This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To the IP that just blanked this page, I will assume good faith that this blanking of this discussion in progress was an accident, but be aware that any future blanking will be seen as vandalism and dealt with accordingly.--Isotope23 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Meat eating a non-issue
Why does the editor feel that meat eating should be brought into a discussion about Sikhism, when it clearly is a non-issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
If you are a Sikh, you will know as well as I do that there are always discussions about whether it is okay to eat meat or not. This certainly isn't a non-issue. If there are inaccuracies in what was written, please change them. There is no need to remove them completely. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The item also appears to contradict itself, saying that meat killed in the halal and kosher ways is prohibited, then going on to say that only meat killed with one swift painless cut is allowed. This is EXACTLY how kosher meat is killed (in comparison to halal meat which is killed slowly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.138.100 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 September 2006
I don't believe that kosher meat methods end the life of the animal instantly, so there is no great fundamental difference between halal and kosher as far as a Sikh is concerned. Another, important thing is that this is a personal matter not to be engaged in vigorous argument. Please read Sikhism and meat and make your own mind. I don't believe that it is a cardinal sin to eat meat, but Sikhs are encouraged eventually to consider this matter if they wish to make continued progress spiritually. Please, relax and just let the scriptures guide you either way!. Best regards, --Hari Singh 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Point of fact: Shechita, the kosher method of slaughter, certainly does kill the animal instantly, by cutting off all blood flow to the brain. So if the concern is the animal's suffering, then kosher meat ought to be acceptable. But the same is probably true of Ḏabīḥah (halal slaughter) as well, and yet there seems to be no question that halal meat is prohibited to Sikhs.
On the other hand, there are some significant differences between Shechita and Ḏabīḥah, which might lead Sikhs to distinguish between them. If I understand this discussion correctly, the Sikh concern is about "ritual", which is abhorrent to Sikhism; obviously the English word doesn't translate exactly the Sikh concept, so I'm groping in the dark here, but here's some food for thought:
In Ḏabīḥah, the animal must be turned to face Mecca, and the slaughterer pronounces Bismillah, "in the name of God", as he kills the animal. In Shechita, the animal is not turned in any particular direction; and while the slaughterer does thank God before beginning his task, for having taught His people the proper way of slaughter, nothing is said during the act itself, and it is certainly not conducted in God's name, or dedicated to God in any way. Perhaps these aspects are what makes halal meat unacceptable to Sikhs, and would make kosher meat acceptable.
Absolutely Zsero, it is about the ritual nature of the slaughter.--Sikh-history 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
We are prohibited to do the works which deamons (of satjug) do and eating meat is one of them. Ant type of meat weather jhatka or hallal is not allowed in sikhism. Kabira bhang machulee sura paan jo jo praani khaanahi, tirth barat nem kiye tai sab rasaatal jaanhee.
Not so, and what demons? Ritually slaughtered meat is not allowed for a Sikh 'Kabira bhang machulee sura paan jo jo praani khaanahi, tirth barat nem kiye tai sab rasaatal jaanhee', is also quoted out of context and has nothing to do with meat eating.--195.92.40.49 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Kutha meat refers to ritualistically slaughtered meat. It is seen as a form of appeasement to God. Sikh's believe God needs no such appeasement. --Sikh-history 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Questions from 86.7.132.163
Issue 1) Are'nt women allowed to shave their legs, armpits or vaginas ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.132.163 (talk • contribs)
If they're a full 5K (See Five Ks) Sikh, then yes, the wouldn't shave any hair on their body. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's important to note that it isn't just women - men also are not allowed to shave any hair on their body. (Singhyuk 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
Issue 2) If not, then would that not be an infringement on the rights of women, when other women from other backgrounds are more hygenic ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.132.163 (talk • contribs)
If you consider natural body hair unhygenic then you could say that. However, Sikhism does not force anyone to do anything, so it's entirely the women's choice. And, hair is part of the philosophy and uniform of the Khalsa - it's not inherently sinful to shave. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
As I say, it applies to men also, as well as the response above.(Singhyuk 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
Issue 3) Why do so many Sikh men eat halal meat and drink alcohol (at the same time) if its 'forbidden' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.132.163 (talk • contribs)
Because they choose to. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - we all have free choice. Sikhism does not say one will be expelled on the spot or anything for drinking alcohol - just as with any law or religion, people have a free choice whether to follow them or not! Bit of a silly question IMHO. (Singhyuk 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
Issue 4) Is not wearing a turban just another ritual ? Like 'wearing your religion on your sleeve' ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.132.163 (talk • contribs)
No, the turban isn't a ritual. You could say that certain Sikh practices are rituals, but wearing a turban is not. The turban can be deemed an insignia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Issue 5) Why do we keep our hair....and cut our nails???
Hi, thanks for your interest in Sikhi and some understandable questions. I have tried to reply as best as possible:
We have many thousands of hair follicles on our body but only 20 nails. The nails have only a specific physical function to perform, while the hair being so widespread are there for another purposes rather then just physical reasons. Spiritual benefits of hair was well known to all the main prophets of the world religions and other prominent souls who have treaded on this path. Further, the Sikhs are asked to keep the "true appearance" of a human being - causing the minimum damage to the appearance given by God in recognition of His superiority & dominance and to keep as close to nature as possible. "saabat soorat dastaar siraa" SGGS page 1084.
Also many times in the SGGS God is referred to "beautifully-haired Lord" , see here and also as "long-haired", see here. So to me it has a significance.
And finally, if a Sikh is supposed to remember God at all times, would he or she be "violating" their God-given-hair? The Bani tells us that the Gurmukh remembers the Lord with every hair and "washes" the feet of the saints with the hair – surely this can't be don't if the hair has been removed. "The Gurmukh meditates on the Lord with every hair of his body. O Nanak, the Gurmukh merges in Truth." ||27|| p941 and "I make my hair into a fan, and wave it over them; I apply the dust of their feet to my face. ||1||Pause||" p749 and lastly "I perform service for Your slave, O Lord, and wipe his feet with my hair. I offer my head to him, and listen to the Glorious Praises of the Lord, the source of bliss. ||1||" p810
I hope this answers the question? Many thanks, --Hari Singh 02:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the spiritual/scriptual interpretation that HariSingh has provided, there is the fact that it's impractical to keep long nails. Long hair is "natural", part of the uniform of a Sikh, where as long nails are not really "natural" and are impractical. Simple as... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:37, 12 September
2006 (UTC)
To Hari Singh
sorry doesnt really answer my question at all... you said that we have to accpect the way god sent us to earth, and we believe god sends us to earth the way we are for a reason.....so is the reason our nails grow...is to invent the nail cutter? dont you think if we must stay "natural" keeping our nails is included? I was watching ginuess book of world records, and I saw this guy who has four feet nails, and they have veins running thourgh them, its apart of his body. I think if we say we should stay the way god made us, either dont cut our nails and hair ( different topic but...tumor removals) or we can think that god doesnt care how you look on the outside (turban/haircut/piercing/clothing), he cares about how we are in the inside (love for others/do harm to none/work hard). Sikhs are less then 1 percent of the wolrd. there are others on this planet, and we all are gods creations. making differences only brings us farther apart. We should learn to live together.
