be committed if the meat is Halal or not. It is in the mind of the individual if it is Halal or not. I choose to see nothing as Halal and I believe Guru Nanak would have also. I believe that if the food that was served to Guru Nanak was Halal, the food that he ate was not. Eating has nothing to do with spiritual attainment and neither is the manner that it is killed.
> 
> Later he writes:
> 
> “Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.” Guru Nanak page 1289
> 
> Here the Guru is saying that vegetarians who look down their noses at people who eat meat are also fools. I remember a conversation I had with a woman from 3HO. I mentioned that someone who we both knew ate meat. Her reply was: 'Then how can he be an Amritdhari Sikh?' This is exactly what Guruji condemns in the above.
> 
> When I took Amrit, not eating meat was a part of the vows. I realize now that whether you eat meat or not, should not be a requirement of a group but the choice of the individual.
> 
> Transition into Infinity


 
Interesting post and the appeasement that is done with the Halal ritual is unnecessary for  a Sikh. Might I add such appeasement is unnecessary for any other forms of ritual.


----------



## Shaheediyan

Halal means "permissable".  The word relates to that which is permissable by Islamic law "sharia". 

Halal refers to all facets of life (not just food), that which is not permissable is haram.

So, with regards to halal and haram meat, the following sura's apply:

_"Forbidden to you (your food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which the name of other than Allah hath been invoked; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject Faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination of transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"_[Qur'an 5:3] [3] 

_"Say: I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine, for it is an abomination or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah's. But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, thy Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful"_[Qur'an 6:145] [5]


----------



## Shaheediyan

"Interesting post and the appeasement that is done with the Halal ritual is unnecessary for a Sikh. Might I add such appeasement is unnecessary for any other forms of ritual."

Randip Singh Ji, are you aware of the long ritual invloved in the preperation of Mahaprasad, particularly as witnessed at Holla?

Do Sikhs not ardaas over langar and prasad before it is served?


----------



## Dimitri

So the Lord got this whole thing against Pig..wao.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh

Guru Nanak Ji Sahib is using the "language" of the Brahmins to convey His message. The words used are MALECHH and ABHAKHIAH  ka KUTHA. Now the Brahmins referred to the Muslims as Malecchh (dirty/filthy) due to their doing the inspaekable...killing and devouring cows, breaking stone idols and places where these stones were worshipped..etc. The Brahmins called the language spoken by the malechh muslims as ABHAKHIAH..unspeakable...as opposed to the "Sanskrit" holy language of thewir Vedas and Gods.
In Private these fraudy Brahmins said such things about the Muslims...BUT in PUBLIC..they wore Blue clothes, spoke the Filthy language and ate the filthy "kutha bakras" of the Masters...WHAT  A FRAUD ???
IN MUSLIM INDIA..no non-muslim was allowed to keep a knife..slaughter meat..ride  a horse..keep weapons. All these were reserved for the Masters..and NOT for SLAVES. The Wily Brahmin spoke "double speak"..one thing to the Hindus and another to the Muslim Masters. This DOUBLE SPEAK is exposed by Guur nanak ji in Abhakhiah ka kuttha bakra khanna.( IN PUBLIC to win over the Musims masters ).matt bhitteh ve matt bhitteh ve at home ( to fool the Hindus as to their holinity !!)

SACRIFICE..and "offering THANKS" to God are two different things. The Maya Indians..the Babylonians..the Meccans....the Hindus..almost everyone offered SACRIFICE. In the Bible it was Abraham that was ORDERED by God to sacrifice !!! Hindus scrifice Goats to Kali Goddess !!! In SACRIFICE....BLOOD has to be SHED. It is the BLOOD that the GOD DRINKS and is satisfied..no difference if it is God of the Mayas..or Babylonians..or Meccans..or Kali or Allah...the CONCEPT is the SAME...The SACRIFICE is to APPEASE god..bring down RAIN..end droughts..etc etc etc.

The Sikh Ardass is just like the GRACE said at the Table..THANKS to the PROVIDER for His MERCY. That is why BHOG LAUNNA is Brahminism and not Gurmatt. Bhog is launna to IDOLS..not to Guru Granth Ji. The ARDASS is thus DONE at each and every Function in a  Gurdwara..at every MEAL a Sikh has at home....this itself shows it is different from the SACRIFICE..the Kalmas read over an animal being killed.

Hallal Meat was FORCED UPON all non-Mulsims in those times...This is still done in MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES...like in MALAYSIA even though there is almost 40% NON MUSLIM population..the ruling Muslim Govt makes it MANDATORY for ALL MEAT and other products to be Hallal ONLY. Non Hallal meats..are ONLY the HAM and PIG Products..NO other Meat can be NonHallal. This si the Sole reason why a SIKH who follows only and only AKAL PURAKH MUST never eat Hallal Meat that is SACRIFICED to a Diety that "needs" such sacrifices.
Gyani Jarnail Singh


----------



## kds1980

Welcome back gyani  ji its good too see you on spn after such a long time.


----------



## Randip Singh

Shaheediyan said:


> "Interesting post and the appeasement that is done with the Halal ritual is unnecessary for a Sikh. Might I add such appeasement is unnecessary for any other forms of ritual."
> 
> Randip Singh Ji, are you aware of the long ritual invloved in the preperation of Mahaprasad, particularly as witnessed at Holla?
> 
> Do Sikhs not ardaas over langar and prasad before it is served?


 
Difference being Halal and Kosher are seen as appeasement or sacrifice to God.........what you have mentioned are thanks to God. Ardaas involves a thanking of the bounty of food God has given us (much like Grace).

Halal and Kosher follow the notion of sacrifice (quarbani) to God. Even Hindu's followed such rituals such as Bali and Anustrani etc......but Sikhism se's no such need.


----------



## Shaheediyan

The meat prepared on Eid and at haj to maccah "may" be constitute a sacrifice, but I don't think the day to day meat preperation is seen or treated as a sacrifice, could you kindly provide proof of your assumption.

Thanks.


----------



## Tejwant Singh

Can someone post the verses with their meanings from the Koran and the Torah  used during the ceremony of  Halal and Kosher?

Thanks

Tejwant


----------



## Randip Singh

Shaheediyan said:


> The meat prepared on Eid and at haj to maccah "may" be constitute a sacrifice, but I don't think the day to day meat preperation is seen or treated as a sacrifice, could you kindly provide proof of your assumption.
> 
> Thanks.


 
Taken from:

Halal Food Authority :: Definition of Halal

_Now *to make meat halal or permissible,* an animal or poultry has to be slaughtered *in a ritual way known as Zibah*_

Are you satisfied my "assumption" is fact or would you like me to bring a Maulvi and a a Rabbi to this forum too? :whisling::wink:

Now reading Zibah and killing animals in the name of Allah clearly constitues a sacrifice to God.....although Muslims may deny it....something our Guru's and Bhagat Kabir picked up on.


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh

ALL Meat and meat products sold to the Public in Malaysia MUST be "Hallal"...that is slaughtered by Zibah and certified so by the Islamic Authority. Even IMPORTED Meat and meat products must go thru this. Thbus even NON-MUSLIMS are forced to consume this "halllal meat" ( or consume only PORK/HAM etc which Cannot be Hallal. The other food that CANNOT be Hallal is FISH. Lobsters, crabs, clams etc..as it is ALREADY DEAD when taken out of the sea or has NO BLOOD ( which is essentially what must be there in RED SPLASHES). On EID days..the animals are ritually slaughtered on PUBLIC GROUNDS....in full view of the public and tv cameras...recently a furore asrose because a few Cows were ZIBAH on the August PARLIAMENT GROUNDS ( completely disregarding the Hindu memebers of parliament's sentiments and those of the Non Muslims)
Gyani Jarnail Singh


----------



## Shaheediyan

Why was my post removed?


----------



## Randip Singh

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Guru Nanak Ji Sahib is using the "language" of the Brahmins to convey His message. The words used are MALECHH and ABHAKHIAH ka KUTHA. Now the Brahmins referred to the Muslims as Malecchh (dirty/filthy) due to their doing the inspaekable...killing and devouring cows, breaking stone idols and places where these stones were worshipped..etc. The Brahmins called the language spoken by the malechh muslims as ABHAKHIAH..unspeakable...as opposed to the "Sanskrit" holy language of thewir Vedas and Gods.
> In Private these fraudy Brahmins said such things about the Muslims...BUT in PUBLIC..they wore Blue clothes, spoke the Filthy language and ate the filthy "kutha bakras" of the Masters...WHAT A FRAUD ???
> IN MUSLIM INDIA..no non-muslim was allowed to keep a knife..slaughter meat..ride a horse..keep weapons. All these were reserved for the Masters..and NOT for SLAVES. The Wily Brahmin spoke "double speak"..one thing to the Hindus and another to the Muslim Masters. This DOUBLE SPEAK is exposed by gur nanak ji in Abhakhiah ka kuttha bakra khanna.( IN PUBLIC to win over the Musims masters ).matt bhitteh ve matt bhitteh ve at home ( to fool the Hindus as to their holinity !!)
> 
> SACRIFICE..and "offering THANKS" to God are two different things. The Maya Indians..the Babylonians..the Meccans....the Hindus..almost everyone offered SACRIFICE. In the Bible it was Abraham that was ORDERED by God to sacrifice !!! Hindus scrifice Goats to Kali Goddess !!! In SACRIFICE....BLOOD has to be SHED. It is the BLOOD that the GOD DRINKS and is satisfied..no difference if it is God of the Mayas..or Babylonians..or Meccans..or Kali or Allah...the CONCEPT is the SAME...The SACRIFICE is to APPEASE god..bring down RAIN..end droughts..etc etc etc.
> 
> The Sikh Ardass is just like the GRACE said at the Table..THANKS to the PROVIDER for His MERCY. That is why BHOG LAUNNA is Brahminism and not Gurmatt. Bhog is launna to IDOLS..not to Guru Granth Ji. The ARDASS is thus DONE at each and every Function in a Gurdwara..at every MEAL a Sikh has at home....this itself shows it is different from the SACRIFICE..the Kalmas read over an animal being killed.
> 
> Hallal Meat was FORCED UPON all non-Mulsims in those times...This is still done in MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES...like in MALAYSIA even though there is almost 40% NON MUSLIM population..the ruling Muslim Govt makes it MANDATORY for ALL MEAT and other products to be Hallal ONLY. Non Hallal meats..are ONLY the HAM and PIG Products..NO other Meat can be NonHallal. This si the Sole reason why a SIKH who follows only and only AKAL PURAKH MUST never eat Hallal Meat that is SACRIFICED to a Diety that "needs" such sacrifices.
> Gyani Jarnail Singh


 
Great post........and that part about Brahmins eating the Muslim food and wearing their clothes was in a book I was reading a couple of years ago. I will find the refrence and post it here.


----------



## Shaheediyan

"Great post........and that part about Brahmins eating the Muslim food and wearing their clothes was in a book I was reading a couple of years ago. I will find the refrence and post it here."

No need to search through your books, Guru Ji has clearly made reference to this issue:

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 
सलोक मः १ ॥ 
Salok mehlā 1. 
Shalok, First Mehl: 

ਗਊ ਬਿਰਾਹਮਣ ਕਉ ਕਰੁ ਲਾਵਹੁ ਗੋਬਰਿ ਤਰਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥ 
गऊ बिराहमण कउ करु लावहु गोबरि तरणु न जाई ॥ 
Ga&shy;ū birāhmaṇ ka&shy;o kar lāvhu gobar ṯaraṇ na jā&shy;ī. 
They tax the cows and the Brahmins, but the cow-dung they apply to their kitchen will not save them. 

ਧੋਤੀ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੈ ਜਪਮਾਲੀ ਧਾਨੁ ਮਲੇਛਾਂ ਖਾਈ ॥ 
धोती टिका तै जपमाली धानु मलेछां खाई ॥ 
Ḏẖoṯī tikā ṯai japmālī ḏẖān malėcẖẖāŉ kẖā&shy;ī. 
They wear their loin cloths, apply ritual frontal marks to their foreheads, and carry their rosaries, but they eat food with the Muslims. 

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਭਾਈ ॥ 
अंतरि पूजा पड़हि कतेबा संजमु तुरका भाई ॥ 
Anṯar pūjā paṛeh kaṯėbā sanjam ṯurkā bẖā&shy;ī. 
O Siblings of Destiny, you perform devotional worship indoors, but read the Islamic sacred texts, and adopt the Muslim way of life. 

ਛੋਡੀਲੇ ਪਾਖੰਡਾ ॥ 
छोडीले पाखंडा ॥ 
Cẖẖodīlė pākẖandā. 
Renounce your hypocrisy! 

ਨਾਮਿ ਲਇਐ ਜਾਹਿ ਤਰੰਦਾ ॥੧॥ 
नामि लइऐ जाहि तरंदा ॥१॥ 
Nām la&shy;i&shy;ai jāhi ṯaranḏā. ||1|| 
Taking the Naam, the Name of the Lord, you shall swim across. ||1|| 

ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 
मः १ ॥ 
Mehlā 1. 
First Mehl: 

ਮਾਣਸ ਖਾਣੇ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਵਾਜ ॥ 
माणस खाणे करहि निवाज ॥ 
Māṇas kẖāṇė karahi nivāj. 
The man-eaters say their prayers. 

ਛੁਰੀ ਵਗਾਇਨਿ ਤਿਨ ਗਲਿ ਤਾਗ ॥ 
छुरी वगाइनि तिन गलि ताग ॥ 
Cẖẖurī vagā&shy;in ṯin gal ṯāg. 
Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks. 

ਤਿਨ ਘਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣ ਪੂਰਹਿ ਨਾਦ ॥ 
तिन घरि ब्रहमण पूरहि नाद ॥ 
Ŧin gẖar barahmaṇ pūreh nāḏ. 
In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch. 

ਉਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਭਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਓਈ ਸਾਦ ॥ 
उन्हा भि आवहि ओई साद ॥ 
Unĥā bẖe āvahi o&shy;ī sāḏ. 
They too have the same taste. 

ਕੂੜੀ ਰਾਸਿ ਕੂੜਾ ਵਾਪਾਰੁ ॥ 
कूड़ी रासि कूड़ा वापारु ॥ 
Kūṛī rās kūṛā vāpār. 
False is their capital, and false is their trade. 

ਕੂੜੁ ਬੋਲਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥ 
कूड़ु बोलि करहि आहारु ॥ 
Kūṛ bol karahi āhār. 
Speaking falsehood, they take their food. 

ਸਰਮ ਧਰਮ ਕਾ ਡੇਰਾ ਦੂਰਿ ॥ 
सरम धरम का डेरा दूरि ॥ 
Saram ḏẖaram kā dėrā ḏūr. 
The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them. 

ਨਾਨਕ ਕੂੜੁ ਰਹਿਆ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ॥ 
नानक कूड़ु रहिआ भरपूरि ॥ 
Nānak kūṛ rahi&shy;ā bẖarpūr. 
O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood. 

ਮਥੈ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੇੜਿ ਧੋਤੀ ਕਖਾਈ ॥ 
मथै टिका तेड़ि धोती कखाई ॥ 
Mathai tikā ṯėṛ ḏẖoṯī kakẖā&shy;ī. 
The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists; 

ਹਥਿ ਛੁਰੀ ਜਗਤ ਕਾਸਾਈ ॥ 
हथि छुरी जगत कासाई ॥ 
Hath cẖẖurī jagaṯ kāsā&shy;ī. 
in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world! 

ਨੀਲ ਵਸਤ੍ਰ ਪਹਿਰਿ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ॥ 
नील वसत्र पहिरि होवहि परवाणु ॥ 
Nīl vasṯar pahir hoveh parvāṇ. 
Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers. 

ਮਲੇਛ ਧਾਨੁ ਲੇ ਪੂਜਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਣੁ ॥ 
मलेछ धानु ले पूजहि पुराणु ॥ 
Malėcẖẖ ḏẖān lė pūjeh purāṇ. 
Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas. 

ਅਭਾਖਿਆ ਕਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਬਕਰਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥ 
अभाखिआ का कुठा बकरा खाणा ॥ 
Abẖākẖi&shy;ā kā kuṯẖā bakrā kẖāṇā. 
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them, 

ਚਉਕੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਕਿਸੈ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥ 
चउके उपरि किसै न जाणा ॥ 
Cẖa&shy;ukė upar kisai na jāṇā. 
but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas. 

ਦੇ ਕੈ ਚਉਕਾ ਕਢੀ ਕਾਰ ॥ 
दे कै चउका कढी कार ॥ 
Ḏė kai cẖa&shy;ukā kadẖī kār. 
They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung. 

ਉਪਰਿ ਆਇ ਬੈਠੇ ਕੂੜਿਆਰ ॥ 
उपरि आइ बैठे कूड़िआर ॥ 
Upar ā&shy;ė baiṯẖė kūṛi&shy;ār. 
The false come and sit within them. 