To my dear freind Sukh
definition of "natural" :
- based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
- of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
- growing spontaneously
I noticed you said hair was natural and nails were not. ummm....where did u get that from sir? Maybe its your misleading opinion, but our nails are natural, I dont think theres any doubt about that.
you also stated nails are impractical, meaning they have no use? well sir, you are being a little ethnocentric here, there are many tribes who use long nails for hunting purposes. Plus why would god make them grow? I'm sure he doesnt make mistakes...and his creations are certainly not impractical.
Lets say god did make a mistake, nails are useless. meaning they have no physical purpose. One may argue long hair may be impractical aswell. No? One may say its a hassel to take care of, It gets in my way of sports and regular life activities. If you can say this about nails, it can be said for hair aswell. Just a matter of opinion.
But im curious what are the physical benefits of long hair?
other then it keeps our head warm in the winter, because in the summer it really doesnt apply.
also other then, you get vitamin D form the sun. Yes you do get vitmin D from the sun, but you recieve it through your skin not from long hair. But even if this argument was true, we would first have to remove our turbans and then have our hair open, so the sunlight (Uv rays) can actually reach our hair. Sadly in our religion we are not suppose to uncover our hair.
anyways,
wouldn't mind a reply to my stupid questions
im not a sikh but im just curious about this questions to. so if you cant cut any of the hairs does that mean you let you armpit hair grow till you die? moreover you let every hair on you body grow till you die? so men never shaves their beard, not even as a teenager? and so why can you cut your nails but not hair just the same questions as the guy above. just so curious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thugchildz (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Obviously a lot of these questions are open to interpretation, like most parts of religion, making the title of this article "Prohibitions", somewhat ingenuous. There is plenty of debate about what is exactly prohibited, exactly why and what "prohibition" means - does it mean you are no longer a Sikh? Probably not, because that definition is up to the individual. My personal thoughts on the above, however, are - i) nails? A fair point - perhaps you wish to interpret that the primary aim of Kesh is to stay "natural", and that means not cutting any nails or hair. However I personally feel the symbolism and identity of Kesh is far more important. ii) Thugchildz, many Sikhs will not cut any hair on their body - including the private parts, armpit hair, beards and hair. However hair does not grow indefenity, most parts of the body have hair length limits. For example, I don't know any men, Sikh or not, who cut their armpit hair, but it doesn't grow forever, it has a reasonable length before new hairs grow. Anyways, I'm sure that be found somewhere in the medical side of Wikipedia ;-). (Singhyuk 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
Intoxicants
My personal point I'd like to add, is whether it's fair to say all these things are prohibited, such as alcohol, without referencing it or debates around it. There is differing interpretations, for example, over what the Guru Granth Sahib itself states regarding alcohol (as opposed to common rules a Khalsa Sikh follows) and about medicines which may also be intoxicants. I don't know enough myself, unfortunately, perhaps some Sikh Scholar could help? (Singhyuk 15:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
Protected Page
I've protected this page from editing. Please discuss changes here in the interim. The protection ends Feb-8-07 but if I see this going back to an edit war without discussion on this page I will protect it again for a longer period of time.--Isotope23 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Isotope, thanks a million for locking the opage (even though it maybe on the wrong edit). The problem is that there are a few fanatics who keep spamming this site with their POV on the meat issue. I added verifiable facts to counter this:
Eating Kutha Meat: Eating Kutha [1](halal/kosher or sacrificed as per Hukamnama by Guru Gobind Singh ji) meat is strictly forbidden for a Khalsa Sikh. Serving any meat at langar is strictly prohibited as Langar is meant to be a meal open to all. The Rehat Maryada bans the consumption of halal and kosher meat and states that "Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way must be avoided;" [2] and this forms one of "four transgressions" that are regarded as a cardinal sins for the Khalsa Sikh. It is held that the Hukamnama issued by the Akal Takht states that meat killed in the Jhatka,[3] fashion (one blow, and a non-ritualistic manner) is the only meat that should be consumed by a Sikh.[4]. There are some Sikh groups who advocate, however, a vegetarian lifestyle.
The fanatics were not happy about these facts and have declared an editing war. I would be grateful if you could mediate. Regards --Sikh-history 14:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed point 10 altogether. At this point there is obviously a POV dispute about this point. I'm not Sikh (though I do know a bit about the religion) so I don't have a strong background here, but in the interim I think it is best to leave that section out of the article altogether for the time being until some sort of agreement can be reached here as to what (if anything) should be displayed in regards to eating/not eating meat. I'd be happy to attempt to mediate an agreement here.--Isotope23 14:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. You have acted brilliantly. I would be delighted if someone like you can mediate on this moot point. I can provide refrences if you wish me to. There is a debate going on my page as we speak. Thanks again for your timely and even handed intervention.--62.25.106.209 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I think just for simplicity sake it would be best to try and contain the discussion on this page as much as possible.--Isotope23 14:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Isotope23
The problem is there is a fanatic who is trying to push his weird views onto other people. Using fringe and weird references rejected by the majority. It was noticed this fanatic was not happy when his fringe interpretations were challenged. This fanatic uses many ip addresses read this post that put against User:Sukh one of the most respected Sikh wikipedians.--Sikh 1 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Meat eating a non-issue
Why does the editor feel that meat eating should be brought into a discussion about Sikhism, when it clearly is a non-issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
:If you are a Sikh, you will know as well as I do that there are always discussions about whether it is okay to eat meat or not. This certainly isn't a non-issue. If there are inaccuracies in what was written, please change them. There is no need to remove them completely. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)"
For starters, calling each other "fanatics" is probably not a good place to begin a good faith discussion. I understand I'm walking into the middle of a dispute that has some history, but if both sides could refrain from characterized the people they are disagreeing with in that light it is probably going to help this discussion move forward and be more fruitful.