ਮਤੁ ਭਿਟੈ ਵੇ ਮਤੁ ਭਿਟੈ ॥ 
मतु भिटै वे मतु भिटै ॥ 
Maṯ bẖitai vė maṯ bẖitai. 
They cry out, "Do not touch our food, 

ਇਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਅਸਾਡਾ ਫਿਟੈ ॥ 
इहु अंनु असाडा फिटै ॥ 
Ih ann asādā fitai. 
this food of ours will be polluted! 

ਤਨਿ ਫਿਟੈ ਫੇੜ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥ 
तनि फिटै फेड़ करेनि ॥ 
Ŧan fitai fėṛ karėn. 
But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds. 

ਮਨਿ ਜੂਠੈ ਚੁਲੀ ਭਰੇਨਿ ॥ 
मनि जूठै चुली भरेनि ॥ 
Man jūṯẖai cẖulī bẖarėn. 
With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths. 

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚੁ ਧਿਆਈਐ ॥ 
कहु नानक सचु धिआईऐ ॥ 
Kaho Nānak sacẖ ḏẖi&shy;ā&shy;ī&shy;ai. 
Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord. 

ਸੁਚਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਾ ਸਚੁ ਪਾਈਐ ॥੨॥ 
सुचि होवै ता सचु पाईऐ ॥२॥ 
Sucẖ hovai ṯā sacẖ pā&shy;ī&shy;ai. ||2|| 
If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord. ||2||


----------



## eropa234

Dear Amar,

You have got the concept pat. There is no need to research further into what we should. Bhagat Kabirji says " learn the jewel of knowledge as the world is made up of dust" its the knowledge that will keep you alive for ever.

Inder Pal Singh


----------



## Randip Singh

Shaheediyan said:


> "Great post........and that part about Brahmins eating the Muslim food and wearing their clothes was in a book I was reading a couple of years ago. I will find the refrence and post it here."
> 
> No need to search through your books, Guru Ji has clearly made reference to this issue:
> 
> ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥
> सलोक मः १ ॥
> Salok mehlā 1.
> Shalok, First Mehl:
> 
> ਗਊ ਬਿਰਾਹਮਣ ਕਉ ਕਰੁ ਲਾਵਹੁ ਗੋਬਰਿ ਤਰਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥
> गऊ बिराहमण कउ करु लावहु गोबरि तरणु न जाई ॥
> Ga&shy;ū birāhmaṇ ka&shy;o kar lāvhu gobar ṯaraṇ na jā&shy;ī.
> They tax the cows and the Brahmins, but the cow-dung they apply to their kitchen will not save them.
> 
> ਧੋਤੀ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੈ ਜਪਮਾਲੀ ਧਾਨੁ ਮਲੇਛਾਂ ਖਾਈ ॥
> धोती टिका तै जपमाली धानु मलेछां खाई ॥
> Ḏẖoṯī tikā ṯai japmālī ḏẖān malėcẖẖāŉ kẖā&shy;ī.
> They wear their loin cloths, apply ritual frontal marks to their foreheads, and carry their rosaries, but they eat food with the Muslims.
> 
> ਅੰਤਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਭਾਈ ॥
> अंतरि पूजा पड़हि कतेबा संजमु तुरका भाई ॥
> Anṯar pūjā paṛeh kaṯėbā sanjam ṯurkā bẖā&shy;ī.
> O Siblings of Destiny, you perform devotional worship indoors, but read the Islamic sacred texts, and adopt the Muslim way of life.
> 
> ਛੋਡੀਲੇ ਪਾਖੰਡਾ ॥
> छोडीले पाखंडा ॥
> Cẖẖodīlė pākẖandā.
> Renounce your hypocrisy!
> 
> ਨਾਮਿ ਲਇਐ ਜਾਹਿ ਤਰੰਦਾ ॥੧॥
> नामि लइऐ जाहि तरंदा ॥१॥
> Nām la&shy;i&shy;ai jāhi ṯaranḏā. ||1||
> Taking the Naam, the Name of the Lord, you shall swim across. ||1||
> 
> ਮਃ ੧ ॥
> मः १ ॥
> Mehlā 1.
> First Mehl:
> 
> ਮਾਣਸ ਖਾਣੇ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਵਾਜ ॥
> माणस खाणे करहि निवाज ॥
> Māṇas kẖāṇė karahi nivāj.
> The man-eaters say their prayers.
> 
> ਛੁਰੀ ਵਗਾਇਨਿ ਤਿਨ ਗਲਿ ਤਾਗ ॥
> छुरी वगाइनि तिन गलि ताग ॥
> Cẖẖurī vagā&shy;in ṯin gal ṯāg.
> Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks.
> 
> ਤਿਨ ਘਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣ ਪੂਰਹਿ ਨਾਦ ॥
> तिन घरि ब्रहमण पूरहि नाद ॥
> Ŧin gẖar barahmaṇ pūreh nāḏ.
> In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch.
> 
> ਉਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਭਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਓਈ ਸਾਦ ॥
> उन्हा भि आवहि ओई साद ॥
> Unĥā bẖe āvahi o&shy;ī sāḏ.
> They too have the same taste.
> 
> ਕੂੜੀ ਰਾਸਿ ਕੂੜਾ ਵਾਪਾਰੁ ॥
> कूड़ी रासि कूड़ा वापारु ॥
> Kūṛī rās kūṛā vāpār.
> False is their capital, and false is their trade.
> 
> ਕੂੜੁ ਬੋਲਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥
> कूड़ु बोलि करहि आहारु ॥
> Kūṛ bol karahi āhār.
> Speaking falsehood, they take their food.
> 
> ਸਰਮ ਧਰਮ ਕਾ ਡੇਰਾ ਦੂਰਿ ॥
> सरम धरम का डेरा दूरि ॥
> Saram ḏẖaram kā dėrā ḏūr.
> The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them.
> 
> ਨਾਨਕ ਕੂੜੁ ਰਹਿਆ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ॥
> नानक कूड़ु रहिआ भरपूरि ॥
> Nānak kūṛ rahi&shy;ā bẖarpūr.
> O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood.
> 
> ਮਥੈ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੇੜਿ ਧੋਤੀ ਕਖਾਈ ॥
> मथै टिका तेड़ि धोती कखाई ॥
> Mathai tikā ṯėṛ ḏẖoṯī kakẖā&shy;ī.
> The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists;
> 
> ਹਥਿ ਛੁਰੀ ਜਗਤ ਕਾਸਾਈ ॥
> हथि छुरी जगत कासाई ॥
> Hath cẖẖurī jagaṯ kāsā&shy;ī.
> in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world!
> 
> ਨੀਲ ਵਸਤ੍ਰ ਪਹਿਰਿ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ॥
> नील वसत्र पहिरि होवहि परवाणु ॥
> Nīl vasṯar pahir hoveh parvāṇ.
> Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers.
> 
> ਮਲੇਛ ਧਾਨੁ ਲੇ ਪੂਜਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਣੁ ॥
> मलेछ धानु ले पूजहि पुराणु ॥
> Malėcẖẖ ḏẖān lė pūjeh purāṇ.
> Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas.
> 
> ਅਭਾਖਿਆ ਕਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਬਕਰਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥
> अभाखिआ का कुठा बकरा खाणा ॥
> Abẖākẖi&shy;ā kā kuṯẖā bakrā kẖāṇā.
> They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them,
> 
> ਚਉਕੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਕਿਸੈ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥
> चउके उपरि किसै न जाणा ॥
> Cẖa&shy;ukė upar kisai na jāṇā.
> but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas.
> 
> ਦੇ ਕੈ ਚਉਕਾ ਕਢੀ ਕਾਰ ॥
> दे कै चउका कढी कार ॥
> Ḏė kai cẖa&shy;ukā kadẖī kār.
> They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung.
> 
> ਉਪਰਿ ਆਇ ਬੈਠੇ ਕੂੜਿਆਰ ॥
> उपरि आइ बैठे कूड़िआर ॥
> Upar ā&shy;ė baiṯẖė kūṛi&shy;ār.
> The false come and sit within them.
> 
> ਮਤੁ ਭਿਟੈ ਵੇ ਮਤੁ ਭਿਟੈ ॥
> मतु भिटै वे मतु भिटै ॥
> Maṯ bẖitai vė maṯ bẖitai.
> They cry out, "Do not touch our food,
> 
> ਇਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਅਸਾਡਾ ਫਿਟੈ ॥
> इहु अंनु असाडा फिटै ॥
> Ih ann asādā fitai.
> this food of ours will be polluted!
> 
> ਤਨਿ ਫਿਟੈ ਫੇੜ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥
> तनि फिटै फेड़ करेनि ॥
> Ŧan fitai fėṛ karėn.
> But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds.
> 
> ਮਨਿ ਜੂਠੈ ਚੁਲੀ ਭਰੇਨਿ ॥
> मनि जूठै चुली भरेनि ॥
> Man jūṯẖai cẖulī bẖarėn.
> With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths.
> 
> ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚੁ ਧਿਆਈਐ ॥
> कहु नानक सचु धिआईऐ ॥
> Kaho Nānak sacẖ ḏẖi&shy;ā&shy;ī&shy;ai.
> Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord.
> 
> ਸੁਚਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਾ ਸਚੁ ਪਾਈਐ ॥੨॥
> सुचि होवै ता सचु पाईऐ ॥२॥
> Sucẖ hovai ṯā sacẖ pā&shy;ī&shy;ai. ||2||
> If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord. ||2||


 
Hi Shahediyan....thanks for the post. I am aware of this shabad, but I read some other eyewitness accounts somewhere of the behaviour of some Brahimns at the time of the Mughals. It was opportunist to say the least.


----------



## sikh Engineer

Shaheediyan said:


> "Interesting post and the appeasement that is done with the Halal ritual is unnecessary for a Sikh. Might I add such appeasement is unnecessary for any other forms of ritual."
> 
> Randip Singh Ji, are you aware of the long ritual invloved in the preperation of Mahaprasad, particularly as witnessed at Holla?
> 
> Do Sikhs not ardaas over langar and prasad before it is served?


 
dear brother 

sikh do ardras over langer but that is for thanks, and if that ardras is not performed then also we can consume that food but it will not be termed as langer or parsad but in case of  halal if that ritual in not performed then no muslim can consume it ???/. 
i would like to ask you  if u dont perform that ritual can u eat that flesh ???? sertianly not no muslim will eat it because let me explian you the real concept of halal
halal ritual is performed by fulfilling two things 

1.. reciting kalama 

2.. taking out blood 

now let me take case 1.. ( reciting kalma) they recite kalma because somewhere in their mind they think they r doing worng by killing that animal that is why they make allah happy by reciting his kalma and making it halal. then my question is i will do theft and recite kalma thus making that theft halal???? 

seondly the concept of taking out whole blood, which according to science and doctors is not possible even if u slaughter anmial by halal some part of blood remains inside.

thirdly i have a question how muslim will perform this ritual when they want to kill any bird for eating. acccording to me we use to shoot bird with bullet t o kill it how any muslim will perform this ritual. 

partically halal is not possible, it is possible only if you catch hold that animal or bird easily then u can perform that ritual .

on e thing that is always coming in my mind now days we all know that in slaughter houses slaughteriing is done by machine then who will recite kalma there ooooooooh i forget kalma is written there on knife look how they r changing the whole concept it means this ritual is not partically possible that is why it changed accordingly


----------



## Randip Singh

sikh Engineer said:


> dear brother
> 
> sikh do ardras over langer but that is for thanks, and if that ardras is not performed then also we can consume that food but it will not be termed as langer or parsad but in case of  halal if that ritual in not performed then no muslim can consume it ???/.
> i would like to ask you  if u dont perform that ritual can u eat that flesh ???? sertianly not no muslim will eat it because let me explian you the real concept of halal
> halal ritual is performed by fulfilling two things
> 
> 1.. reciting kalama
> 
> 2.. taking out blood
> 
> now let me take case 1.. ( reciting kalma) they recite kalma because somewhere in their mind they think they r doing worng by killing that animal that is why they make allah happy by reciting his kalma and making it halal. then my question is i will do theft and recite kalma thus making that theft halal????
> 
> seondly the concept of taking out whole blood, which according to science and doctors is not possible even if u slaughter anmial by halal some part of blood remains inside.
> 
> thirdly i have a question how muslim will perform this ritual when they want to kill any bird for eating. acccording to me we use to shoot bird with bullet t o kill it how any muslim will perform this ritual.
> 
> partically halal is not possible, it is possible only if you catch hold that animal or bird easily then u can perform that ritual .
> 
> on e thing that is always coming in my mind now days we all know that in slaughter houses slaughteriing is done by machine then who will recite kalma there ooooooooh i forget kalma is written there on knife look how they r changing the whole concept it means this ritual is not partically possible that is why it changed accordingly



I think in a round about way, it is what I am saying.

Ardas is like giving thanks. When a Sikh eats langaar, dinner (meat or vegetables), he/she does ardas to say thanks to God for the food.

Halal is like an apology for killing the animal.

The Sikh attitude is no apology, no hiding, we do everything in the open and we thank you God.:welcome:


----------



## sikh Engineer

Randip Singh said:


> I think in a round about way, it is what I am saying.
> 
> Ardas is like giving thanks. When a Sikh eats langaar, dinner (meat or vegetables), he/she does ardas to say thanks to God for the food.
> 
> Halal is like an apology for killing the animal.
> 
> The Sikh attitude is no apology, no hiding, we do everything in the open and we thank you God.:welcome:


I agree with you randip veer ji but what you think is halal is practically possible. the way animals r slaughter with machines in western countries is that process is halal?????


----------



## Bmandur

*Halal Or No Halal*

We are not going to debate on it however, Halal
How do you feel, when they bring the Goat (BAKRA) feed them for a time and when there is B-kra EID they cut Goan one vein so blood can came out drip by drip let the GOAT be in pain until his whole body lost the blood
That is HALAL mking you suffer and die

DO you want to EAT a Meat like that as like HALAL

in Sikh Reht Maryada say Do not eat meat as HALAL
It is my thinking: when I go out for hunting I hunt a fresh Animal I gave equal chance to run when We Hunt and we can see how we can Hunt, Cut and eat
Definatly after all that you will not be feel like eating any meat at all
Halal is tie a GOAT and let the goat die it self than eat

That is different between HALAL or no HALAL

May be I am wrong but thia is the fact

Thank you

Gurfateh


----------



## Randip Singh

*Re: Halal Or No Halal*



Bmandur said:


> We are not going to debate on it however, Halal
> How do you feel, when they bring the Goat (BAKRA) feed them for a time and when there is B-kra EID they cut Goan one vein so blood can came out drip by drip let the GOAT be in pain until his whole body lost the blood
> That is HALAL mking you suffer and die
> 
> DO you want to EAT a Meat like that as like HALAL
> 
> in Sikh Reht Maryada say Do not eat meat as HALAL
> It is my thinking: when I go out for hunting I hunt a fresh Animal I gave equal chance to run when We Hunt and we can see how we can Hunt, Cut and eat
> Definatly after all that you will not be feel like eating any meat at all
> Halal is tie a GOAT and let the goat die it self than eat
> 
> That is different between HALAL or no HALAL
> 
> May be I am wrong but thia is the fact
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Gurfateh


 
You are partially correct.

THere is a martial quality to being able to be able to take the head off a goat with one blow, much like a Samurai warrior.

However, we do not even have Bali (Hindu sacrifice), even though that is Jhatka because it is a sacrifice to God, or animal purification. We simply do not believe in sacrifice.

How can we purify that which has been created by God? Some Hindu and Sikh sects offer veg food to be purified by God. That would be exactly the same as Halal, and therefore unacceptable.


----------



## Bmandur

*Re: Halal or Not Halal: What is the Difference*

"Great post........and that part about Brahmins eating the Muslim food and wearing their clothes was in a book I was reading a couple of years ago. I will find the refrence and post it here."

No need to search through your books, Guru Ji has clearly made reference to this issue:

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 

Salok mehlā 1. 
Shalok, First Mehl: 

ਗਊ ਬਿਰਾਹਮਣ ਕਉ ਕਰੁ ਲਾਵਹੁ ਗੋਬਰਿ ਤਰਣੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥ 

Ga*ū birāhmaṇ ka*o kar lāvhu gobar ṯaraṇ na jā*ī. 
They tax the cows and the Brahmins, but the cow-dung they apply to their kitchen will not save them. 

ਧੋਤੀ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੈ ਜਪਮਾਲੀ ਧਾਨੁ ਮਲੇਛਾਂ ਖਾਈ ॥ 

Ḏẖoṯī tikā ṯai japmālī ḏẖān malėcẖẖāŉ kẖā*ī. 
They wear their loin cloths, apply ritual frontal marks to their foreheads, and carry their rosaries, but they eat food with the Muslims. 

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਪੂਜਾ ਪੜਹਿ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸੰਜਮੁ ਤੁਰਕਾ ਭਾਈ ॥ 

Anṯar pūjā paṛeh kaṯėbā sanjam ṯurkā bẖā*ī. 
O Siblings of Destiny, you perform devotional worship indoors, but read the Islamic sacred texts, and adopt the Muslim way of life. 

ਛੋਡੀਲੇ ਪਾਖੰਡਾ ॥ 

Cẖẖodīlė pākẖandā. 
Renounce your hypocrisy! 

ਨਾਮਿ ਲਇਐ ਜਾਹਿ ਤਰੰਦਾ ॥੧॥ 

Nām la*i*ai jāhi ṯaranḏā. ||1|| 
Taking the Naam, the Name of the Lord, you shall swim across. ||1|| 

ਮਃ ੧ ॥ 

Mehlā 1. 
First Mehl: 

ਮਾਣਸ ਖਾਣੇ ਕਰਹਿ ਨਿਵਾਜ ॥ 

Māṇas kẖāṇė karahi nivāj. 
The man-eaters say their prayers. 

ਛੁਰੀ ਵਗਾਇਨਿ ਤਿਨ ਗਲਿ ਤਾਗ ॥ 

Cẖẖurī vagā*in ṯin gal ṯāg. 
Those who wield the knife wear the sacred thread around their necks. 

ਤਿਨ ਘਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਣ ਪੂਰਹਿ ਨਾਦ ॥ 

Ŧin gẖar barahmaṇ pūreh nāḏ. 
In their homes, the Brahmins sound the conch. 

ਉਨ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ ਭਿ ਆਵਹਿ ਓਈ ਸਾਦ ॥ 

Unĥā bẖe āvahi o*ī sāḏ. 
They too have the same taste. 

ਕੂੜੀ ਰਾਸਿ ਕੂੜਾ ਵਾਪਾਰੁ ॥ 

Kūṛī rās kūṛā vāpār. 
False is their capital, and false is their trade. 

ਕੂੜੁ ਬੋਲਿ ਕਰਹਿ ਆਹਾਰੁ ॥ 

Kūṛ bol karahi āhār. 
Speaking falsehood, they take their food. 

ਸਰਮ ਧਰਮ ਕਾ ਡੇਰਾ ਦੂਰਿ ॥ 

Saram ḏẖaram kā dėrā ḏūr. 
The home of modesty and Dharma is far from them. 

ਨਾਨਕ ਕੂੜੁ ਰਹਿਆ ਭਰਪੂਰਿ ॥ 

Nānak kūṛ rahi*ā bẖarpūr. 
O Nanak, they are totally permeated with falsehood. 

ਮਥੈ ਟਿਕਾ ਤੇੜਿ ਧੋਤੀ ਕਖਾਈ ॥ 

Mathai tikā ṯėṛ ḏẖoṯī kakẖā*ī. 
The sacred marks are on their foreheads, and the saffron loin-cloths are around their waists; 

ਹਥਿ ਛੁਰੀ ਜਗਤ ਕਾਸਾਈ ॥ 

Hath cẖẖurī jagaṯ kāsā*ī. 
in their hands they hold the knives - they are the butchers of the world! 

ਨੀਲ ਵਸਤ੍ਰ ਪਹਿਰਿ ਹੋਵਹਿ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ॥ 

Nīl vasṯar pahir hoveh parvāṇ. 
Wearing blue robes, they seek the approval of the Muslim rulers. 

ਮਲੇਛ ਧਾਨੁ ਲੇ ਪੂਜਹਿ ਪੁਰਾਣੁ ॥ 

Malėcẖẖ ḏẖān lė pūjeh purāṇ. 
Accepting bread from the Muslim rulers, they still worship the Puraanas. 

ਅਭਾਖਿਆ ਕਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਬਕਰਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥ 

Abẖākẖi*ā kā kuṯẖā bakrā kẖāṇā. 
They eat the meat of the goats, killed after the Muslim prayers are read over them, 

ਚਉਕੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਕਿਸੈ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥ 

Cẖa*ukė upar kisai na jāṇā. 
but they do not allow anyone else to enter their kitchen areas. 

ਦੇ ਕੈ ਚਉਕਾ ਕਢੀ ਕਾਰ ॥ 

Ḏė kai cẖa*ukā kadẖī kār. 
They draw lines around them, plastering the ground with cow-dung. 

ਉਪਰਿ ਆਇ ਬੈਠੇ ਕੂੜਿਆਰ ॥ 

Upar ā*ė baiṯẖė kūṛi*ār. 
The false come and sit within them. 

ਮਤੁ ਭਿਟੈ ਵੇ ਮਤੁ ਭਿਟੈ ॥ 

Maṯ bẖitai vė maṯ bẖitai. 
They cry out, "Do not touch our food, 

ਇਹੁ ਅੰਨੁ ਅਸਾਡਾ ਫਿਟੈ ॥ 

Ih ann asādā fitai. 
this food of ours will be polluted! 

ਤਨਿ ਫਿਟੈ ਫੇੜ ਕਰੇਨਿ ॥ 

Ŧan fitai fėṛ karėn. 
But with their polluted bodies, they commit evil deeds. 

ਮਨਿ ਜੂਠੈ ਚੁਲੀ ਭਰੇਨਿ ॥ 

Man jūṯẖai cẖulī bẖarėn. 
With filthy minds, they try to cleanse their mouths. 

ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਚੁ ਧਿਆਈਐ ॥ 

Kaho Nānak sacẖ ḏẖi*ā*ī*ai. 
Says Nanak, meditate on the True Lord. 

ਸੁਚਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਤਾ ਸਚੁ ਪਾਈਐ ॥੨॥ 

Sucẖ hovai ṯā sacẖ pā*ī*ai. ||2|| 
If you are pure, you will obtain the True Lord. ||2|| [/

*mws mws kir mUrK Jgry*y

Gurfateh:happykaur:


----------



## Zahim Nasir

Why are you discussing why or how the Islamic ritual procedure for preparing meat huh?

If you don't agree with it as your texts prohibit, do you want halal or something??:2:
 I read there is lots of ambivalence in your meat issues, at least in Islam we don't have this problem....

khodaa negahdorr


----------



## Bmandur

Zahim Nasir ji
Gurfateh Parwaan.
Will you please read my quote just above so  you can understand.
We are not here to say any about what Islam said.
We are just giving our oppinion thats all but from Our Guru Granth Sahib thats all

So texts is Great
Bhul CHuk Maaf

*mws mws kir mUrK Jgry*y


Gurfateh Parwaan JI:happykaur:


----------



## spnadmin

Zahim Nasir said:


> Why are you discussing why or how the Islamic ritual procedure for preparing meat huh?
> 
> If you don't agree with it as your texts prohibit, do you want halal or something??:2:
> I read there is lots of ambivalence in your meat issues, at least in Islam we don't have this problem....
> 
> khodaa negahdorr



Zahim ji

What looks like ambivalence is not ambivalence. It is a fact that there are different points of view within Sikhism. That indicates that Sikhs are diverse, and it is a tenet of Sikhism to encourage discussion rather than to suppress it.

The time to be worried is when Sikhs impose an iron rule on thought and  discussions -- it happens without a doubt. However -- there is One God in Sikhism -- who enjoys the diversity of His Creation -- or he would not have made it diverse in the first place.


----------



## Randip Singh

Zahim Nasir said:


> Why are you discussing why or how the Islamic ritual procedure for preparing meat huh?
> 
> If you don't agree with it as your texts prohibit, do you want halal or something??:2:
> I read there is lots of ambivalence in your meat issues, at least in Islam we don't have this problem....
> 
> khodaa negahdorr



Zahim ji,

Firstly understand the topic.

Although we are discussing Halal, the word used in Sikhism is Kuttha, which refers to all "ritual" sacrifice. Rituals can include Halal, Kosher, and even Bali (i.e. Hindu sacrifice).

For a Sikh to eat things that go through purification rituals is forbidden, be it meat, or even vegetable.

In Sikhism however, many people are performing purification rituals themselves wrongly. They confuse Ardas (a blessing), with purification.

This is in no way an indictment of what Muslims choose to do, but at the same time, a Sikh sees any such rituals as sacrifice.

It is also untrue Muslims do not have issues over meatm, for example Pork is forbidden. For a Sikh none is forbidden. For a Muslim a Fish is consider already Halal, etc.

Also Narayanjot ji is correct, the is a lot of debate around the meat issue but from wht I understand in Islam there are many sects with varying views.

Best Wishes


----------



## manny123

From a biological point of view, I would like to say that eating any non halal or kosher meat can actually be quite bad. The big supermarket chains produce meats on a mass level and as a result feed growth hormones to the animals (basically injecting a dead animal into a live one in order for it to grow rapidly). These growth hormones are not healthy for human consumption over a period of time - any meat that has been reared in this way and consumed by human's is one of the main causes of cancer (especially bowel and breast cancer) and other diseases, not to mention how unhealthy processed meat is. The supermarket chains have no concern for the health of the masses, they just look to make as much money as possible. 
The concept of feeding growth hormones in Islam as well as Judaism is not an acceptable type of meat to be eaten, i.e. haram. (Islam forbids the eating of carnivorous animals and Judaism, as with Islam, forbids eating the blood of an animal). God has therefore protected them from these diseases which were relatively unheard of before the mass production of meat in this way.
Therefore I believe if you are going to eat meat, kosher or halal is a lot more healthier. I do not believe the prayers said are a bad thing. If Sikh's accept anyone in the Gurduwara to say the Sikh prayer on the basis that God is one then it makes no difference who says the prayer, the prayer is still to God, Satnam, the creator of everyone, Sikh, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc etc. I understand the ritualistic issue, but as Guru Nanak Ji said, the topic of what one eat's isn't a big issue, so I think if it's healthier to eat the meat where the animal's have been reared with care, I cannot see the problem.
But I must say to Zahir Ji, there is no point in getting offended by what is a discussion. There should not be any animosity between Sikh's, Muslim's, Hindu's, Christians, Jew's etc etc. We are all equally God's children and no one is disrespecting any religion, just debating what is good to put into our bodies - there are many websites on the internet which glorify sex, drugs, alcohol, murders etc etc. Offence should be taken there and not here. I for one have a lot of respect for the religion of Islam and feel hurt by the injustices that the religion is being faced with at the moment. It does not help your cause if the moment your religion is being mentioned you get defensive. You should promote peace by explaining your view and not anomosity by getting defensive.


----------



## Randip Singh

manny123 said:


> From a biological point of view, I would like to say that eating any non halal or kosher meat can actually be quite bad. The big supermarket chains produce meats on a mass level and as a result feed growth hormones to the animals (basically injecting a dead animal into a live one in order for it to grow rapidly). These growth hormones are not healthy for human consumption over a period of time - any meat that has been reared in this way and consumed by human's is one of the main causes of cancer (especially bowel and breast cancer) and other diseases, not to mention how unhealthy processed meat is. The supermarket chains have no concern for the health of the masses, they just look to make as much money as possible.
> The concept of feeding growth hormones in Islam as well as Judaism is not an acceptable type of meat to be eaten, i.e. haram. (Islam forbids the eating of carnivorous animals and Judaism, as with Islam, forbids eating the blood of an animal). God has therefore protected them from these diseases which were relatively unheard of before the mass production of meat in this way.



Manny, no offence but that is pure hogwash. Draining of blood will NOT get rid of impurities. Any hormones will be in the muscle.

Bowel cancer is caused by many factors. No one knows the exact causes. Red meat has been known to contribute and Muslims tend to be big red meat eaters.

Again breast cancer, is linked to many things.



manny123 said:


> Therefore I believe if you are going to eat meat, kosher or halal is a lot more healthier. I do not believe the prayers said are a bad thing. If Sikh's accept anyone in the Gurduwara to say the Sikh prayer on the basis that God is one then it makes no difference who says the prayer, the prayer is still to God, Satnam, the creator of everyone, Sikh, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc etc. I understand the ritualistic issue, but as Guru Nanak Ji said, the topic of what one eat's isn't a big issue, so I think if it's healthier to eat the meat where the animal's have been reared with care, I cannot see the problem.



More hogwash.

Do you understand what trauma is?

If you do then you would know what the Halal method does.



manny123 said:


> But I must say to Zahir Ji, there is no point in getting offended by what is a discussion. There should not be any animosity between Sikh's, Muslim's, Hindu's, Christians, Jew's etc etc. We are all equally God's children and no one is disrespecting any religion, just debating what is good to put into our bodies - there are many websites on the internet which glorify sex, drugs, alcohol, murders etc etc. Offence should be taken there and not here. I for one have a lot of respect for the religion of Islam and feel hurt by the injustices that the religion is being faced with at the moment. It does not help your cause if the moment your religion is being mentioned you get defensive. You should promote peace by explaining your view and not anomosity by getting defensive.



Its not about being offensive, but the Guru's view on ritualism. Accept it and move on.


----------



## manny123

Just for clarity Randip Singh Ji, please can you confirm the following:

1)  Are you saying it is better for everyone to eat genetically modified meat rather than kosher or halal purely because of the prayers that are said on it?  Please note, if you are able to find a producer of meat which is definitely organic, then great.  My point is, at least with Kosher or halal, you always know what you are getting!

2)  Is it therefore your opinion there are no dangers in meat with these growth hormones?

In conclusion, I would suggest that those who eat meat and do not wish to eat kosher or halal meat should either buy meat from reputable organic producers (make sure you get a conclusive guarantee) - if this is not possible, or too expensive, I would suggest going vegetarian.


----------



## Randip Singh

manny123 said:


> Just for clarity Randip Singh Ji, please can you confirm the following:
> 
> 1)  Are you saying it is better for everyone to eat genetically modified meat rather than kosher or halal purely because of the prayers that are said on it?  Please note, if you are able to find a producer of meat which is definitely organic, then great.  My point is, at least with Kosher or halal, you always know what you are getting!
> 
> 2)  Is it therefore your opinion there are no dangers in meat with these growth hormones?
> 
> In conclusion, I would suggest that those who eat meat and do not wish to eat kosher or halal meat should either buy meat from reputable organic producers (make sure you get a conclusive guarantee) - if this is not possible, or too expensive, I would suggest going vegetarian.



On Point the points:

1) No I am not sayin gentically modified food is better and you are wrong if you think Halal is not genetically modified or pumped full of hormones. You *do not know* where you are are getting Halal, or Kosher from.

2) Me personally I would avoid hormone treated meat and vegetables and go for organic.

I agree on the organic point but are you saying going vegetarian will proclude you from chemical, hormones etc? In anycase what is a vegetable, and what is a "true" vegetarian?


----------



## manny123

Absolutely - I do not buy my veg from the supermarket.  I go to either the local grocery shop (yes, the halal shop!) or to the farmers market.  In a supermarket, a tomato may look like a tomato but may not actually be!  I don't go to the supermarkets for anything anymore!


----------



## Randip Singh

manny123 said:


> Absolutely - I do not buy my veg from the supermarket. I go to either the local grocery shop (yes, the halal shop!) or to the farmers market. In a supermarket, a tomato may look like a tomato but may not actually be! I don't go to the supermarkets for anything anymore!


 
I find my vege's and fruit from supermarkets spoil quicker. Is that to do with the way they are stored too?


----------



## Zahim Nasir

manny123 said:


> From a biological point of view, I would like to say that eating any non halal or kosher meat can actually be quite bad. The big supermarket chains produce meats on a mass level and as a result feed growth hormones to the animals (basically injecting a dead animal into a live one in order for it to grow rapidly). These growth hormones are not healthy for human consumption over a period of time - any meat that has been reared in this way and consumed by human's is one of the main causes of cancer (especially bowel and breast cancer) and other diseases, not to mention how unhealthy processed meat is. The supermarket chains have no concern for the health of the masses, they just look to make as much money as possible.
> The concept of feeding growth hormones in Islam as well as Judaism is not an acceptable type of meat to be eaten, i.e. haram. (Islam forbids the eating of carnivorous animals and Judaism, as with Islam, forbids eating the blood of an animal). God has therefore protected them from these diseases which were relatively unheard of before the mass production of meat in this way.
> Therefore I believe if you are going to eat meat, kosher or halal is a lot more healthier. I do not believe the prayers said are a bad thing. If Sikh's accept anyone in the Gurduwara to say the Sikh prayer on the basis that God is one then it makes no difference who says the prayer, the prayer is still to God, Satnam, the creator of everyone, Sikh, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc etc. I understand the ritualistic issue, but as Guru Nanak Ji said, the topic of what one eat's isn't a big issue, so I think if it's healthier to eat the meat where the animal's have been reared with care, I cannot see the problem.
> But I must say to Zahir Ji, there is no point in getting offended by what is a discussion. There should not be any animosity between Sikh's, Muslim's, Hindu's, Christians, Jew's etc etc. We are all equally God's children and no one is disrespecting any religion, just debating what is good to put into our bodies - there are many websites on the internet which glorify sex, drugs, alcohol, murders etc etc. Offence should be taken there and not here. I for one have a lot of respect for the religion of Islam and feel hurt by the injustices that the religion is being faced with at the moment. It does not help your cause if the moment your religion is being mentioned you get defensive. You should promote peace by explaining your view and not anomosity by getting defensive.



Manny, 
much of what you say makes sense, btw I'm Zahim not Zahir !

Anyway I suspected there is ambivalence vis-a-vis Sikh diet and I think I am right by just looking at this thread, it doesn't take a genius to see that...

From what I can make out Sikhs ain't supposed to eat halal, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of 'you' broke the rule? But I'm not judging, just simply observing a comparison...