Moving on the the actual issue at hand, just a couple of ideas to think about at the outset. If there is a debate/or discussion within Sikhism pertaining to whether or not eating meat is acceptable, then should it be listed as a Prohibition? To me at least a religious prohibition should be something that is universally and fundamentally agreed upon by the vast majority of religious authorities of that particular religion. I don't know how robust the debate is within Sikhism, but from the reprinted post above I'm kind of assuming this something of an ongoing debate within the religious community. Another thing to think about, what is the purpose of saying it is acceptable to eat meat in an article about an article about prohibitions in a religion? Saying some behavior is acceptable isn't a prohibition, it is more of an allowance. That said, perhaps an option is to have a separate section that fully portrays the debate over eating/not eating meat (fully sourced of course). Again, I'm just tossing some of these ideas out there to start a good faith discussion about this and feel free to make other suggestions and points here.--Isotope23 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Isotope. The issue on meat has been debated back in the 80's by the Sikh Governing Body (Akal Takht). A consensus (or Gurmatta) was reached. The ruling is enshrined in the Rehat Maryada (or Sikh Code of Conduct), what transgressions a Sikh must avoid. On meat the ruling is clear. Only ritually slaughtered (halaal etc) meat must be avoided by a Sikh. Here is my case in refrence. Click the link to acces the official Sikh Code of Conduct website to verify.
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha);
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
— Sikh Rehit Maryada
Punjabi-English Dictionary, Punjabi University, Dept. of Punjabi Lexicography, Published Dec. 1994. "Kuttha: meat of animal or fowl slaughtered slowly as prescribed by Islamic law."
Punjabi English Dictionary, Singh Bros., Amritsar "Kuttha: Tortured, killed according to Mohammedan law."
If you need any more information, just ask.--Sikh-history 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing is Isotope23 Sikhism is a hard religion to follow because there are a lot of requirements and Prohibitions that are hard to live up to and meet. And traditionally for the last 400 years people have followed those hard rules and Prohibitions. However, in modern times e.g. last 20 years some fringe groups who do NOT want to live to the hard rules and lifestyle of Sikhism want their cake and eat it. They want to call themselves sikh and not live up to and abide by the hard rules and Prohibitions in Sikhism so they will try to use any way to get out of them--Sikh 1 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Let us discuss the facts. Start with Rehat Maryada, posted above. We will move to 400 year history later (claims which I can also disprove with facts). Thanks--Sikh-history 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Your fringe grey references are meaningless. None of what your so called interpretations/grey facts you produce has any reliablity or neutrality.--Sikh 1 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you are both saying is that there is a traditional, historical prohibition against Sikhs eating meat, but in more modern times there has been a movement by some to try to rethink or redefine this prohibition. Is that a correct statement?--Isotope23 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. Meat eating has never been banned in Sikhism (if you go to my home page you can see an essay on this with refrences on this issue). During the turn of the 19th Century, many Hindu's became Sikh's. Some so as to gain recruitment to the British Sikh Regiments, and others because of the growing Freedom movement (and Sikh participation in it). These Hindu's had Vaishnav tendencies (one of which is strict vegetarianism). These Vaishnav tendencies started creeping into the Sikh faith prompting the Sikh ruling body the Akal Takht to make a final ruling on the issue to avoid further conflict on the issue. The ruling being in the Rehat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct), which outlaws only ritually slaughtered meat for Sikhs. So to summarise, the tradition of Meat eating and Vegetarianism had coexisted since the begining of Sikhism, but due to the incoming membership of the Sikh faith (Vaisnavites), it meant that the Sikh ruling body was forced to make a final ruling on this issue. Some people alas do not accept this. So this introduction of vegetarianism is a relatively new phenomenen. Sikh 1 being an example. The facts are facts nevertheless.--Sikh-history 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For last 400 years Sikhism has been non-meat, it only the last 20 years fringe tiny sects are trying to think its ok to eat meat. Using your website or any fringe references are meaningless and not neutral.--Sikh 1 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please provide evidence to back up your claim. The Akal Takht is the very heart of Sikhism, and therfore cannot be a "tiny fringe". Eating meat and vegetarianism are personal choices in Sikhism. The vast majority of Sikhs are not vegertarians. The SGPC or Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhank Commitee is the overseeing body for sikhs. I have linked directly to their website here http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html. That is not www.sikh-history.com Regards --Sikh-history 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The basic point is you cannot do anything that conflicts with the Sikh holy book SGGS. Just like muslims must do everything it says in the Koran. Fundamental rule of Sikhism = You must do everything it says in the Sikh holy book SGGS your lifestyle cannot conflict with what is says in there, if it does then you can't call your self a Sikh.--Sikh 1 16:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Guru Nanak Devji tackled this entire issue head on and rubbished the claims of so called spiritual people who thought themselves more pious and religious simply because they did not eat meat.
Page 1289 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
mehlaa 1.
maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai. ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay. gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay. maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay. farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai. naanak anDhay si-o ki-aa kahee-ai kahai na kahi-aa boojhai. anDhaa so-ay je anDh kamaavai tis ridai se lochan naahee. maat pitaa kee rakat nipannay machhee maas na khaaNhee.
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? It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 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.
— Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji
This is the only shabad that specifically deals with meat eating specifically in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji (Sikh Holy Book). As one can see the whole issue about meat is a trivial one. Please use verifiable sources to back up your claims. Regards --Sikh-history 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you both for giving me a bit of background on the differing opinions here. Give me a bit of time to digest this and see if I can come up with some ideas where to proceed from here. In the interim, do either of you have any thoughts/comments/objections to what I mentioned earlier as possible ways to move forward here? To recap:
A separate section that fully portrays the debate over eating/not eating meat (with sources) or possibly a separate article linked to this one.
Leaving this out of the list altogether.
Let me know your thoughts on these ideas.--Isotope23 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am for a seperate post, but we had one before and it wa deleted because of people who kept editing and changing bits on the bit that made the argument that meat eating was not banned. Also there was a strong element of POV on the vegetarian side with no substatiated sources. I think deletion of Point 10 maybe the only option, I am however, all ears. Thanks--Sikh-history 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You have NO IDEA ABOUT SIKHISM you don't even known the first thing that’s the stupidest interpretation & weird view I've EVER heard on any Sikh scripture- truly Shocking!!. Your weird interpretations and other Sikh users who think you have a warped and weird mind. You really known nothing about Sikhism--Sikh 1 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Look Sikh 1, you sound very childish. There really is no need for insults and inuendo's. Please present facts, not meaningless diatribe. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiable facts, and not opinion. In the meantime, here are some more verifiable facts from prominent Sikh scholars on this issue:
Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste.