A trend among some muslims (not Islam) is as you mentioned is to avoid meat these days since it can carry all kinds of virus or bacteria but the supermarkets probably couldn't care less. Supermarkets do sell halal for those of you looking to sneak one in!! I only eat halal or no meat at all, we would certainly never eat meat slaughtered by a Sikh or Hindu or Jew.


----------



## Randip Singh

Zahim Nasir said:


> Manny,
> much of what you say makes sense, btw I'm Zahim not Zahir !
> 
> Anyway I suspected there is ambivalence vis-a-vis Sikh diet and I think I am right by just looking at this thread, it doesn't take a genius to see that...



There is no ambivalence. Its a personal choice.  



Zahim Nasir said:


> From what I can make out Sikhs ain't supposed to eat halal, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of 'you' broke the rule? But I'm not judging, just simply observing a comparison...



We don't eat any ritually sacrificed meat or foods given as some sort of purification.



Zahim Nasir said:


> A trend among some muslims (not Islam) is as you mentioned is to avoid meat these days since it can carry all kinds of virus or bacteria but the supermarkets probably couldn't care less.



Is this from Halal butchers? Their hygiene seems real bad.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/cdph/issues/CDPHVol2/no2/environ.pdf



Zahim Nasir said:


> Supermarkets do sell halal for those of you looking to sneak one in!!



No one wants to sneak one in. Sikhs do not sneak and anymore such trolling will result in a warning and a block.




Zahim Nasir said:


> I only eat halal or no meat at all, we would certainly never eat meat slaughtered by a Sikh or Hindu or Jew.



Likewise, a Sikh would never dream of eating ritually sacrificed meat that has been offered in some sort of purification ritual linked to the near killing of Abrahams Son!!!  :yes:


----------



## Tejwant Singh

> I only eat halal or no meat at all, we would certainly never eat meat slaughtered by a Sikh or Hindu or Jew.


Halal and kosher are one and the same. Both are used as sacrifices to please their  same Abrahamic God. Hating one's own ancestors, is not the way nor is it wise  to breed peace and love within in this manner. It exposes person's own insecurities.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## oracle1

The only one here who seems to be speaking any sense is Manny.Zahim,Kosher meat is lawful for muslims and the notion that a Sikh or Hindu would slaughter an animal is laughable.As for Tejwant and his comparison of slaughtering an animal the islamic way to a ritual is hogwash,to coin a phrase Randip is so fond of.The throat is cut in that manner because it is now scientfically proven to be the least painful way,Gods name is said to thank him for the animal he has created for our sustenance.Tejwant please read the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of ritual and please do not make up a meaning to illustarte a point.As for referring to the one god as Abrahamic,it is the same one god you pray to,God has said that he is the creator and he is the one to judge our differences.Zahim, Tejwantand Randip please do not make up facts about a religion which you clearly do not have a full understanding of.It is incumbent upon muslims and Sikhs to search for the truth,i suggest this would be a good course of action for you all.Congratulations Manny for your objective and fact based comments


----------



## Randip Singh

oracle1 said:


> The only one here who seems to be speaking any sense is Manny.Zahim,Kosher meat is lawful for muslims and the notion that a Sikh or Hindu would slaughter an animal is laughable.


 
Sikhs regularly Jhatka Animals.

Infact it is done so at Hazoor Sahib:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8gUr9fIKc




oracle1 said:


> As for Tejwant and his comparison of slaughtering an animal the islamic way to a ritual is hogwash,to coin a phrase Randip is so fond of.




So why have Halal if it is not a ritual. By Zahim’s own admission it is to emulate the sacrifice of Ishmael to God. Why are you in denial?



oracle1 said:


> The throat is cut in that manner because it is now scientfically proven to be the least painful way,Gods name is said to thank him for the animal he has created for our sustenance.




Talk is cheap.

Please furnish articles from *reputable* sources that prove this.

Not mumbo jumbo from zealots.



oracle1 said:


> Tejwant please read the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of ritual and please do not make up a meaning to illustarte a point.As for referring to the one god as Abrahamic,it is the same one god you pray to,God has said that he is the creator and he is the one to judge our differences.




So when a goat is killed it is not a Quarbani, or Bismil? It is not a sacrifice? Are you saying Halal is in effect meaningless and Muslims can eat any meat? The Prophet Mohammed created the meaningless method of ritual slaughter called halal?

This seems to suggest Halal means ritually Pure:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/halal

*2.*
*halal* - conforming to dietary laws; "halal meat"; "a halal kitchen" 
Mohammedanism, Muhammadanism, Muslimism, Islam, Islamism - the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran; "Islam is a complete way of life, not a Sunday religion"; "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion"
clean - ritually clean or pure


Even Wikipedia states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal

on what is forbidden:

_Animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but Allah._

Even the Halal food Authority talks about “sacrificing an animal”

http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/definitionhalal.html



oracle1 said:


> Zahim, Tejwantand Randip please do not make up facts about a religion which you clearly do not have a full understanding of.It is incumbent upon muslims and Sikhs to search for the truth,i suggest this would be a good course of action for you all.Congratulations Manny for your objective and fact based comments




Actually I have many Muslim friends and they are at least truthful. They are the ones who have told me that Halal is specific form of ritual sacrifice intended to emulate the sacrifice of Ishmael (if you are Muslim), Isaac (if you are Jewish).


----------



## oracle1

Randip ji,the jatkha is a ritual,please explain the significance of killing a goat in that manner in a temple and then wiping its blood on swords.
What Zahim is explqaining to you is qurbani eid,which yes does signify the prophet Abrahams actions to prove his belief in God.Not halal food which is killed for neccesity and in the manner i have described,this is a mistake on Zahims part,so we have a situation of the blind leading the blind.
Reputable source for you is Hanover university where trials were conducted with eeg and ecg monitors connected when the 2 types of killing were done.
There is nothing meaningless about the halal way of killing,it is designed to protect you,so please do not put words in my nmouth,if you are unable to understand then just ask for clarification.
I am assuming that you do understand thatAllah is arabic for god as satnam is punjabi for god,so with this clarification please re-read the Wikipedia definition on which you place such high regard.


----------



## spnadmin

"Sat" "Nam" is Sanskrit and has a meaning that is broader than "God" as a personality.

The jatkha of goats is a practice within one tradition of Sikhism and is not universal nor even commonly employed within most of the panth.


----------



## Randip Singh

oracle1 said:


> Randip ji,the jatkha is a ritual,please explain the significance of killing a goat in that manner in a temple and then wiping its blood on swords.



Jhatka just means one blow (which the video demostrates).

What follows in the video is ShastarTilak ( a ritual). This ritual has no meaning in Sikhi.



oracle1 said:


> What Zahim is explqaining to you is qurbani eid,which yes does signify the prophet Abrahams actions to prove his belief in God.Not halal food which is killed for neccesity and in the manner i have described,this is a mistake on Zahims part,so we have a situation of the blind leading the blind.




No its not because The Halal food authority that I linked above describes Halal as such.

Halal Food Authority: Definition Of Halal (About HFA)

_Apart from slaughtering methods we have to ensure that the animals for the *Islamic ritual slaughter* are raised and procured from farms_



oracle1 said:


> Reputable source for you is Hanover university where trials were conducted with eeg and ecg monitors connected when the 2 types of killing were done.



Talk is cheap.

Please furnish links and evidence.



oracle1 said:


> There is nothing meaningless about the halal way of killing,it is designed to protect you,so please do not put words in my nmouth,if you are unable to understand then just ask for clarification.



Correction.

There is nothing meaningless about Halal for a Muslim. Halal is meaningless however for every other religion on the planet. For a Sikh Halal is forbidden.





oracle1 said:


> I am assuming that you do understand thatAllah is arabic for god as satnam is punjabi for god,so with this clarification please re-read the Wikipedia definition on which you place such high regard.



The wikipedia definition clearly refers to Halal as a ritual.


----------



## oracle1

The ritual has to have meaning for it to take place.
We can argue on definitions of ritual,halal is a way of killing during which gods name is taken in thanks .
It is not talk,if you desitre the knowledge,seek and ye shall find.
For a sikh meat is forbidden,yet sikhs will say it is ok to eat pork but let us not eat halal.
I think that rather than put so much energy into the halal debate i for one would be happier if sikhs would adress the issues of alcohol and other damaging behaviour amongst sikhs.I would be happy if sikhs lived their life according to guru nanak,because then there would be peace and understanding


----------



## sikh Engineer

Zahim Nasir said:


> Why are you discussing why or how the Islamic ritual procedure for preparing meat huh?
> 
> If you don't agree with it as your texts prohibit, do you want halal or something??:2:
> I read there is lots of ambivalence in your meat issues, at least in Islam we don't have this problem....
> 
> khodaa negahdorr


 
dear friend

we r discussing it bcoz you people are making fool of yourself and others by saying that its is scientific


----------



## sikh Engineer

oracle1 said:


> The ritual has to have meaning for it to take place.
> We can argue on definitions of ritual,halal is a way of killing during which gods name is taken in thanks .
> It is not talk,if you desitre the knowledge,seek and ye shall find.
> For a sikh meat is forbidden,yet sikhs will say it is ok to eat pork but let us not eat halal.
> I think that rather than put so much energy into the halal debate i for one would be happier if sikhs would adress the issues of alcohol and other damaging behaviour amongst sikhs.I would be happy if sikhs lived their life according to guru nanak,because then there would be peace and understanding


 
dear brother 

if halal is not a ritual and its thanks given to god for the food he has given to you then without giving thanks to god can you still eat animal ???? or let me put in this way do you thanks god when you cut vegetables also to mak e  that vegetable  halal or halal is only associated to slaughtering animal ??/ 

brother go back to your book and giive me answer to this question

IS HALAL IS ONLY ASSOCIATED TO SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMAL ONLY ????


----------



## sikh Engineer

manny123 said:


> From a biological point of view, I would like to say that eating any non halal or kosher meat can actually be quite bad. The big supermarket chains produce meats on a mass level and as a result feed growth hormones to the animals (basically injecting a dead animal into a live one in order for it to grow rapidly). These growth hormones are not healthy for human consumption over a period of time - any meat that has been reared in this way and consumed by human's is one of the main causes of cancer (especially bowel and breast cancer) and other diseases, not to mention how unhealthy processed meat is. The supermarket chains have no concern for the health of the masses, they just look to make as much money as possible.
> The concept of feeding growth hormones in Islam as well as Judaism is not an acceptable type of meat to be eaten, i.e. haram. (Islam forbids the eating of carnivorous animals and Judaism, as with Islam, forbids eating the blood of an animal). God has therefore protected them from these diseases which were relatively unheard of before the mass production of meat in this way.
> Therefore I believe if you are going to eat meat, kosher or halal is a lot more healthier. I do not believe the prayers said are a bad thing. If Sikh's accept anyone in the Gurduwara to say the Sikh prayer on the basis that God is one then it makes no difference who says the prayer, the prayer is still to God, Satnam, the creator of everyone, Sikh, Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc etc. I understand the ritualistic issue, but as Guru Nanak Ji said, the topic of what one eat's isn't a big issue, so I think if it's healthier to eat the meat where the animal's have been reared with care, I cannot see the problem.
> But I must say to Zahir Ji, there is no point in getting offended by what is a discussion. There should not be any animosity between Sikh's, Muslim's, Hindu's, Christians, Jew's etc etc. We are all equally God's children and no one is disrespecting any religion, just debating what is good to put into our bodies - there are many websites on the internet which glorify sex, drugs, alcohol, murders etc etc. Offence should be taken there and not here. I for one have a lot of respect for the religion of Islam and feel hurt by the injustices that the religion is being faced with at the moment. It does not help your cause if the moment your religion is being mentioned you get defensive. You should promote peace by explaining your view and not anomosity by getting defensive.


]
dear oracle 

what u r saying from biological point of view by not eating halal is bad... why you think so ?/ tel me what is the scientific fanda behind halal. 


you have very rightly pointed *The big supermarket chains produce meats on a mass level and as a result feed growth hormones to the animals (basically injecting a dead animal into a live one in order for it to grow rapidly). *but did you ever thought why they feed hormones yes again you r right for it to grow rapidly.but why these big super market want to sell this hormone injected meat, infact they dont have other choice the demand is so huge to fulfill that demand the persons who do farming to these animals cant cope up the market demand that is why they want their animal shud grow fastely thus injecting of hormones comes into picture. but let me ask you one question why this demand is increasing did you ever thought of it it is because the  population is increasing  day by day,and if u see the numbers of population of muslims r increasing more as compared to others bcoz in islam control in birth is haram which is practically non scientific, if popluation is not controlled the resources will decreases that is why to produce more and more animals hormones injection r being used????/ *now good scientific sense is* *prevalling in all* * scientific muslim brothers , slowly and slowly  they r doing ** family planning:yes:*
now listen to clear your misconception halal meat is not free from hormones ok even the vegetables we eat today is infected with chemicals bccause our earth cannot produce more and more as per need of our growing population, that is why we put chemicals ( UREA) in ground to produce more and more crops, vegetables.

lastly i would say prophet mohmmd had made blunder by not telling you people to do family planning.


why you think halal is more healthier???? give any reason or logical behind it. it is good to say prayer but why especially when you slaughter  animal and not when u cut vegetable ?????

I need your view's and comments hope you wil   not mind ???


----------



## oracle1

engineer saab,
firstly it is manny who has posted the thread you are commenting upon.No problem though as the points you are raising come within the scope of my personal education.Halal meat is healthier because its method of rearing is natural and not like the big chains.You attribute the need for speedy growth to the increase in demand,this is not the case.The need for speedy production is more to do with profit maximisation. 
Anti globalisation protesters are aware of the need by the corporations for excessive profits at all costs including human.It is the world bank who forced Indian farmers to sparay their crops in return for their so called help and therebt poisoning a whole population.
Secondly,drawing upon my knowledge of biology the purging of the blood reduces the possibility of catching any disease,this is not an earth shattering statement by myself but common knowledge to anyone educated to a reasonable standard.
The birth control issue if we compare 2 neighbours applies to India,a predominately Hindu country and majority non meat eater, more than Pakistan,a muslim country and meat eater.The majority of meat consumed is in the west,and it is these consumers who requiire a huge volume of food and at a cheap price which is doing the damage.India has an army which is equal to the entire population of Pakistan.Birth control is not banned in Islam and has always been practised.
 Muslims  not only thank god when they cut vegetables but also when thry  eat them,regrdless of any differences in monotheistic religion,there is i hope one consensus,god has created and provided everything.
Zahim,i have always said from the beggining that islam does not say it is scientific,but that science has tested the contents and has to agree with them.Do not think for one moment that science was testing for noble purposes,their aim was more to discredit the religion.All religion has scientists as enemies,because science believes in the religion of creationism,but they only succeed in explaining the mechanics and not who created.Up to today science has been unable to produce even a single cell being,all they can do is copy gods work.


----------



## Randip Singh

oracle1 said:


> The ritual has to have meaning for it to take place.





oracle1 said:


> We can argue on definitions of ritual,halal is a way of killing during which gods name is taken in thanks .




The crux of the issue is that you have a problem with Halal being described as a ritual, or sacrifice. I think I have provided enough evidence to prove that it is one. All be it one of purification/permissibility.



oracle1 said:


> It is not talk,if you desitre the knowledge,seek and ye shall find.




The same applies to you.

You have yet to furnish one piece of evidence.



oracle1 said:


> For a sikh meat is forbidden,yet sikhs will say it is ok to eat pork but let us not eat halal.




NO

Meat is not forbidden for a Sikh. It is a personal choice.

There are various Sects/Cults/ within Sikhism that insist on Vegetarianism within Sikhi.

In Islam I understand there are many sects too, and ones that disagree on many issues.



oracle1 said:


> I think that rather than put so much energy into the halal debate i for one would be happier if sikhs would adress the issues of alcohol and other damaging behaviour amongst sikhs.I would be happy if sikhs lived their life according to guru nanak,because then there would be peace and understanding




We have no problem for Halal. We are happy for mUslims to carry on eating Halal. The only thing we ask is for Muslims to respect other faiths and not force them to have Halal too. If others chose to have “Haram”, that is there business. Would you not agree?

On the point of Alcohol, you are correct, but the issue of drugs and alcohol affects Muslims too in vast numbers. I do voluntary work in that sector, and I find many Muslims who have problems in that area.:welcome:


----------



## Zahim Nasir

oracle1 said:


> The only one here who seems to be speaking any sense is Manny.Zahim,Kosher meat is lawful for muslims and the notion that a Sikh or Hindu would slaughter an animal is laughable.As for Tejwant and his comparison of slaughtering an animal the islamic way to a ritual is hogwash,to coin a phrase Randip is so fond of.The throat is cut in that manner because it is now scientfically proven to be the least painful way,Gods name is said to thank him for the animal he has created for our sustenance.Tejwant please read the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of ritual and please do not make up a meaning to illustarte a point.As for referring to the one god as Abrahamic,it is the same one god you pray to,God has said that he is the creator and he is the one to judge our differences.Zahim, Tejwantand Randip please do not make up facts about a religion which you clearly do not have a full understanding of.It is incumbent upon muslims and Sikhs to search for the truth,i suggest this would be a good course of action for you all.Congratulations Manny for your objective and fact based comments



Sorry Oracle, I got lost with the overwhelming fluff since I last posted. There are common rules Jews have with Shia such as not eating Shellfish, whereas in Sunni Islam all seafood is halal, yet within the Hanafi school of thought, the stronger position is that shellfish (shrimp, lobster, crab, clams, etc.) are prohibited. But in the other three schools (Malaki, Shafi, Hanbali) crab and lobster are permissible.

As for the sikh, I dont know what space there is to decide for oneself what is ethical ?


----------



## Tejwant Singh

Zahim Nasir said:


> Sorry Oracle, I got lost with the overwhelming fluff since I last posted. There are common rules Jews have with Shia such as not eating Shellfish, whereas in Sunni Islam all seafood is halal, yet within the Hanafi school of thought, the stronger position is that shellfish (shrimp, lobster, crab, clams, etc.) are prohibited. But in the other three schools (Malaki, Shafi, Hanbali) crab and lobster are permissible.
> 
> *As for the sikh, I dont know what space there is to decide for oneself what is ethical ?*



Zahim,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the post and your post is the proof that you got it all upside down. According to you it is in Islam and its different schools of thought. They are the one who decide what is ethical and what is not which is very confusing and also misleading at the same time because all this is based on man made dogmas.For some Muslims the same is Halal and for the others the same is Haram.

Thanks for showing the total lack of ethics in Islam in such an open and honest manner. The left hand has no idea what the right one is doing.

As far as Sikhi is concerned, Jhatka and all seafood is OK to eat so there are no dubious lines in the sand as in Islam the way you have explained it so beautifully.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## sikh Engineer

oracle1 said:


> engineer saab,
> firstly it is manny who has posted the thread you are commenting upon.No problem though as the points you are raising come within the scope of my personal education.Halal meat is healthier because its method of rearing is natural and not like the big chains.You attribute the need for speedy growth to the increase in demand,this is not the case.The need for speedy production is more to do with profit maximisation.
> Anti globalisation protesters are aware of the need by the corporations for excessive profits at all costs including human.It is the world bank who forced Indian farmers to sparay their crops in return for their so called help and therebt poisoning a whole population.
> Secondly,drawing upon my knowledge of biology the purging of the blood reduces the possibility of catching any disease,this is not an earth shattering statement by myself but common knowledge to anyone educated to a reasonable standard.
> The birth control issue if we compare 2 neighbours applies to India,a predominately Hindu country and majority non meat eater, more than Pakistan,a muslim country and meat eater.The majority of meat consumed is in the west,and it is these consumers who requiire a huge volume of food and at a cheap price which is doing the damage.India has an army which is equal to the entire population of Pakistan.Birth control is not banned in Islam and has always been practised.
> Muslims not only thank god when they cut vegetables but also when thry eat them,regrdless of any differences in monotheistic religion,there is i hope one consensus,god has created and provided everything.
> Zahim,i have always said from the beggining that islam does not say it is scientific,but that science has tested the contents and has to agree with them.Do not think for one moment that science was testing for noble purposes,their aim was more to discredit the religion.All religion has scientists as enemies,because science believes in the religion of creationism,but they only succeed in explaining the mechanics and not who created.Up to today science has been unable to produce even a single cell being,all they can do is copy gods work.


 
dear oracle
you have written 
*Halal meat is healthier because its method of rearing is natural and not like the big chains*

may be you r taking about pakistan. but see all around the world there are big chanins and they rear animals by injecting hormones kindly check it bcoz in devolped countries people dont have enough time to do halal as perscribed in islam. you know they have changed the slaughtering manner now its what called MACHINE CUT where machine slaughter animals adburptly.. 

*It is the world bank who forced Indian farmers to sparay their crops in return for their so called help and therebt poisoning a whole population*.

you may be right by saying above lines but what to do when demand is more and supply is less in that case if we have to fulfill the need of people then that sparays con\mes into picture.
that is what i was explaning you that when population increases then demand also increases.

*The majority of meat consumed is in the west,and it is these consumers who requiire a huge volume of food and at a cheap price which is doing the damage.*

but as per my knowledge that more and more people in west r turning into vegss.

*India has an army which is equal to the entire population of Pakistan.Birth control is not banned in Islam and has always been practised.*

by writing this you didnot got my point let me explain you with example.

consider 10 couples who r non muslim.
they have 2 kids minum so 10 X2=20 new borns there fore total population of 10 non muslim person is 10+20=30

now see the case of 10 couples who r muslims
they have more then 2 kids approx. 4 to 5 nos.

so their nos.comes 10X5=50
so theire total nos is 10+50=60

almost double then mn muslim.
hope now you got it. LOok i am talking about whole world dont compare only india and pakistan 

in islam r u sure family planning is there????? kindly see into this bcoz i have heard frm lots of muslim that its God gift so in koran its written that we dont have to do family planning.

*Muslims not only thank god when they cut vegetables but also when thry eat them,regrdless of any differences in monotheistic religion,there is i hope one consensus,god has created and provided everything.*

ok I agree with you then, why it is compulsory to do that ritual in case of slaughtering of animal not in ct\utting of vegetables????

*Zahim,i have always said from the beggining that islam does not say it is scientific,but that science has tested the contents and has to agree with them.Do not think for one moment that science was testing for noble purposes,their aim was more to discredit the religion.All religion has scientists as enemies,because science believes in the religion of creationism,but they only succeed in explaining the mechanics and not who created.Up to today science has been unable to produce even a single cell being,all they can do is copy gods work.[/*

here I agree with you with out any issue that is what i wanted to say yo people that all religion comes into picture by the wil of GOD, so why muslims always say that Islam is best that not good bcoz when you say this you challege you own book where you say not a single leave can move without the will of God,then how other religions came without the will of GOD?????

moreover in all other religion their are things which science has testeed and agree. 

frankly speacking no religion is 100% prefect not even Islam. I can give u lots of reasons for my statement

hope you got it what i wanted to convey you, my aim is to promote universal brotherhood inspite of caste, colour, religion.which my faith is all about.

wedont believe in number game we believe in quality.:happy:


----------



## spnadmin

Bmandur ji

Fateh! Please do not continue copying the replies of others as here and in another thread recently. 

You can quote what another has said, but also please contribute your own words and thoughts.

Forgive me if I seem to be reprimanding you. I am only hoping to hear what you are thinking because your thoughts are good. :happykaur:


----------



## Bmandur

Narayanjot Ji
Sorry to say but I am daughter of Binder Mandur. I sat few times in her study room I saw the window open and I read it I loved it also I was trying to change few things and I loved the artical among others articals so I wanted others to read it

Thank you

Preet


----------



## spnadmin

preet ji

I appreciate the explanation. The copying of statements by other forum members has been causing confusion. So it is between you and your mother if you use her identity to log on. But we have a rule that prohibits the posting of remarks previously posted by another as if they were your own (another recent example being the re-posting of an article by IJ Singh twice in the same thread).

From our TOS,

*12.  Plagiarism is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. If you copy posts from others  and pass them as if they're yours, you will be severely punished.*

I really doubt the part that says, "you will be severely punished," is needed -- because it won't get to that point. Please try to understand admin's predicament. Thank you.


----------



## explorer

The discussion over the issue of meat always goes into an inconclusive state.

Grains and plant products are not killed to get any food from them, their are used at the end of their life-cycle in a productive way. If we donot pluck flowers/fruits or grains they are going to be wasted only.

However the animal case is different; they are a part of the food cycle for the animals themselves in a specific order.

Call it evolution/science(I prefer to call it Hukam) every animal know its diet.

Incase of humans; idea of food is not limited to survival; its more than that : its about taste; smell; appearance ; status ; hygiene ; etc etc.
Although the basic idea of food is about health & survival.

Guru Nanak Dev has already said that arguing over meat is foolishness.
however he has also criticised brahmins about their dubious character in "Asa ki Vaar" regarding meat.

As per sikhism, the idea of food is about survival; to be healthy enough to remember gods name.

For a sikh, the SRM becomes the guiding factor and it clearly states that :
"Abhakhya the kutha nahi khaana"

The Rehat Maryada is a code conduct for sikhs only; however SGGS is guiding light for everyone.

In SGGS, if Guru Nanak Dev ji criticizes the clever brahman about the "abhakhya ka kutha" ; Bhagat Kabeer Sahib asks the devout muslims " Jab sab mein ek khudaaye kahat ho, tau kyon murgi maare"

If you say that there is one god in all of us, why slaughter a hen?

The point to be understood is that he is also criticizing the ritualistic aspect that on one side as a muslim you are keeping fast and offering prayer; on the other side by the same evening you are slaughtering hen for food.

Now the question comes is why is jhatka allowed in sikh way of life.

1> Survival Time : Desires take back seat; the concern is to life and its survival; the mind is already in prayers; killing any animal for food is ok.

2> Halal is not only slowly killing the animal; its all about justifying the killing in the name of God.
================================================

For Sikhs, we must adapt to the underlying message of Gurbani and follow Rehat.

For other, read through Gurbani in pursuit of learning(how to praise god and be one with).

Wise are the one who seek more and quarrel not!!
=======================================


----------



## Randip Singh

explorer said:


> The discussion over the issue of meat always goes into an inconclusive state.
> 
> Grains and plant products are not killed to get any food from them, their are used at the end of their life-cycle in a productive way. If we donot pluck flowers/fruits or grains they are going to be wasted only.
> 
> However the animal case is different; they are a part of the food cycle for the animals themselves in a specific order.
> 
> Call it evolution/science(I prefer to call it Hukam) every animal know its diet.
> 
> Incase of humans; idea of food is not limited to survival; its more than that : its about taste; smell; appearance ; status ; hygiene ; etc etc.
> Although the basic idea of food is about health & survival.
> 
> Guru Nanak Dev has already said that arguing over meat is foolishness.
> however he has also criticised brahmins about their dubious character in "Asa ki Vaar" regarding meat.
> 
> As per sikhism, the idea of food is about survival; to be healthy enough to remember gods name.
> 
> For a sikh, the SRM becomes the guiding factor and it clearly states that :
> "Abhakhya the kutha nahi khaana"
> 
> The Rehat Maryada is a code conduct for sikhs only; however SGGS is guiding light for everyone.
> 
> In SGGS, if Guru Nanak Dev ji criticizes the clever brahman about the "abhakhya ka kutha" ; Bhagat Kabeer Sahib asks the devout muslims " Jab sab mein ek khudaaye kahat ho, tau kyon murgi maare"
> 
> If you say that there is one god in all of us, why slaughter a hen?
> 
> The point to be understood is that he is also criticizing the ritualistic aspect that on one side as a muslim you are keeping fast and offering prayer; on the other side by the same evening you are slaughtering hen for food.
> 
> Now the question comes is why is jhatka allowed in sikh way of life.
> 
> 1> Survival Time : Desires take back seat; the concern is to life and its survival; the mind is already in prayers; killing any animal for food is ok.
> 
> 2> Halal is not only slowly killing the animal; its all about justifying the killing in the name of God.
> ================================================
> 
> For Sikhs, we must adapt to the underlying message of Gurbani and follow Rehat.
> 
> For other, read through Gurbani in pursuit of learning(how to praise god and be one with).
> 
> Wise are the one who seek more and quarrel not!!
> =======================================



I agree with you on every thing apart from this statement.



> Grains and plant products are not killed to get any food from them, their are used at the end of their life-cycle in a productive way. If we donot pluck flowers/fruits or grains they are going to be wasted only.
> 
> However the animal case is different; they are a part of the food cycle for the animals themselves in a specific order.
> 
> Call it evolution/science(I prefer to call it Hukam) every animal know its diet.



Grains life is ended in a productive way?

Animals are part of the food cycle in a specific order?

Please clarify, but I would ask you to read the follwoing first:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html


----------



## explorer

1> For Grains, there are two options after become ripe; either they eaten by humans/animals or they get sown as seed to germinate again to produce more grains in the next cycle.

Without these two there would no use of grains; what i could think of.

2> Animals are a part food cycle for animals : "Jeeyan ka aahaar jee" Although this was written about the fish; the same applied to animals in jungle.
A tiger does not eat apples and a deer doesnot kill rabbit.
Apart from this animals also kill each other as a part of survival competition rather than food.

Thanks for sharing the detailed thread; however I would need time to go through that in detail.


----------



## Randip Singh

explorer said:


> 1> For Grains, there are two options after become ripe; either they eaten by humans/animals or they get sown as seed to germinate again to produce more grains in the next cycle.
> 
> Without these two there would no use of grains; what i could think of.
> 
> 2> Animals are a part food cycle for animals : "Jeeyan ka aahaar jee" Although this was written about the fish; the same applied to animals in jungle.
> A tiger does not eat apples and a deer doesnot kill rabbit.
> Apart from this animals also kill each other as a part of survival competition rather than food.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the detailed thread; however I would need time to go through that in detail.



1) On point 1 yes plants are part of the food cycle for animals and humans.

2) On point 2 animals are part of the food cycle for animals and humans too.

I cannot see why one is being differentiated?


----------



## explorer

The differentiation is not just for the sake of it.

My point was simple that in case of humans the idea of food is not limited to survival only and influenced by the other factors too..... and in normal lifestyle the other factore play more crucial role.

A general observation would let us understand that the different types of foods and their varieties which are available to human being are far in number as compared to animals which go by their biological instinct primarily when deciding about the food.

Pls see i am not saying that one who is eating meat is a bad guy. i understand that there are lot of people who donot have easy choices in food based on the areas they live.

Lets keep it simple.

If we only eat when we feel hungry then there is no problem; however there is lot of eating we do which is desire based rather need based.
and this is may be veggie and non-veggie stuff.

And with desire in drivers seat control is lost, now whether you are eat meat or non-meat is not making a difference.
===================

Frankly speaking, I myself donot remember a day when i ate just for survival only; a lot of desire is already there when I start deciding what to eat.


----------



## Randip Singh

explorer said:


> The differentiation is not just for the sake of it.
> 
> My point was simple that in case of humans the idea of food is not limited to survival only and influenced by the other factors too..... and in normal lifestyle the other factore play more crucial role.
> 
> A general observation would let us understand that the different types of foods and their varieties which are available to human being are far in number as compared to animals which go by their biological instinct primarily when deciding about the food.
> 
> Pls see i am not saying that one who is eating meat is a bad guy. i understand that there are lot of people who donot have easy choices in food based on the areas they live.
> 
> Lets keep it simple.
> 
> If we only eat when we feel hungry then there is no problem; however there is lot of eating we do which is desire based rather need based.
> and this is may be veggie and non-veggie stuff.
> 
> And with desire in drivers seat control is lost, now whether you are eat meat or non-meat is not making a difference.
> ===================
> 
> Frankly speaking, I myself donot remember a day when i ate just for survival only; a lot of desire is already there when I start deciding what to eat.



I see.

It is not what you eat, but your motivation. It is like When Sheik Fareed says:

Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib

ਜਿਨਾ  ਖਾਧੀ  ਚੋਪੜੀ  ਘਣੇ  ਸਹਨਿਗੇ  ਦੁਖ  ॥੨੮॥ 
जिना खाधी चोपड़ी घणे सहनिगे दुख ॥२८॥ 
Jinā kẖāḏẖī cẖopṛī gẖaṇe sėhnige ḏukẖ. ||28|| 
*Those who eat buttered bread, will suffer in terrible pain.* ||28|| 


In the context of the shabad he is talking about greed.

I suppose this shabad is EXACTLY the same as:

Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib

ਕਬੀਰ  ਭਾਂਗ  ਮਾਛੁਲੀ  ਸੁਰਾ  ਪਾਨਿ  ਜੋ  ਜੋ  ਪ੍ਰਾਨੀ  ਖਾਂਹਿ  ॥ 
कबीर भांग माछुली सुरा पानि जो जो प्रानी खांहि ॥ 
Kabīr bẖāŉg mācẖẖulī surā pān jo jo parānī kẖāŉhi. 
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine - 

ਤੀਰਥ  ਬਰਤ  ਨੇਮ  ਕੀਏ  ਤੇ  ਸਭੈ  ਰਸਾਤਲਿ  ਜਾਂਹਿ  ॥੨੩੩॥ 
तीरथ बरत नेम कीए ते सभै रसातलि जांहि ॥२३३॥ 
Ŧirath baraṯ nem kī▫e ṯe sabẖai rasāṯal jāŉhi. ||233|| 
no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ||233|| 

or this shabad:

http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=142&english=t&id=5844#l5844

ਕਿਆ  ਮੇਵਾ  ਕਿਆ  ਘਿਉ  ਗੁੜੁ  ਮਿਠਾ  ਕਿਆ  ਮੈਦਾ  ਕਿਆ  ਮਾਸੁ  ॥ 
किआ मेवा किआ घिउ गुड़ु मिठा किआ मैदा किआ मासु ॥ 
Ki▫ā mevā ki▫ā gẖi▫o guṛ miṯẖā ki▫ā maiḏā ki▫ā mās. 
What good are fruits, what good is ghee, sweet jaggery, what good is flour, and what good is meat? 