— 'Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi ISBN81-7304-310-8.
The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.
— Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar ISBN81-7205-060-7
Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.
— A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi ISBN81-7023-139-6
As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 1288).
— Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar
The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus.
— A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England ISBN0-8442-0424-2
In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate).
— Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi ISBN81-7010-245-6
A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.
— Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi ISBN81-85151-64-4
The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way.
— Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 81-7010-181-6
There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.
— Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto
According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate.
— The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver
The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.
— Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal
The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.
— Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi.
Thanks --Sikh-history 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Isotope23. I think the debate should be based on verifiable facts from scholarly works. Sikh1 has not produced any. His theory that Sikhism has been vegetarian for 400 years is speculative. It is a figment of imagination. Even the Sikh Guru's themselves were not vegetarian. There are eyewitness accounts that can verify this. There are further Brtish eyewitness accounts about the behaviour of Sikhs in the 1700's and 1800's (which I can produce), that give us an insight into the diet of Sikhs. It most certainly is not vegetarian. Sikhism is much like Buddhism in this respect, and leave the choice of eating and not eating meat up to the individual. It should be also noted that there was also a rift in the early 1700's amonst Sikhs over this issue. Bandha Bahadhur formed what were called Bandhahi Sikhs. Apparently he had suffered some trauma over killing animals when he killed a pregnant doe and the calf died inside. He later led an uprising against the Mughals shortly afterwards, but started advocating vegetarianism. This split the Sikh Brotherhood, but a compromise was eventually reached. This being that vegetarianism and meat eating was an issue of individual conscience. So the advocation of vegetarianism in Sikhism is periodicly rears its head. The latest time (around the 1980's), the governing body of the Sikhs on temporal matters (The Akal Takht), made a final ruling on this (see above).--Sikh-history 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
OK, so does anyone have strong objections to just leaving point 10 out of this list for the time being?--Isotope23 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not, but I recommend that the page is either locked or closely monitored to prevent people spamming it again with diatribe. It is ironic that I have argued previously that issues to do with meat should be left off any discussion and be a matter for individual conscience. --Sikh-history 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Second Arbitrary section break
Yes, because it is an important point central to the beliefs of the Sikhs and should be included. Even the SGPC's rules prohibits the consumption of kuttha meat, but the SGGS, which is the "only Guide" for the Sikh prohibits it completely. Bhai Gurdas whose writings are referred to as the "Key" to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib which ultimately is the most important source of the advise that a Sikh needs to follow has many strongly hymns against the consumption of meat. The quotes by Sikh History are academic who have no role to play in this. The Sikh is only allowed to follow the advise of the Guru or if this is not available of other Gurmukhs. Academics have no role al all – they are referred to a Manmukhs and the SGGS tells us: "The Gurmukh knows the Divine Light, while the foolish self-willed manmukh gropes around in the darkness." (SGGS p20) A Gurmukh is the one who follows the advise of the Guru. A Manmukh is own who follows he own mind and research!
As this is a complex issue, you need to understand this subject in detail before making up your mind. Below are examples - (taken from the free Sikh encyclopaedia – Sikhiwiki): which hopefully will make the position clear:
This article is based entirely on the views expressed by the Sikh Guru – Gurbani – and does not rely on any outside views. The message expressed by the Guru are clear and unambiguous and anyone who understands Gurmukhi will be able to come to the same conclusion. Gurbani or the writings within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (or SGGS) are the most important guidance for a Sikh as this is regards as the Guru or Spiritual teacher for the Sikh. (banee guroo guroo hai banee vich banee amrit saaray.…sggs p982)
To be a Sikh is to consider the SGGS as ones only spiritual guide. The message within the Guru Granth Sahib is the universal and moral guide for all of humanity and in particular for all Sikhs. No Hukamnama (order, directive or decree) by anyone other than the Sikh Guru can move the Guru's Sikh away from this stand (hukam rajaa-ee chalnaa naanak likhi-aa naal....sggs p1). Gurbani offers clear guidance on this important issue. The following quotes from Varan Bhai Gurdas and Sri Guru Granth Sahib give the Sikhs clear and concise direction on what a Sikh should eat or not eat and other aspect of this important facet of a person's spiritual and moral life.
Bhai Gurdas ji was the first scribe of the Adi Granth. He was responsible for writing the first compilation of the Holy Granth. While Guru Arjan Dev ji dictated the Bani, Bhai Sahib put the words to paper. He probably spent many years in gathering and then scribing the words of Gurbani. He is recognised as the first "Scholar of Sikhism" and his own writings, called the Varan Bhai Gurdas were called by Guru Arjan Dev, "the Key to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib". The Varan also offer clear guidance on this subject to the Sikh as well.
Despite this article outlining the fact that eating meat is prohibited for a Sikh, it should be very clear to all that whether one eats meat or not, is only one aspect of the life of a Sikh. So no greater importance should be given to this issue at the expense of the many other issues which are of equal importance to a Sikh. It is not an issue where one should engage in heated argument - Read Gurbani and make your own decision on this matter. This topic is very emotive and many Sikhs who cannot read or understand the original Gurmukhi text are unable to understand the Guru's clear message and will use their own Manmat (entrench personal stand) to propagate their own views or views of other who have not relied on the Guru's word.
However, remember that SGGS has placed emphasis on many aspects of life - on Naam Simran – remembering the Lord with every breath; Kirit Karni – honest living within His Hukam; and Wand kay Shako - Sharing, Nishkam Sewa and Dedicated community service - these are all very important to the Sikh. It is important to see this as one issue among many that are equally important to the Sikh way of life.
O human being, whatever you can see with your eyes, shall perish.
The world eats dead carcasses, living by neglect and greed. ((Pause))
Like a goblin, or a beast, they kill and eat the forbidden carcasses of meat.