ਕਿਆ  ਕਪੜੁ  ਕਿਆ  ਸੇਜ  ਸੁਖਾਲੀ  ਕੀਜਹਿ  ਭੋਗ  ਬਿਲਾਸ  ॥ 
किआ कपड़ु किआ सेज सुखाली कीजहि भोग बिलास ॥ 
Ki▫ā kapaṛ ki▫ā sej sukẖālī kījėh bẖog bilās. 
What good are clothes, and what good is a soft bed, to enjoy pleasures and sensual delights? 


These shabads talk about addiction, and sensual pleasures. Does this mean we don't eat butter, eat sweets, flour, or meat? What they are talking about is addiction to these, or addiction to our sensual pleasures.


----------



## sachbol

Medically Halaal is much hygenic.
In jhatka, the animal's head is severed in a single blow. Thus brain is separated from torso. Animal may not feel pain as brain goes immediately into comma due to blockage of blood to it and dies immediately. Also the heart stops pumping immediately and blood inside the body is not pumped out and is absorbed by the meat. Most of the harmful bacteria and virus are found in the blood and hence remain inside the meat and hence the meat may be harmful.

In Halaal, the wind pipe is cut,  two veins which supply blood to the brain are also cut hence no blood is supplied to the brain resulting in the coma and hence animal may not 
feel pain. The heart does not stop immediately resulting into pumping out  most
 of the blood hence less bacteria in meat.

By the way I have lost taste in meat and have given it up.


----------



## sikh Engineer

sachbol said:


> Medically Halaal is much hygenic.
> In jhatka, the animal's head is severed in a single blow. Thus brain is separated from torso. Animal may not feel pain as brain goes immediately into comma due to blockage of blood to it and dies immediately. Also the heart stops pumping immediately and blood inside the body is not pumped out and is absorbed by the meat. Most of the harmful bacteria and virus are found in the blood and hence remain inside the meat and hence the meat may be harmful.
> 
> In Halaal, the wind pipe is cut, two veins which supply blood to the brain are also cut hence no blood is supplied to the brain resulting in the coma and hence animal may not
> feel pain. The heart does not stop immediately resulting into pumping out most
> of the blood hence less bacteria in meat.
> 
> 
> dear brother u r mistaken by saying halal is much hygenic,
> 
> my first point is you cannot drain blood fully frm body when u do halal ok. and as u said in halal less bacteria is there becoz less blood remains but dear tell me if infection has to take place it can happen frm less bacteria also . so how come halal is hygenic????.
> 
> moreover its not animal will not feel pain when u do halal. as soon as u catch animal for slaughtering automatic that animal senses that something wrong is going to happen with this fear harmonal changes take place which may or may not be unhygenic ??? which is also there when u do halal.
> 
> tell me one thing now days lifestyle has totally changed life became more hetic people dont have time to eat. do u feel in this hetic life people got enough time to do halal. I am telling this that nowdays people r slaughtering with machines???? will machine cut first wind pipe???
> 
> lastly i just tell you that who told u that blood only contain harmful virus, I had a discussion with one doctor and you know what he told me...
> He told me jatka is more hygneic as the blood inside it preserve the flesh and in case of halal less amount of blood remains inside that is why halal is not hygenic IF IT IS NOT CONSUMED IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> you make it sure in case of halal you cannot drain all blood ????// and if infection has to occur it can occur with one drop:yes:??


----------



## Randip Singh

sachbol said:


> Medically Halaal is much hygenic.
> In jhatka, the animal's head is severed in a single blow. Thus brain is separated from torso. Animal may not feel pain as brain goes immediately into comma due to blockage of blood to it and dies immediately. Also the heart stops pumping immediately and blood inside the body is not pumped out and is absorbed by the meat. Most of the harmful bacteria and virus are found in the blood and hence remain inside the meat and hence the meat may be harmful.
> 
> In Halaal, the wind pipe is cut,  two veins which supply blood to the brain are also cut hence no blood is supplied to the brain resulting in the coma and hence animal may not
> feel pain. The heart does not stop immediately resulting into pumping out  most
> of the blood hence less bacteria in meat.
> 
> By the way I have lost taste in meat and have given it up.



I doubt Halal is more hygenic. What matters more is the welfare of the animal.

In the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, wheras in India, possibly the worst.

I have noticed that in Islamic countries that animals are cared for (before Halal slaughter) almost like family memebers. Well fed and well care for.

Also there are many cultures around the world that actually use the blood (as it contains most nutrition) for various dishes. The Masai actually mix it with barley and drink it.

I think this debate has gone a little off topic, the rationale for why Guru Gobind Singh do not touch "Kuttha meat" is simple. "Kuttha" mean that which has been sacrificed to God, or ritually purified. The Sikh rationale was there was no need for ritual, or purification, or offer to God. How can one offer to, or purify something that God has created?

Whatever a Sikh eats, meat, vegtable, do it not with ritual, but thanks to God. The native Americans, after killing an animal used thank their "brother" animals for giving up their bodies to provide food for them. In this similar way Sikhs thank God with Ardas for the food (meat or vegetable), that has been provided.


----------



## sikh Engineer

Randip Singh said:


> I doubt Halal is more hygenic. What matters more is the welfare of the animal.
> 
> In the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, wheras in India, possibly the worst.
> 
> I have noticed that in Islamic countries that animals are cared for (before Halal slaughter) almost like family memebers. Well fed and well care for.
> 
> Also there are many cultures around the world that actually use the blood (as it contains most nutrition) for various dishes. The Masai actually mix it with barley and drink it.
> 
> I think this debate has gone a little off topic, the rationale for why Guru Gobind Singh do not touch "Kuttha meat" is simple. "Kuttha" mean that which has been sacrificed to God, or ritually purified. The Sikh rationale was there was no need for ritual, or purification, or offer to God. How can one offer to, or purify something that God has created?
> 
> Whatever a Sikh eats, meat, vegtable, do it not with ritual, but thanks to God. The native Americans, after killing an animal used thank their "brother" animals for giving up their bodies to provide food for them. In this similar way Sikhs thank God with Ardas for the food (meat or vegetable), that has been provided.


 

randip ji 

i agree with you but the thing i hate is that these fellows try to make fool by saying that jatka is not hygenic. we all shud respond to these question with scientific and logical answer bcoz this is the stragey of Muslims to attract people of other religion to convert by spreading these type of things.

randip ji you know the worst part is  sikh's dont try to study there scripture that is why they get conviced by these types of things. At least I am on mission to spread awarness aboout all this misconceptions which muslims r spreading, and i must thanks you people ( randip ji, tejwant ji, nayaranjot kour, aman ji , gyani ji) bcoz i learned alot form all of you.

hope you all be with me in  this mission:happy:


----------



## Randip Singh

sikh Engineer said:


> randip ji
> 
> i agree with you but the thing i hate is that these fellows try to make fool by saying that jatka is not hygenic. we all shud respond to these question with scientific and logical answer bcoz this is the stragey of Muslims to attract people of other religion to convert by spreading these type of things.
> 
> randip ji you know the worst part is  sikh's dont try to study there scripture that is why they get conviced by these types of things. At least I am on mission to spread awarness aboout all this misconceptions which muslims r spreading, and i must thanks you people ( randip ji, tejwant ji, nayaranjot kour, aman ji , gyani ji) bcoz i learned alot form all of you.
> 
> hope you all be with me in  this mission:happy:



My view is this.

I genuinly wish all the major faiths of the world Islam, Hinduism, Christianity all the best.

I also wish to clear up misconceptions about the Sikh faith without attacking any other faith.:yes:


----------



## P0TTER

Thank you for your thoughtful words about Halal or Not Halal.
I thought I would share my thoughts that may be of use to Vegetarians.
Firstly I must point out to the vegetarians here that they have not escaped Halal by simply avoiding meat. E-numbers or E-Codes signify E-Ingredients - are all additives in foods that can sometimes be produced from animal by-products! 
The halal industry have been developing substitutes for these from animals that have been Religiously Slaughtered or alternative Vegetable by-products which are put into foods that can then be Halal Certified. 
So Are You Eating HALAL VEGETABLES... maybe those potatoes were grown in Halal Bonemeal... We really need to check the source of what we are buying, because we have UNLABELLED HALAL PRODUCTS THROUGHOUT OUR FOOD CHAIN!
Some vegetarian products just happen to be halal eg. because they do not contain Gum from animal Fat, Lard, Gelatine from Lard or Calf Skin or Shortening (animal) - other vegetarian products containing alcohol would not conform to Islamic Law & would be Haram. Well these two kinds of vegetarian products would be OK to eat.

This article is from a muslim who is concerned about Pork additives - 
See the end of the article for E Codes that contain Pig Fat... not that we need to worry about this unless you are vegetarian or a muslim.
http://www.yanabi.com/forum/337461/WhyPigFatisnotmentionedinfoodbutcodesareprinted
As usual there is TAQIYYA used in that article... Truth mixed with Lies... The author of that last article is not being completely truthful. Many of the E-numbers listed do not relate to animal products. Some come from milk, which is most likely of bovine origin.
For example, E153 is Vegetable carbon, E214 is Ethyl p-hydroxybenzoate (A type of alcohol). Neither of those are from animal sources. E327 Calcium lactate is from milk, not pig fat!
Here's a list of E-numbers:
http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/additive.htm
and another one laid out differently, for cross-referencing:
http://www.ukfoodguide.net/enumeric.htm
*Some E-Numbers are missing from those lists and may need to be searched for elsewhere. I do not know why they are missing.

We have to remember the diet industry has more fraud than any other industry. Most articles are sponsored by companies with their own agendas.

Here are the 2010 HALAL RULES & List of E CODES - Rules of Halal Slaughter - Muslims only allowed in the slaughter, Diagrams of how to cut necks of animals, the level of low current for electrically stunning chickens, terminology, List of E CODE ingredients from pages 29-54.
http://www.jummahmasjid.org/docs/Jummah masjid halaal council 2010.pdf
The important products to avoid if we want to BOYCOTT HALAL are the Halal Branded Products and Food outlets & stores that promote Halal rather than normal products.

Food Guide & E-Numbers List
This section has lists of Food suitable for Vegetarians (this may or may not contain alcohol) and Muslims (Halaal lists - as vegetarian with no alcohol). 
The following is a list of products containing animal by-products, such as animal fat, gelatine and fatty acids (fats). It is by no means certain that they are Haraam.

http://www.kingstonmosque.org.uk/Food/index.htm

Many non-meat foods can be halal... take for example these  Halal Haribos for Muslim children... 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417218/The-Halal-Haribos-Muslim-children.html
Old article - but clear example of HALAL LABELLING - the difference here is that HALAL Gelatine used in these halal sweeties - See about that here: http://www.ochef.com/909.htm
German firm Haribo, formed in 1920, is one of Europe's biggest sweet manufacturers, selling its products in more than 150 countries.

Hope that this has given you that are vegetarians some Food For Thought & if you care where the profits go that are on foods that you buy, then I think you will choose to avoid Halal Products... well as much as you can, because the more you look into the Food Chain, the more you will find so many Unlabelled Halal products.
If you want change please write to your MPs & MEPs & insist that Ritually Slaughtered meats & Bi-Products are clearly labelled RS. We don't need expensive Halal Certification... we just want it to be labelled in plain English. Find out who your representatives are in England on this website... www.writetothem.com


----------



## P0TTER

Randip Singh said:


> I doubt Halal is more hygenic. What matters more is the welfare of the animal.
> 
> In the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, wheras in India, possibly the worst.
> 
> I have noticed that in Islamic countries that animals are cared for (before Halal slaughter) almost like family memebers. Well fed and well care for.
> 
> Also there are many cultures around the world that actually use the blood (as it contains most nutrition) for various dishes. The Masai actually mix it with barley and drink it.
> 
> I think this debate has gone a little off topic, the rationale for why Guru Gobind Singh do not touch "Kuttha meat" is simple. "Kuttha" mean that which has been sacrificed to God, or ritually purified. The Sikh rationale was there was no need for ritual, or purification, or offer to God. How can one offer to, or purify something that God has created?
> 
> Whatever a Sikh eats, meat, vegtable, do it not with ritual, but thanks to God. The native Americans, after killing an animal used thank their "brother" animals for giving up their bodies to provide food for them. In this similar way Sikhs thank God with Ardas for the food (meat or vegetable), that has been provided.



NOTE: My answer is to the post that Randip Singh was replying to...

Now we get to the issue of blood... 

Note that ALL food animals are exsanguinated!!!

The red stuff which leaches out of meats is not blood - it's linign, a breakdown of protein (meat): don't tell me you've never noticed that this red stuff doesn't clot - or that it doesn't turn black when subjected to heat. Blood clots when exposed to air thanks to the thrombokinase and prothrombin contents, and turns black when exposed to heat or digestive processes due to the haemoglobin.

As for sacrifical animals not feeling any pain, see this:
http://issuu.com/florencebergeaud-blackler/docs/veterinary-concerns


----------



## findingmyway

I think the key is freedom of choice.


----------



## Ambarsaria

findingmyway said:


> I think the key is freedom of choice.


findingmyway ji's why freedom of choice if a process is clearly confirmed to be cruelty to animals?  An animal is not died for a while in Halal and people watching it (for public sacrifice) actually enjoy the bloody and gory scene as blood is supposed to take the evil and animal's soul out with it in this spectacle.  

The same culture then sees nothing wrong with dragging dead bodies of US soldiers in the streets in Somalia or desecration of dead bodies of Kafirs (all of us) who are not muslims as the Kafirs are equaled to animals.

I think there is a wise saying that true sensibility of a culture is defined by 

   .... _How they treat the animals!_

Sorry but I can not sugar coat some of this.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## findingmyway

Ambarsaria ji,
The which way is more cruel debate goes round and round in circles so that is not the way to achieve what we want as it goes nowhere. It is not upto us to dictate to Muslims that they cannot eat halal as we perceive it to be more cruel. Do you think some US and UK soldiers have behaved in a way that is any less horrific? Culture and religion are not the same. When we are trying to separate Sikhism from bad cultural practices then it is not right that we don't do the same to Muslims. I know many Muslims who do not agree with cruelty to other people whatever the circumstances. A more realistic outcome is freedom of choice for whoever wants to eat halal and for those who do not want to eat halal.


----------



## Ambarsaria

findingmyway ji it does not have to do the following,



> The which way is more cruel debate goes round and round in circles so  that is not the way to achieve what we want as it goes nowhere.



In this case cruelty to animals is defined by the host country or the country people reside in.  Why would Muslim states not allow non-Halal meat?  Because each country has some rights in such areas.  What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander!

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## spnadmin

The issue becomes more heated as a controversy because options are closed down for those who do not want to eat halal. That is the point made by findingmyway ji. Events in Britain are making is less not more likely that those who choose to eat meat, Sikh or Muslim or otherwise, will have any choices. Perhaps the choice becomes to refrain from meat. Why should that be the default for those who do not want to eat halal for religious or moral reasons? Between government tactics that (e.g., making halal in school lunchrooms the only meat choice to curry favor with voters, and corporate tactics that seem to be making business decisions in favor of halal because of profitable markets, freedom to choose is going under the knife along with the animals.


----------



## P0TTER

Ambarsaria said:


> findingmyway ji's why freedom of choice if a process is clearly confirmed to be cruelty to animals?  An animal is not died for a while in Halal and people watching it (for public sacrifice) actually enjoy the bloody and gory scene as blood is supposed to take the evil and animal's soul out with it in this spectacle.
> 
> The same culture then sees nothing wrong with dragging dead bodies of US soldiers in the streets in Somalia or desecration of dead bodies of Kafirs (all of us) who are not muslims as the Kafirs are equaled to animals.
> 
> I think there is a wise saying that true sensibility of a culture is defined by
> 
> .... _How they treat the animals!_
> 
> Sorry but I can not sugar coat some of this.
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.