So control your urges, or else you will be seized by the Lord, and thrown into the tortures of hell. ((2))
hak paraa-i-aa naankaa us soo-ar us gaa-ay. gur peer haamaa taa bharay jaa murdaar na khaa-ay. galee bhisat na jaa-ee-ai chhutai sach kamaa-ay. maaran paahi haraam meh ho-ay halaal na jaa-ay. naanak galee koorhee-ee koorho palai paa-ay. ॥2॥
To take what rightfully belongs to another, is like a Muslim eating pork, or a Hindu eating beef. Our Guru, our Spiritual Guide, stands by us, if we do not eat those carcasses. By mere talk, people do not earn passage to Heaven. Salvation comes only from the practice of Truth. By adding spices to forbidden foods, they are not made acceptable. O Nanak, from false talk, only falsehood is obtained. ॥2॥
ras su-inaa ras rupaa kaaman ras parmal kee vaas. ras ghorhay ras sayjaa mandar ras meethaa ras maas. aytay ras sareer kay kai ghat naam nivaas. ॥2॥
The pleasure of gold, pleasure of silvers and damsels, pleasure of fragrance of sandal, pleasure of horses, pleasure of common cushion with a houri and a palace, pleasure of sweets and pleasure of meats, So many are the relishes of the human body. How can then God's Name secure an abode within the heart? ॥2॥
maas maas kar moorakh jhagrhay gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee jaanai. ka-un maas ka-un saag kahaavai kis meh paap samaanay.
gaiNdaa maar hom jag kee-ay dayviti-aa kee baanay. maas chhod bais nak pakrheh raatee maanas khaanay.
farh kar lokaaN no dikhlaavahi gi-aan Dhi-aan nahee soojhai. naanak anDhay si-o ki-aa kahee-ai kahai na kahi-aa boojhai.
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? It was the habit of the gods to kill the rhinoceros, and make a feast of the burnt offering. 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.
Kabeer, those mortals who consume marijuana, fish and wine - no matter what pilgrimages, fasts and rituals they follow, they will all go to hell. ॥233॥
Yet another Arbitrary section break
OK, I'm getting the impression here that from the 2 individuals who chimed in here, there is not a consensus at this time to simply leave mention of the meat issue out of the article. The next stage then would be to discuss how/what to present here. The one thing I'm getting from both sides of this debate is that this is a complex issue, which at least to me makes a simple proclaimation that eating/not eating meat without context explaining the debate is probably not sufficient and would be somewhat of a disservice to any non-Sikhs reading this article. Any thoughts?--Isotope23 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I could go into a lengthy debate with HariSingh and counter everyone of his points very easily, but I won't bother. Note also Sikhiwiki is not an affiliate of wikipedia. It is run by a fringe cult 3HO that has views that are not part of Sikhism.--Sikh-history 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't do personal attacks on Hari Singh YOU are the only one who belong to a fringe cult. You cannot respond to Hari Singh so that why you do personal attacks on him--Sikh 1 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You both need to bring it back to WP:CIVIL... saying someone is part of a "fringe cult" or that their beliefs are "weird" is edging right up on WP:NPA. Like I said at the beginning of this discussion: "if both sides could refrain from characterized the people they are disagreeing with in that light it is probably going to help this discussion move forward and be more fruitful." Right now I see this starting to slide away from being a good faith discussion and into a series of insults so I would like to gently remind everyone on both sides to please comment on the issues, not the other editors and/or your personal views of their beliefs.--Isotope23 19:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Point of order: Sikh-history didn't say HariSikh is part of a fringe cult, he said SikiWiki, a site from which HariSikh had quoted, is run by 3HO, which he characterised as a fringe cult. If this is indeed a fact, HariSingh may not have been aware of it. -- Zsero 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
3HO is viewed as a fringe cult. Sikhism is a non-missionary faith, but 3HO activily has sought converts, a concept alien to Sikh principles. Sikhiwiki is owned by 3HO. Just pointing out that it is not a neutral site, because the "wiki" part may confuse some people here into thinking Sikhiwiki is an unbiased site. On a personal note, I know the owner Gurmustak Singh khalsa of sikhiwiki for many years. He is a white Sikh. He would be the fist to state that 3HO is not regarded as a mainstream Sikh organisation, but on the fringes, and very cult like, with Yogi Bhajhan as the founder and controller of 3HO.Regards --Sikh-history 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
seeh pajoothee bakaree maradhee hoee harr harr hasee.
seehu pushhai visamaadh hoe eith aousar kith rehas rehasee.
bino karae(n)adhee bakaree puthr asaaddae keechan khasee.
ak dhhathooraa khaadhhiaaa(n) kuhi kuhi khal oukhal vinasee.
maas khaan gal vadt kai haal thinaarraa koun hovasee.
garab gareebee dhaeh khaeh khaaj akhaaj akaaj karasee.
jag aaeiaa sabh koe marasee.
(She Goat)
Lion catches a goat; As the goat is dying, it begins to laugh.
In awe the lion asks, why are you laughing?
Humbly the goat says: Our sons are destroyed (castrated).
We only eat wild plants and suffer being slayed & skinned alive.
Those who cut our throats and eat our flesh, what will be their plight?
Proud and arrogant their bodies are a waste; inedible and fruitless.
kuhai kasaaee bakaree laae loon seekh maas paroaa.
has has bolae kuhee(n)adhee khaadhhae ak haal eihu hoaa.
maas khaan gal shhuree dhae haal thinaarraa koun aloaa.
jeebhai ha(n)dhaa faerriaa kho dha(n)dhaa(n) muhu bha(n)n vigoaa.
par than par dhhan ni(n)dh kar hoe dhujeebhaa biseear bhoaa.
vas aavai guruma(n)th sap niguraa manamukh sunai n soaa.
vaekh n chalai agai ttoaa.
Pauri 21 (Man having no Guru is uncontrollable)
The butcher slaughters the goat; salts the meat and strings it on a skewer.
While being killed the goat laughingly says: I have come to this condition for grazing only coarse leaves of arid wild plants.
What will be the plight of those who cutting the throat with a knife eat the flesh of animals?
The perverted taste of the tongue is harmful for the teeth and damages the mouth.
The one who eyes another’s wealth or body or slanders becomes a poisonous Amphisbaena.
This snake is controlled by the Guru's mantra but the Guru-less manmukh never listens to this glorious mantra.
The Manmukh blindly moves ahead, never realizing the approaching deep pit ahead!
(note: Amphisbaena is a mythical serpent having a head at each end of its body.)
— Vaar 37 Pauri 21
I am sorry for such a long post, but it is a complex issue--Hari Singh 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
An elephant’s flesh is not edible for he is full of pride,
The lion is also full of pride of its strength so no one eats it either,
Humble is the goat it gains honor in the here after and this world,
In all celebrations is it [the meat], acknowledged,
It [the meat], sanctifies religious gatherings and feasts,
Its meat is ‘Pavitar’ [good/sacred] for the householder,
From its entrails [tendons] is string for instruments made that when they play, attracts holy men in meditation,
From it’s skin are shoes made, which holy feet wear as they go to seek holy protection [to Guru].
With its skin are bound drums with which ‘Kirtan’ [religious songs], are sung,
Hence, they [goat-skin bound drums] give great comfort.
The holy gathering is coming into the Guru’s protection.
— Vaar 23, Pauri 13
Best Wishes --Sikh-history 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This above is NOT IN the SIKH HOLY BOOK the SHRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB. A SIKH ONLY has to follow whats in the SIKH HOLY BOOK- NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS. This above text is not in the Sikh holy book.--Sikh 1 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Calm down Sikh1, HariSingh posted from Bhai Gurdas, so I added parts he convieniently left out. Best Wishes.--Sikh-history 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As before, Sikh-history, your translation of Bhai Gurdas is completely wrong - just the same as your previous flawed traslation of Gurbani. Can you please break down the pauri - word for word as we have done previously - so we can see where you have gone wrong. Where did you get this translation from?
I have listed below the original Gurmukhi text and a transliteration in Roman characters:
Hari Singh where is your translation from? How do we know any of your translations are correct and not dodgy? This translation is from Varan Bhai Gurdas - Dr Jodh Singh ISBN81-86769-10-2 from page 54. Now if you are saying you know better than Dr Jodh Singh, then that is a different matter and what you are posting would be considered an original piece of work. So before you make slanderous accusations, try asking questions like, where did you get this translation? rather than As before, Sikh-history, your translation of Bhai Gurdas is completely wrong, that is not constructive. Please take back and delete your baseless accusation. Do not try the tricks you did at Sikhiwiki with my colleagues, with me, please. Keep it positive. Regards --Sikh-history 08:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Bhai Gudas's Var Meat Eaters, Instruments and the Holy - Pauri 15 (Example of Rebeck
A handsome tree got cut itself and got manufactured into a rebeck
A youngoat underwent the mortification of getting killed itself,
it distributed its meat among the meat eaters.
Its intestines were made into gut and the skin was mounted (on drum) and stitched.
Now it is brought in the holy congregation where melody is produced on this instrument.
Anyone who worships true Guru, the God, gets absorbed into the equanimity
— Var 14-Page 361-Varan Bhai Gurdas-Dr Jodh Singh
There are many other paragraph's like this by Bhai Gurdas where meat is not seen as a bad thing. In fact it is considered the norm. Regards --Sikh-history 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Extended Protection
I've extended the protection on this article to continue the discussion and I think it is pretty clear that there will not be an quick consensus on this.--Isotope23 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Let me say to those in the conflict (as I have said to both Sikh 1 and Sikh-history specifically) that arguing back and forth over how to properly directly interpret the text will not resolve this. We should be examining other published sources that either (1) analyze the relevant passages or (2) describe how these prohibitions are considered in Sikh society. Mangojuicetalk 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Right... Personally I think the best option would be to link from this article to a new article on Dietary Restrictions in Sikhism where both sides of this debate could be presented fully.--Isotope23 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced. That might end up being a WP:POVFORK. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the idea (in my own idealistic little world) is that it would present both sides and not be a POV... Like I said above though, I am open to suggestions here.--Isotope23 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We tried that before, where we had an artcile on Sikh Diet and Hari Singh kept editing out the non-vegetarian point of view. The article was then removed. He has done the same on his sikhiwiki site. --Sikh-history 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Debate on meat -eating or non-eating in Sikhism
Such debates so long these are healthy discussions are very educative and interesting.Debate on this issue is now on in wikipedia but this has been a contoversial subject since very old times.Many words and arguments have been written for and against it.If at any stage voting is called for my opinion shall be to avoid controversy and follow a practice as one likes and let sikhism remain neutral on subject as has been outilend in gurbani that "maas maas kar moorakh jhagreh"Although this is not an expert opinion ;but opinion has been expressed by me in case voting is required.--203.197.200.33 06:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We generally don't do "votes" here per se, but your opinions on this are always welcome... thanks for chiming in!--Isotope23 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Some research by an independent party
I decided to do a google book search on this vegetarianism issue, because arguing back and forth about whether the holy books do or do not expect vegetarianism will never resolve anything, and is pointless anyway as WP:OR. Here are what a few sources say. (The links may or may not work, Google Book Search is somewhat unpredictable. My search was for "Sikh vegetarianism".
From "Sikh Identity: An Exploration of Groups Among Sikhs" by Opinderjit Kaur Takhar, pg. 51, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2005, ISBN0754652025[1] He says that vegetarianism is not forbidden by the Rehat Maryada, but that the Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha, and many other Gurdwaras, insist that the "initiated abstain from meat eating." He states the opinion (and is clear that it is his personal opinion) that those restrictions have no authority in the Rehat Maryada or in the teachings of the gurus. He adds, "The issue of vegetarianism in Sikhism continues to be a matter over which there are differing opinions among Sikhs themselves." He goes on to mention that the langar is always vegetarian.
From "Conscious Eating" by Gabriel Cousens, pg. 398, North Atlantic Books, 2000, ISBN1556432852[2] This source mentions that because of some roots from the Islam tradition, Sikhism is not strictly vegetarian. However, the author cites another source, "Vegetarianism in Sikhism" by Sawan Singh Sanehi, and says that the teachings of Guru Nanak fully support vegetarianism. This source goes on to mention that the 3HO Golden Temple Movement and the Namdhari sect are large groups within Sikhism that are completely vegetarian. I like this second source better because it doesn't attempt to mix the author's personal opinion with statements of fact, and as it's really more about vegetarianism, it has no vested interest.
From "People of India" by Kumar Suresh Singh, N. N. Vyas, B. K.
Lavania, Dipak Kumar Samanta, and S. K. Mandal, pg. 906, Popular Prakashan, 1998, ISBN8171547699[3]. This source says that among the Sikh people are both vegetarian and non-vegetarian people. It mentions that a "large number" of them are non-vegetarian and eat egg, fish, and meat other than beef. However, a larger context reveals that this section is not about the Sikhs as a religious group but rather as a culture, with the most religious (those who follow all the rules) considered as only one subgroup. Thus, the source is not totally clear on whether or not those Sikhs who eat meat are breaking a religious rule.
Finally, "Culture, Religion, and Childbearing in a Multiracial Society: A Handbook for Health Professionals" by Judith Schott and Alix Henley, Elsevier Heath Sciences, 1996, pg 347, [4], says that the only explicit restriction in Sikhism is against Halal meat, but "a few" devout Sikhs, particularly women, are vegetarian, and "most" Sikhs do not restrict themselves beyond not eating Halal meat.