The fight is not against flesh & blood, but must be against Islamic ideology, the dictates of Sharia Law & Halal.
The British people have aimed to be tolerant with all faiths and cultures.
However it is not so much the people, but the Labour Government & the EU, that have embraced globalism, multiculturalism & political correctness... now we have to somehow deal with the consequences. 
Profits from Halal do not benefit the British economy, but are stored on Halal Bonds & Halal Gold & Silver Dinars & the indirect ZAKAT TAX is also applied, one eighth of which goes to Islamic Freedom Fighters like the Mujahideen! 
http://www.halaljournal.com/article/3362/gold-dinar-as-halal-money
British Law states that ALL livestock must be stunned before slaughter, but the following amendment was made to accommodate the dietary requirements of Muslims & Jews as follows...
UK Statutory Instrument 1995 
No. 731 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, SCHEDULE 12 Regulations 21 and 22 
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR SLAUGHTER BY A RELIGIOUS METHOD specifies that meat is slaughtered by a muslim - for the food of muslims (or by a jew - for the food of jews). 
*Nowhere does it state that the religious exemption can be used to slaughter for the mass market. *
The Halal Slaughterhouses are getting around the law by giving a low-stun before the blessing to Allah & cutting the throat of animals. To be halal the animal must be conscious throughout - so this low-stun makes the animal's plight even worse... unable to move or vocalise, but conscious of the entire bloody ritual! 
Britain is a secular society based on Christian principles and it is extremely disrespectful of some in the muslim community to think that they can try to take control of our food chain in the way they are trying to do. 
95% of the UK population are NOT muslim and these consumers are not interested in any kind of Religious Regulation or Certification in the name of allah or anyone else. 
How dare the World Halal Forum designate the UK to be a pilot project (2009 WHF) and then last year declare that they aim to "Take Halal Mainstream in the UK... and then Europe"
*There are two issues here. The ethical issue of animal cruelty in ritual slaughter and the lack of transparency in Labelling RS meat and its products.*
This article, Halal: The most humane slaughter, has been discredited by more recent scientific research:
http://www.halaljournal.com/article/3360/halal:-the-most-humane-slaughter
UNLABELLED Halal has been sold & fed to unsuspecting shoppers & consumers throughout the UK for over ten years, but especially in the last five years... AND they dared to even shove it down the throats of our elected politicians in the House of Commons - which made them very angry (unlike the Scottish Parliament who have foolishly accepted going halal at Holyrood). 
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/163408/MPs-served-Halal-meat-on-the-sly/
...But that was last November & since then there seems to be a distinct lack of news about Halal Meat AND still no transparency in labelling.
The British public need to know what they are eating and I would encourage you to write, ring and speak to your representatives in power, suppliers and food outlets about the need for an RS Label on anything that is Ritually Slaughtered or any Product that has a Religious Standard... ie. Halal.
I'm not so interested in protesting about the Kosher trade... the Jews have never sought to take over our food chain or product market... but Halal products are everywhere and this threatens the British economy and British Jobs too... because Halal can only be produced by muslims... or it becomes Haram.
To get some idea of the immensity of this lack of labelling of Halal products, which not only involves meat, but many other products too Cosmetics, Furniture, Financial Services, IT etc.... See this: 
http://www.zabihah.com/


----------



## pervez

Gyani Jarnail Singh said:


> Guru Nanak Ji Sahib is using the "language" of the Brahmins to convey His message. The words used are MALECHH and ABHAKHIAH  ka KUTHA. Now the Brahmins referred to the Muslims as Malecchh (dirty/filthy) due to their doing the inspaekable...killing and devouring cows, breaking stone idols and places where these stones were worshipped..etc. The Brahmins called the language spoken by the malechh muslims as ABHAKHIAH..unspeakable...as opposed to the "Sanskrit" holy language of thewir Vedas and Gods.
> In Private these fraudy Brahmins said such things about the Muslims...BUT in PUBLIC..they wore Blue clothes, spoke the Filthy language and ate the filthy "kutha bakras" of the Masters...WHAT  A FRAUD ???
> IN MUSLIM INDIA..no non-muslim was allowed to keep a knife..slaughter meat..ride  a horse..keep weapons. All these were reserved for the Masters..and NOT for SLAVES. The Wily Brahmin spoke "double speak"..one thing to the Hindus and another to the Muslim Masters. This DOUBLE SPEAK is exposed by Guru nanak ji in Abhakhiah ka kuttha bakra khanna.( IN PUBLIC to win over the Musims masters ).matt bhitteh ve matt bhitteh ve at home ( to fool the Hindus as to their holinity !!)
> 
> SACRIFICE..and "offering THANKS" to God are two different things. The Maya Indians..the Babylonians..the Meccans....the Hindus..almost everyone offered SACRIFICE. In the Bible it was Abraham that was ORDERED by God to sacrifice !!! Hindus scrifice Goats to Kali Goddess !!! In SACRIFICE....BLOOD has to be SHED. It is the BLOOD that the GOD DRINKS and is satisfied..no difference if it is God of the Mayas..or Babylonians..or Meccans..or Kali or Allah...the CONCEPT is the SAME...The SACRIFICE is to APPEASE god..bring down RAIN..end droughts..etc etc etc.
> 
> The Sikh Ardass is just like the GRACE said at the Table..THANKS to the PROVIDER for His MERCY. That is why BHOG LAUNNA is Brahminism and not Gurmatt. Bhog is launna to IDOLS..not to Guru Granth Ji. The ARDASS is thus DONE at each and every Function in a  Gurdwara..at every MEAL a Sikh has at home....this itself shows it is different from the SACRIFICE..the Kalmas read over an animal being killed.
> 
> Hallal Meat was FORCED UPON all non-Mulsims in those times...This is still done in MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES...like in MALAYSIA even though there is almost 40% NON MUSLIM population..the ruling Muslim Govt makes it MANDATORY for ALL MEAT and other products to be Hallal ONLY. Non Hallal meats..are ONLY the HAM and PIG Products..NO other Meat can be NonHallal. This si the Sole reason why a SIKH who follows only and only AKAL PURAKH MUST never eat Hallal Meat that is SACRIFICED to a Diety that "needs" such sacrifices.
> Gyani Jarnail Singh



This is regarding the Sacrifice of animals at time of Hajj. The slaughtering of animals for regular eating has slightly different rules and does not constitute sacrifice.

Holy Quran Chapter 22 Surah Hajj verse 37: *37*It is not their (the sacrificial animal's) meat nor their blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: and proclaim the good news to all who do right.

We see in most sacrifices around the world that blood forms a critical part of the sacrifice. Those in tantra eat the blood or smear it on themselves. In various parts of the world eating the blood or smearing or eating some vital organs constitutes an important part of sacrifice. In other instances blood or organs collected are subject to chanting of etc and then subsequently used to eat or distributed/superstitiously smeared or fed  to others to ward of evil or to make evil come on them. In even others the person sacrificing himself does not eat the meat and it is used to expiate sins by making others eat it.

Islamic sacrifice has none of this. In fact blood is strictly prohibited and the method of slaughtering has to take care that maximum amount of blood is pumped out of the body of the animal. 

The purpose of the orignal was to test obedience to Allah. The believers are asked to follow it to remember the obedience and to Allah. Also since an Animal represents a substantial investment in food the spirit of brotherhood is encouraged through this sacrifice ie to share food with relatives and poor.  The distribution of meat is in three equal parts ie one part for own  family, one part for relatives and friends and one part for the poor who  are neither relatives nor friends.  

Emphasis on family and community is very strong in Islam and is reinforced with food habits, socialising habits, method of praying together and in sharing of wealth and food.

As far as the Name "Allah" is concerned it is meerly a most favoured and honored name of the creator. But it is still a Name and muslims cannot even postrate(do sajda/put forehead on it while bowing down in prayer)to the written name of Allah.  The concept of the creator is that we cannot confine him or consider it a complete representation of creator even in name.


----------



## namjiwankaur

Bawa Muhaiyaddeen has explained the problems that led to the halal method of slaughter.  I can't remember which book its in.  I'll see if I can locate it tomorrow.  The gist of the story is this:

Muhammad was very upset with the Muslims because they were slaughtering animals, but ended up wasting much of the meat.  Muhammad, as some of you may know, was very much interested in the welfare of animals.  He prayed to God about all the wasted lives and God gave him the halal method of slaughter.  The first things commanded were to sacrifice one goat rather than four chickens or one cow vs. four goats. This still didn't create much change in the Muslim community so more rules were added. 

It included not showing the animal the knife or allowing it to see other animals being slaughtered.  The one who would slaughter had to look into the animals eyes and thank it for sacrificing its life to become food. And, of course, the Bismillah had to be spoken over each animal to be sacrificed (I hear some are now saying only one Bismillah for all the animals to be slaughtered that day). According to Bawa, the point was for the person to become so sensitive to the animal's life that they could no longer slaughter it.

I have been a vegetarian for almost 3 decades.  I don't have the heart to eat meat.  My hope is to become vegan, but I tend to ignore the eggs in certain foods I eat by numbing myself to the horrible conditions of chickens who are factory farmed.  And the same goes for the milk & cheese I would stop eating immediately if I didn't shut myself off from the reality of factory farming.

I don't even step on ants if I can avoid it.  I said to someone today, "who are we to say we are the smartest or most loving or most just species? For all we know, ants are geniuses.  If a Monarch butterfly flies thousands of miles when it migrates, why do we think our human bodies are what is made in "the image of God"? (I'm referring to what I learned to believe every week in Sunday School at church).  

Take care, y'all.


----------



## pervez

jasnoor said:


> Bawa Muhaiyaddeen has explained the problems that led to the halal method of slaughter.  I can't remember which book its in.  I'll see if I can locate it tomorrow.  The gist of the story is this:
> 
> Muhammad was very upset with the Muslims because they were slaughtering animals, but ended up wasting much of the meat.Muhammad, as some of you may know, was very much interested in the welfare of animals.  He prayed to God about all the wasted lives and God gave him the halal method of slaughter.
> 
> The first things commanded were to sacrifice one goat rather than four chickens or one cow vs. four goats. This still didn't create much change in the Muslim community so more rules were added.
> 
> it.



I doubt the veracity of this story. I have seen this story(not the same as you have quoted from memory) in Bawa Muhaiyaddeen website and it is supposed to be an Hadith. There is no reference number of the Hadith so it is difficult to veryify how strong and accepted this Hadith(if it is a Hadith)is. 

First the story is not about meat getting wasted but of Muhammad(PUBH)  showing the way of slaughter to  muslims and asking the muslims to come  to an official slaughter.

According to the story, earlier people would wring a neck of chicken and also slaughter animals on their own in anyway and anytime they wanted at homes.

   Later on this official slaughterer was often not be available and thus people came complaining that they couldn't get their meat. So as per the story he asked the people to slaughter two goats instead of hundred chickens, 10 cows instead of hundreds of goats, 3-4camels instead of ten cows and share the meat among people according to the size of the family the Idea was lesser number of animals had to be slaughtered so the task becomes easy for the official.

Even without going into the sources this story seems implausible. Considering that Islam does not even appoint a priest it is not conceivable that an official slaughterer would have been appointed. There is ample evidence that no such official slaughterer was used by muslims during his time and immediately after him. Second the advice to slaughter animals and share among families raised a question whom did these animals belong to? if they were bought who paid for it? Is everyone in the city eating meat all the time?  It an totally illogical story as far as this issue is considered. Islam is not to be confused with communism. Property rights are sacrosanct as far as Islam is considered. 

The story goes on to state that in this way only a few animals were slaughtered instead of thousands daily.  Desert does not provide the facility to maintain lakhs of animals in one city so that thousands can be slaughtered on a daily basis.  Meat was a rare part of diet those days an occasional treat for even the well off. 

This story goes on to say that Prophet(PUBH)told Ali(as)(His son In law) that eating meat continuously for 40 days is not good and the qualities of the animal will come on you if you do so. Thus Ali never ate meat continuously for 40 days. This is a very laughable story. Ali(as)(the person who all sufis consider their original master) was know for his very austere life style just like the prophet. He would not even eat honey once in a while. He restricted his diet to very simple food often just dry bread and water. His clothes were all simple and patched up. One of the names that he was given (by the Prophet(PUBH)) was Abu-Turab. Turab means dust. This was to signify the humility and simplicity with which he lead his life.

The word Sufi is derived from Suff ie a rough woolen cloth  often the only one available to the poor to Arabia. The poor were often called Suffa. These were the garments worn by Ali(as). The Sufi's ultimate role master is considered Ali(as)due to his simple life and his closeness to God. To imagine him trying to abstain from meat so that he does not eat it continuously for 40 days is to say the least shocking and hilarious at the same time.




jasnoor said:


> It included not showing the animal the knife or allowing it to see other  animals being slaughtered.  The one who would slaughter had to look  into the animals eyes and thank it for sacrificing its life to become  food. And, of course, the Bismillah had to be spoken over each animal to  be sacrificed (I hear some are now saying only one Bismillah for all  the animals to be slaughtered that day). According to Bawa, the point  was for the person to become so sensitive to the animal's life that they  could no longer slaughter it.



Again there are many problems with this part of story as this is not supported by texts that I know s of. Also the quran mention in more than one place that he has made some animals for food of humans and sacrificing animals is an important part of the ritual of Hajj. It also mentions one story where Prophet(PUBH)abstained from Honey for some time and was asked by God not to do so as it is one of the things he has permitted to eat and abstaining(willingly when it is available) from what has been permitted causes displeasure of God.

That said Sufi's often talk in metaphors and try to relate to  level of understanding of their audience so taking their stories as a literal truth is not advisable.




jasnoor said:


> why do we think our human bodies are what is made in "the image of God"? (I'm referring to what I learned to believe every week in Sunday School at church).



Islam is completely opposed to such a concept and I think it is doubtful that even your religion takes such a stand. Islam has an concept of god which says if you can imagine it then that is not the god.

Of course the story could be different in the book you have, still this is not an accepted anecdote. Often we like to believe in stuff that matches our sensibility so I don't blame you in thinking this may be likely true story.


----------



## P0TTER

Shaheediyan said:


> The meat prepared on Eid and at haj to maccah "may" be constitute a sacrifice, but I don't think the day to day meat preperation is seen or treated as a sacrifice, could you kindly provide proof of your assumption.
> 
> Thanks.


In answer to  Shaheediyan's request for proof regarding halal meat preparation being seen and treated as a sacrifice.
Clearly Halal Meat is not the same as normal/ traditional meat in Non-islamic countries.
Halal is an Islamic word that is used by Muslims to signify what is permissible for them according to Sharia Law. We are not living under Sharia Law, because we are not muslims and therefore the word halal is a foreign word and we do not recognise the need to follow muslim rules for living... We do not recognise the need for Islamic dogma - especially concerning our food and the way it is prepared.
There are many differences between Halal Ritual Slaughter and any other slaughter.
The nearest to Halal Ritual Slaughter is Kosher Religious Slaughter... where there is no dedication of each animal... just a prayer said at the beginning of the day... as would be said by any Jew at his place of work.
Jews will not eat halal meat, because of the dedication to Allah and their need for strict adherence to Kosher traditions - yet muslims, in the absence of halal meat,  will eat kosher meat rather than go vegetarian... Kosher is seen as the only acceptable substitute. 
Many Halal Authorities insist that an Imam must be present at the kill. [Increasing costs]
The slaughterman MUST be a Muslim Male [issue of marginalisation of workers here]
The animal must be turned to face Mecca  [indicating a Ritual] and presented as a living  [must be alive] sacrifice.
A Blessing  to Allah must be said out loud before the throat of a live animal is cut.
So that procedure for day to day Halal meat preparation certainly sounds very much like a Sacrificial Slaughter to me.


----------



## Ishna

Thank you P0tter ji for your concise summary.

I have a question about this part, if you don't mind:


> and presented as a living [must be alive] sacrifice.


 
I've done some reading about the halal method of slaughter and I'm not sure how it is offered as a sacrifice.


----------



## pervez

P0TTER said:


> The nearest to Halal Ritual Slaughter is Kosher Religious Slaughter... where there is no dedication of each animal... just a prayer said at the beginning of the day... as would be said by any Jew at his place of work.
> Jews will not eat halal meat, because of the dedication to Allah and their need for strict adherence to Kosher traditions - yet muslims, in the absence of halal meat,  will eat kosher meat rather than go vegetarian... Kosher is seen as the only acceptable substitute.
> Many Halal Authorities insist that an Imam must be present at the kill. [Increasing costs]
> 
> The slaughterman MUST be a Muslim Male [issue of marginalisation of workers here]
> The animal must be turned to face Mecca  [indicating a Ritual] and presented as a living  [must be alive] sacrifice.
> A Blessing  to Allah must be said out loud before the throat of a live animal is cut.
> So that procedure for day to day Halal meat preparation certainly sounds very much like a Sacrificial Slaughter to me.



It is in recent times the Jews have accepted the method of kosher where in the prayer at the beggining and end of the day at a slaughter house suffices to make the whole days production kosher. This was not the case earlier. I dare say that there might be many non western Jewish communites who do not subscribe to this.
 It is for this reason many Muslims reject present day kosher certification. I don't know where you came up with the idea Muslims don't go vegetarian and prefer kosher. Some do and some don't.
Animal facing the kaba is not a requirement for most Sunnis. It is mainly the Shia who follow that strictly. 
"Halal Authorities" are bodies responding to a business need I'm the west. There are no such bodies in India, Pakistan Bangladeshi and most countries around the world. There are no imams present in these countries just Muslim tradespeople. Muslims are strictly prohibited from eating dead or sick animals. Also animals are required to be fed and rested for at least three days if they have been starving or have undergone strenous long journey. They are also expected to have been fed their natural diet ie animals can't be fed with animal products like blood meal, animal protien etc. This last two rules are often not followed and came up under scrutiny during the mad cow disease outbreak which is caused by animals eating protien form animals just like themselves.


----------



## pervez

Ambarsaria said:


> findingmyway ji it does not have to do the following,
> 
> 
> 
> In this case cruelty to animals is defined by the host country or the country people reside in.  Why would Muslim states not allow non-Halal meat?  Because each country has some rights in such areas.  What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander!
> 
> Sat Sri Akal.


Non-muslims can have whatever food they wish to in Muslim countries. Thus pork and alcohol is available even in Saudi Arabia. In many Muslim countries Christians raise pigs and manufacture alcohol for their own consumption.