It seems clear to me that both views are significant, and should be presented in balance. Mangojuicetalk 00:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You say that Cousens has no vested interest. Since his book is advocating vegetarianism, he does have a vested interest in exaggerating the extent of vegetarianism among Sikhs, the influence of vegetarian groups within Sikhism, etc. For instance, Sikh-History describes 3HO as a "fringe cult", while you quote Cousens describing it as a "large group within Sikhism". I have no idea who's right, but Cousens has as much of a vested interest in his description as Sikh-History has in his. -- Zsero 00:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
A fair point. I'd counter that Cousens clearly plays up the vegetarian aspects of Sikhism, and doesn't mention the level of prominence of the meat-eating groups. Cousens tries to depict vegetarianism as prominent within Sikhism but does so by citing two examples of groups. I think Cousens is POV but isn't distorting any facts. Mangojuicetalk 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Some great research chaps (or chapess's). These are the issue we have to contend with. Just like final rulings on Catholocism come from Rome, so final rulings on issues in Sikhism come from the Temporal Centre, the Akal Takht. This issue was debated in the 1980's by the best Sikh minds at the time. If you look at the Sikh Code of Conduct (Rehat Maryada) which is the fnal runling on this issue, one cannot ignore the fact that only Ritually slaughtered meat is banned in Sikhism. Fools wrangle over flesh.
The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way(Kutha);
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse
4. Using tobacco.
— Sikh Rehit Maryada
If you wish to look at the behaviour of the Sikh Guru's look at at Sikh History From Persian Source edited by JS Grewal and Irfan Habib ISBN81-85226-17-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum which has independent eyewitness accounts of Sikh behaviour page 62, In ‘Mobad’ Dabistan-I Mazahib 1645-46, the author states:
Many person became his disciples. Nanak believed in the Oneness of God and in the way that it is asserted in Muhammadan theology. He also believed in transmigration of souls. Holding wine and pork to be unlawful, he had [himself] abandoned eating meat. He decreed avoidance of causing harm to animals. It was after his time that meat-eating spread amongst his followers. Arjan Mal, who was on of his lineal succesors, found this to be evil. He prohibited people from eating meat, saying “This is not in accordance with Nanak’s wishes”. Later, Hargobind, son of Arjan Mal, ate meat and took to hunting. Most of their [the Gurus] followers adopted his practice.
The Seiks receive Proselytes of almost every Cast, a point in which they differ most materially from the Hindoos. To initiate Mohammedans into their mysteries, they prepare a Dish of Hogs legs, which the Converts are obliged to partake of, previous to admission………………..They are not prohibited the use of Animal food of any kind, excepting Beef, which they are rigidly scrupulous in abstaining from.
— John Griffiths writes in February 17th 1794
The seiks are remarkably fond of the flesh of the jungle hog, which they kill in chase: this food is allowable by their law. They likewise eat of mutton and fish; but these being unlawful the Brahmins will not partake, leaving those who chose to transgress their institutes to answer for themselves.
— William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805
Now become a Singh, he is a heterodox, and distinct from the Hindoos by whom he is considered an apostate. He is not restricted in his diet, but is allowed, by the tenets of his new religion, to devour whatever food his appetite may prompt, excepting beef.
— Asiatic Annual Register 1809
You can draw your own conclusions from this.--Sikh-history 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me propose an actual change to the article. How does the following wording sound:
10. Eating meat. Sikhs are strictly prohibited from eating Halal meat, or any meat during the langar. In some Sikh groups, eating meat is believed to be forbidden, but this is not true universally.
I feel that if we get into the issue much more than this, it would detract from the other points in the article: diet is not the only issue. Mangojuicetalk 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I would use the word "Kutha" instead of Halaal, because that is the word used in the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct) if you read it in Punjabi. Kutha = all ritually sacrificed meat. This sounds fine with me, but it is the spammers, and Hari and Sikh1 you have to convince. --Sikh-history 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
With the swapping of Kutha for Halal, I think this is a good middle ground.--Isotope23 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
After you have made the change could the page be locked or watched by you guys in case spammers strike again? --Sikh-history 00:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would also like to see the wording of point 10 changed from Halal to something that specifies ritually slaughtered meat. The use of the word Halal gives the opposite impression of what is intended as the Arabic usage of Halal is very close to the idea of Kosher. Venus19000 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)venus19000
Huh? I don't understand this. AIUI the prohibition is specifically on halal meat. How does the wording give the opposite impression? Halal meat is ritually slaughtered. Zsero 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Extending Protection
Per this, I'm extending the protection on this article. While we welcome new contributors, I can't say I look too kindly on outside canvassing.--Isotope23 02:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry about bringing this to your attention, but it seems a little out of order. I didn't mean to canvass.--Sikh-history 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned canvassing. Letting an admin know about external canvassing that is happening is fair.--Isotope23 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks anyway.--Sikh-history 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Meat, again
The current wording says that meat is "strictly prohibited" in langar. Is that actually true, and universally accepted? Or is the customary langar menu merely a courtesy to those who choose vegetarianism? Suppose everybody present eats meat, would there be a reason not to have meat at langar? -- Zsero 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There are actually Sikh temples that serve lamb meat in India, in langaar at some occaisions. Maybe that needs to be mentioned. Gwalior Gurdwara is one example of this and they have this langaar in honour of the 10th Sikh Guru and the slaughtering of goats and the meeting of Bandha Bahadhur.--62.25.106.209 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Some Sanity and Sociobiology
As long as the scientific method is adhered to (according to the wikipedia cite, there is an algorithmic scientific method that is probably quite objective and apolitical), I think that the following rantings that I am about to give may be of some use :
1) Meat eating. Here, instead of thinking about what God would like us to eat, perhaps it might be beneficial to try and determine logical and scientific reasons for meat eating to be abandoned. Specifically - what cows? Cows in India do sometimes have nasty diseases - perhaps prohibiting the eating of cows was problematic at some point.
2) Khalsa issue - Surely many of the prohibitions are not applicable to non-Khalsa Sikhs? So, once one becomes a Khalsa, then the prohibitions take considerable force.
EATING MEAT, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IN THE END
Anyone can justify eating meat, whether it says it in "A" holy book or not. But what it comes down to is moral and ethical reasoning; the capacity to see beyond the "burger" or "leg." Can you or will you kill for mere taste? People want to eat the burger but not meet the cow. Can you sit there and enjoy a burger while you ask yourself over and over, "This animal once lived, This animal once breathed, maybe if I don't eat this burger, there would be no demand for it, and this animal would have lived till old age.
You can reference all the books you want, about how eating animals is a good thing, but I am an atheist, and your references are without validity and meaning to me. It's not about who can reference more books wins the debate. It's about if it is ethical to kill an animal for your taste buds. Do you have the ability to feel someone else’s pain, and to be moved by it?
One thing I want to add is the study being linked between children turning vegetarians and their IQ's having a high correlation. I am certainly not saying this study is entirely valid or all meat eaters have low IQ's but it does have some light to it. Having a high IQ may require one to think outside the box, and certainly when you can see the pain and misery of the animal that is in your stomach and you realize this, you are thinking outside the box.
Clarifications: Mind my spelling and punctuations (and my run on sentences). When I say “you” this is not directed to any “single” person. I am not trying to make this debate a emotional one, but more of an eye opener. Ps. HariSingh I hope you remember me from the hair debate, still awaiting your reply, but of course I am with you on this one.
Vegetarian Hypocrasy
Ofcourse, plants do not, breath, they do not reproduce, they do not eat, they do drink, they do not have a complex cell structure. We can justify eating the dead flesh of plant material because it does not run away. I find such "arguments" from vegetarians not only hypocritical, but lacking any logic. Going back to what Sikhism says about the Meat vs Vegetarian debate, the issue is solely about ones own individual conscience and the universality of the Sikh faith. One could not say an Eskimo who hunts and eats seals (in a place which lacks vegetaions), is somehow more sinful than someone who does not eat meat. 'Fools wrangle over flesh', was proclaimed by Nanak, who saw no correlation between whether one eats meat or one eats vegetarian. He saw life at a molecular level and pointed to the hyspocrasy of some vegetarians, who only saw life in one form and not another. Nanak declared 'What is called meat, and what is called green vegetables? What leads to sin?'. He went on to say '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'--62.25.106.209 10:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
End of message
I'm sure that there are many issues - especially given the SGGS is open to interpretation and is not written according to commandments, etc... (even the other text, that does mention commandments, has been open to interpretation - "Thou shalt not murder" [except during times of war, times of civil disobedience, when there happens to be a cold war going on, when there happens to be no war going on, when ....you get the idea.. ]
This page is not a forum for discussing the merits or defects of vegetarianism. The only topic that may legitimately be discussed here is whether the Sikh religion does or doesn't require it, i.e. whether it belongs on a page of "Prohibitions in Sikhism". If it is the case, as the sources cited seem to show, that Sikhism only prohibits Halal meat, then that is an end to the matter. If you think Sikhism ought to ban meat, take it up with the appropriate Sikh authorities, if there are any with the power to impose such a ban, but do not discuss it here. -- Zsero 15:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is all ritualistically killed meat that is prohibited, not just Halal.--Isotope23talk 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct it is all forms of ritually killed meat. Ritual is seen as a sacrifice to God, or and appeasement to God. In some cases the ritual is a form of cleansing. God's creations are seen as perfect so do not need religious cleansing. Also God requires no sacrifice of animals which he/she has created. It is like offering a Candy Store owner some candy. It makes no sense. I would also like to that that all religious form of sacrifice or ritual slaughter is taboo. --Sikh-history 12:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I did ask both of you to see the previous discussion, but you appear to have overlooked this, so I'll repeat it.
begin quote
Point of fact: Shechita, the kosher method of slaughter, certainly does kill the animal instantly, by cutting off all blood flow to the brain. So if the concern is the animal's suffering, then kosher meat ought to be acceptable. But the same is probably true of Ḏabīḥah (halal slaughter) as well, and yet there seems to be no question that halal meat is prohibited to Sikhs.
On the other hand, there are some significant differences between Shechita and Ḏabīḥah, which might lead Sikhs to distinguish between them. If I understand this discussion correctly, the Sikh concern is about "ritual", which is abhorrent to Sikhism; obviously the English word doesn't translate exactly the Sikh concept, so I'm groping in the dark here, but here's some food for thought:
In Ḏabīḥah, the animal must be turned to face Mecca, and the slaughterer pronounces Bismillah, "in the name of God", as he kills the animal. In Shechita, the animal is not turned in any particular direction; and while the slaughterer does thank God before beginning his task, for having taught His people the proper way of slaughter, nothing is said during the act itself, and it is certainly not conducted in God's name, or dedicated to God in any way. Perhaps these aspects are what makes halal meat unacceptable to Sikhs, and would make kosher meat acceptable.
end quote
If the reason for prohibiting halal meat is as you have described, then it would seem that kosher would not be prohibited. On the other hand, the relevant authorities such as the Akhil Takht may have ruled otherwise, either through ignorance, or because they have considered the matter and took into account other considerations that seemed appropriate to them. I don't know whether such a deliberate ruling has actually been made, which is why I asked. I do maintain that if there has not been such a ruling, then it is invalid to extend the prohibition to kosher meat on ones own. Zsero 14:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Kosher meat
Is there a specific source for the claim that kosher meat is kutha? The cites above seem ambiguous and contradictory:
The quote from Hukamnama by Guru Gobind Singh ji says "Do not eat Halal (Kosher) meat"; whose interpolation is "kosher"? The translator's?
The quote from the Rehat Maryada says "Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way must be avoided", and says nothing about kosher meat. The claim above that it "bans the consumption of halal and kosher meat" seems to be false.
In the previous discussion I put forward possible reasons to distinguish between Halal and Kosher. Does anyone know whether the Akal Takht or any other Sikh authority have actually ruled on the question?
Zsero 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any strict differentiation between the two (Halal and Kosher) in regards to a Sikh authority ruling on this, but my knowledge here is probably incomplete. My understanding is that the prohibition is against all ritualistically killed meat. The Hukamnama by Guru Gobind Singh ji quote is pretty universally translated that way (and by the way, there is an article in bad need of a cleanup or transwiki to wikisource).--Isotope23talk 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It all depends on what exactly the Sikh authorities regard as "ritualistically killed", and what the actual objection is. See the previous discussion for reasons to distinguish between the two; if the only actual ruling has been against Halal, then in my opinion the article should not mention Kosher. In addition, it seems to me that in addition to the theological basis for the prohibition (which may very well not apply to kosher meat), the history of conflict between Sikhs and Moslems is also relevant, and yet another reason to distinguish between Halal and