----------



## Ishna

LOL at the pre-slaughter animal welfare garbage (not at you, Pervez, at the idea). One just has to look at how live export sheep and cattle from Australia are treated once they get to Egypt and Indonesia. Its absolutely horrifying. :-(

Break their tails, gauge their eyes, put them in those god awful full inversion boxes, stuff them into the boots of cars; its tragic. :-(


----------



## P0TTER

Shaheediyan said:


> The meat prepared on Eid and at haj to maccah "may" be constitute a sacrifice, but I don't think the day to day meat preperation is seen or treated as a sacrifice, could you kindly provide proof of your assumption.
> 
> Thanks.



Clearly Halal Meat is not the same as normal/ traditional meat in Non-islamic countries.
Halal is an Islamic word that is used by Muslims to signify what is permissible for them according to Sharia Law. We are not living under Sharia Law, because we are not muslims and therefore the word halal is a foreign word and we do not recognise the need to follow muslim rules for living... We do not recognise the need for Islamic dogma - especially concerning our food and the way it is prepared.
There are many differences between Halal Ritual Slaughter and any other slaughter.
The nearest to Halal Ritual Slaughter is Kosher Religious Slaughter... where there is no dedication of each animal... just a prayer said at the beginning of the day... as would be said by any Jew at his place of work.
Jews will not eat halal meat, because of the dedication to Allah and their need for strict adherence to Kosher traditions - yet muslims, in the absence of halal meat,  will eat kosher meat rather than go vegetarian... Kosher is seen as the only acceptable substitute. 
Many Halal Authorities insist that an Imam must be present at the kill. [Increasing costs]
The slaughterman MUST be a Muslim Male [issue of marginalisation of workers here]
The animal must be turned to face Mecca  [indicating a Ritual] and presented as a living  [must be alive] sacrifice.
A Blessing  to Allah must be said out loud before the throat of a live animal is cut.
So that procedure for day to day Halal meat preparation certainly sounds very much like a Sacrificial Slaughter to me.


----------



## pervez

P0TTER said:


> Clearly Halal Meat is not the same as normal/ traditional meat in Non-islamic countries.
> Halal is an Islamic word that is used by Muslims to signify what is permissible for them according to Sharia Law. We are not living under Sharia Law, because we are not muslims and therefore the word halal is a foreign word and we do not recognise the need to follow muslim rules for living... We do not recognise the need for Islamic dogma - especially concerning our food and the way it is prepared.
> There are many differences between Halal Ritual Slaughter and any other slaughter.
> The nearest to Halal Ritual Slaughter is Kosher Religious Slaughter... where there is no dedication of each animal... just a prayer said at the beginning of the day... as would be said by any Jew at his place of work.
> Jews will not eat halal meat, because of the dedication to Allah and their need for strict adherence to Kosher traditions - yet muslims, in the absence of halal meat,  will eat kosher meat rather than go vegetarian... Kosher is seen as the only acceptable substitute.
> Many Halal Authorities insist that an Imam must be present at the kill. [Increasing costs]
> The slaughterman MUST be a Muslim Male [issue of marginalisation of workers here]
> The animal must be turned to face Mecca  [indicating a Ritual] and presented as a living  [must be alive] sacrifice.
> A Blessing  to Allah must be said out loud before the throat of a live animal is cut.
> So that procedure for day to day Halal meat preparation certainly sounds very much like a Sacrificial Slaughter to me.



You are free to belive what you want. The jewish once a day "blessing" is a recent phenemona. Many traditional jews still do it individualy. Thus muslims accept the meat from such jews. Also any muslim can slaughter animal as wittnessed in south asia and many muslim countries. In the west small places where halal meat is not available muslims go to farms and slaughter themselves. The  "presented as a living animal" is in your imagination. While it is recommended the animal face the direction of mecca, if not done it does not make it non halal.
I think the issue has been disuussed at length. Perhaps you dont understand the term" inform" which was my intention. You want to argue. I have no intention to convince any one about any thing. I am merely presenting information. Those who tend to be open minded may use it as a valid input for their thinking and may or may not reach the same conclusion as me.  Most probably will take a similar stand as you.
The issue seems to be not of the logic or facts but some thing deeper. However a reminder to you that your statements seem strange as surely you realise that you too are an migrant where you live and are also a small minority in all countries.
I think nothing productive will come out in me furthering the discussion on this topic.


----------



## palaingtha

Tejwant Singh said:


> *Halal or Not Halal: What is the Difference? *
> 
> By Amar Prakash Singh
> 
> I have always found the concept of Halal very mystifying. Recently there has been much comment about the subject, especially the controversy over comments made by Inder Singh Ghagga that stated that Guru Nanak may have eaten Halal. With this in mind, I wanted to really look at what Halal is and what the Gurus said about.
> 
> According to the Rehit, one of the transgressions of a Sikh is to not eat the meat of an animal slaughtered in the Muslim way.I believe that we have confused how an animal is killed and what Halal really is. It is a moot point that there is no humane way to kill an animal. If you believe that it is unacceptable to eat a chicken that has had its throat slit and bled to death but somehow find it acceptable to eat a chicken that has died by having an electrode shoved up its rectum and electrocuted, you are totally missing the point.
> 
> What really makes something Halal is not the method of killing but the fact that some ritual or prayer has somehow made the food sanctified or purified in order to make it acceptable and thus every thing else as unacceptable. There should not be any food that is acceptable or unacceptable to a Sikh because Sikhs have no such rituals.
> 
> With this said, I find that the group that is most upset about the comments about Guru Nanak eating Halal, the Akhand Kirtini Jatha, has a diet that is almost a text book example of the above definition of Halal.
> 
> Let's take a look at what the Gurus had to say about Halal.
> 
> "Let what is earned righteously be your blessed food." Guru Arjan page 1084
> 
> To Guru Arjan, the only thing that would make a food not blessed would be to earn it non righteously.
> 
> In fact, the aim of a Sikh is to become Halal and be purified by the knife in order to be “attached to the Lord.”
> 
> "First Mehl: The knife is Truth, and its steel is totally True. Its workmanship is incomparably beautiful. It is sharpened on the grindstone of the Shabad. It is placed in the scabbard of virtue. If the Shaykh is killed with that, then the blood of greed will spill out. One who is slaughtered in this ritualistic way, will be attached to the Lord. O Nanak, at the Lord's door, he is absorbed into His Blessed Vision. 2 "Guru Nanak page 956
> 
> The only thing that a Sikh should consider as Halal is a Liberated One.
> 
> "FIRST MEHL: The fools argue about flesh and meat, but they know nothing about meditation and spiritual wisdom. What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?" Guru Nanak page 1289
> 
> What I believe the Guru is saying is that food is food and it is foolish to argue about what we should eat. How can there be a sin committed when all we are doing is eating to survive. Then how can a sin be committed if the meat is Halal or not. It is in the mind of the individual if it is Halal or not. I choose to see nothing as Halal and I believe Guru Nanak would have also. I believe that if the food that was served to Guru Nanak was Halal, the food that he ate was not. Eating has nothing to do with spiritual attainment and neither is the manner that it is killed.
> 
> Later he writes:
> 
> “Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night. They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom. O Nanak, what can be said to the blind people? They cannot answer, or even understand what is said. They alone are blind, who act blindly. They have no eyes in their hearts. They are produced from the blood of their mothers and fathers, but they do not eat fish or meat.” Guru Nanak page 1289
> 
> Here the Guru is saying that vegetarians who look down their noses at people who eat meat are also fools. I remember a conversation I had with a woman from 3HO. I mentioned that someone who we both knew ate meat. Her reply was: 'Then how can he be an Amritdhari Sikh?' This is exactly what Guruji condemns in the above.
> 
> When I took Amrit, not eating meat was a part of the vows. I realize now that whether you eat meat or not, should not be a requirement of a group but the choice of the individual.
> 
> Transition into Infinity


It is a misnomer to take the word "Halal", which as a verb means "rightfully earned": and as a Noun it means "the way of slaughtering an animal or bird for food". So we do not accept Halal" meat as rightful, only "Jhatka" is rightful for sikhs. Regarding the Panj Piaras advising among other things, that 'from the day you have taken Amrit sanskar, you will not eat Non-veg., is beyond sikhism, and it smells of Brahmanic philosophy. They should advise that "you will never eat non-veg done in a Muslim way which they call Halal."


----------



## sikh Engineer

pervez said:


> You are free to belive what you want. The jewish once a day "blessing" is a recent phenemona. Many traditional jews still do it individualy. Thus muslims accept the meat from such jews. Also any muslim can slaughter animal as wittnessed in south asia and many muslim countries. In the west small places where halal meat is not available muslims go to farms and slaughter themselves. The  "presented as a living animal" is in your imagination. While it is recommended the animal face the direction of mecca, if not done it does not make it non halal.
> I think the issue has been disuussed at length. Perhaps you dont understand the term" inform" which was my intention. You want to argue. I have no intention to convince any one about any thing. I am merely presenting information. Those who tend to be open minded may use it as a valid input for their thinking and may or may not reach the same conclusion as me.  Most probably will take a similar stand as you.
> The issue seems to be not of the logic or facts but some thing deeper. However a reminder to you that your statements seem strange as surely you realise that you too are an migrant where you live and are also a small minority in all countries.
> I think nothing productive will come out in me furthering the discussion on this topic.


 
I think we should first analyze what Halal means as per my knowledge Halal means *rightfully,truthfully earned living *or we can say it is permissible, we often say Haq aur Halal se kamaya huya hi kahana chayie . so it is clear that even  in Sikhism Haq aur Halal has importance because our all  Guru's stressed  on rightful and truthful earning and living which is termed as Halal in Arabic. Sikh don't have any problem with the  word Halal but problem for Sikh  starts when slaughtering of animal is done in the name of Allah and it is named as Halal, in my opinion its not Halal its sacrificed meat.
Its clear that Guru Gobind Sahib ji  never termed we should not eat Halal they clearly mention its Kautha meat which is prohibited for Sikh to eat even most of the Hindu brother do Jatka but it is also done to please GOD which is also prohibited in sikhism, So Sikhism reject the idea of slaughtering done in the name of GOD either adopting Halal or Jatka method.
 So its my request not to get confused by the names(Halal or Jatka). we Sikhs  have to keep in mind we cannot  eat meat  slaughtered in the name of GOD


----------



## palaingtha

sikh Engineer said:


> I think we should first analyze what Halal means as per my knowledge Halal means *rightfully,truthfully earned living *or we can say it is permissible, we often say Haq aur Halal se kamaya huya hi kahana chayie . so it is clear that even  in Sikhism Haq aur Halal has importance because our all  Guru's stressed  on rightful and truthful earning and living which is termed as Halal in Arabic. Sikh don't have any problem with the  word Halal but problem for Sikh  starts when slaughtering of animal is done in the name of Allah and it is named as Halal, in my opinion its not Halal its sacrificed meat.
> Its clear that Guru Gobind Sahib ji  never termed we should not eat Halal they clearly mention its Kautha meat which is prohibited for Sikh to eat even most of the Hindu brother do Jatka but it is also done to please GOD which is also prohibited in sikhism, So Sikhism reject the idea of slaughtering done in the name of GOD either adopting Halal or Jatka method.
> So its my request not to get confused by the names(Halal or Jatka). we Sikhs  have to keep in mind we cannot  eat meat  slaughtered in the name of GOD


The Halal meat is what the Muslims say, it is OK for them, but Sikhs are not bound by their religion to follow their dictates.  Guru Sahib has specifically forbidden us not to share Roti,Beti with Muslims. Sunnat is Halal for them, but for Sikhs it amounts to rejection of God's gift. Would you say, since Sunnat is Halal and Sikhs should follow suit. Your views are anti-Sikh, probably it is some Muslim asking Sikhs to accept the Kutha Meat which they call Halal. It is preposterous to advise Sikhs to adopt Muslim ways. AS PER YOUR ADMISSION ABOVE THAT GURU GOBIND SINGH JI HAS PROHIBITED KUTHA MAAS; WHICH  (KUTHA) MEANS = MEAT PREPARED IN MOHAMMEDAN WAY , what Muslims call "Halal" which is kutha for us. They call us "Kafar"; we retaliate with the word "Malech" for Muslims.


----------



## palaingtha

Further the word "Halal" means:- 1) as a verb -the rightful way of earning etc and 2) as a Noun -that it is Muslim way of slaughter which Muslims accept and why ask Sikhs to accept their version. They say "Mohammed is the last Prophet" just to stake a claim theirs is the only Religion and any religion coming into existence after Mohammed is NO RELIGION. Do you accept this?


----------



## Tejwant Singh

palaingtha said:


> It is a misnomer to take the word "Halal", which as a verb means "rightfully earned": and as a Noun it means "the way of slaughtering an animal or bird for food". So we do not accept Halal" meat as rightful, only "Jhatka" is rightful for sikhs. Regarding the Panj Piaras advising among other things, that 'from the day you have taken Amrit sanskar, you will not eat Non-veg., is beyond sikhism, and it smells of Brahmanic philosophy. They should advise that "you will never eat non-veg done in a Muslim way which they call Halal."



And Kosher.


----------



## sikh Engineer

palaingtha said:


> The Halal meat is what the Muslims say, it is OK for them, but Sikhs are not bound by their religion to follow their dictates.  Guru Sahib has specifically forbidden us not to share Roti,Beti with Muslims. Sunnat is Halal for them, but for Sikhs it amounts to rejection of God's gift. Would you say, since Sunnat is Halal and Sikhs should follow suit. Your views are anti-Sikh, probably it is some Muslim asking Sikhs to accept the Kutha Meat which they call Halal. It is preposterous to advise Sikhs to adopt Muslim ways. AS PER YOUR ADMISSION ABOVE THAT GURU GOBIND SINGH JI HAS PROHIBITED KUTHA MAAS; WHICH  (KUTHA) MEANS = MEAT PREPARED IN MOHAMMEDAN WAY , what Muslims call "Halal" which is kutha for us. They call us "Kafar"; we retaliate with the word "Malech" for Muslims.


 
Dear Palaingthaji
I guess you took it in wrong sense my view are not anti Sikh, all I wanted to convey is that we should not get confused by words  ( Halal or Jatka). Sikh is prohibited to eat meat which is slaughter  to please GOD or which is slaughter by reciting name of GOD just to satisfy himself that by reciting GOD name he is not doing anything wrong by slaughtering , that is why Guru Sahib ji specifically mention not to take Kautha meat  because Kautha  broadly mean meat prepared  by ritual where some please GOD and others recite his name to satisfied themselves that they are not doing anything wrong by killing.

Lastly I can defend myself by saying this that Kautha meat can be Halal and same way it can be Jatka also, now this seems to be confusing let me clear it
HALAL means reciting Allah's name before slaughtering which is prohibited in Sikhism.
Jatka can be Kautha meat if anyone slaughter it for sacrificing means( like most of Hindus sacrifice goat etc in the name of Goddess which they call bali, but they slaughter it using Jatka methed) 
So I guess now you got my point. I also suggest that the method of Halal is termed as ritual in which animal is sacrificed before GOD


----------



## palaingtha

sikh Engineer said:


> Dear Palaingthaji
> I guess you took it in wrong sense my view are not anti Sikh, all I wanted to convey is that we should not get confused by words  ( Halal or Jatka). Sikh is prohibited to eat meat which is slaughter  to please GOD or which is slaughter by reciting name of GOD just to satisfy himself that by reciting GOD name he is not doing anything wrong by slaughtering , that is why Guru Sahib ji specifically mention not to take Kautha meat  because Kautha  broadly mean meat prepared  by ritual where some please GOD and others recite his name to satisfied themselves that they are not doing anything wrong by killing.
> 
> Lastly I can defend myself by saying this that Kautha meat can be Halal and same way it can be Jatka also, now this seems to be confusing let me clear it
> HALAL means reciting Allah's name before slaughtering which is prohibited in Sikhism.
> Jatka can be Kautha meat if anyone slaughter it for sacrificing means( like most of Hindus sacrifice goat etc in the name of Goddess which they call bali, but they slaughter it using Jatka methed)
> So I guess now you got my point. I also suggest that the method of Halal is termed as ritual in which animal is sacrificed before GOD



I have firm belief there is no custom of "Sacrifice' of animal as a ritual or otherwise in Sikhism. We cut vegetables for cooking and in the same way we slaughter a goat or a chicken though there may be a difference in handling. If we remember God during all our activities or otherwise, it is no harm if one remembers God while cutting Veg or Non-veg, provided it is not a ritual to give meaning of a sacrifice of the animal. Above all there is no such ritual in Sikhs, we cut and cook to eat. Simple. the Nepali Hindus offer a Bhensa as sacrifice to their god as a ritual done for specific purpose and on specific days. We Sikhs do not believe in sacrifices and slaughter desired animal or bird for consumption. We feel no guilt in eating non-veg. Thanks.


----------



## sikh Engineer

yes I also know in Sikhism there is no such custom of "Sacrifice' of animal as a ritual. yes we even don't feel guilty when we slaughter animal for eating food

thanks


----------



## palaingtha

sikh Engineer said:


> yes I also know in Sikhism there is no such custom of "Sacrifice' of animal as a ritual. yes we even don't feel guilty when we slaughter animal for eating food
> 
> thanks


We like Sikhs who do not have pretensions but are straight forward from their heart which is well connected with Sikh ethos! Great and Thanks!


----------

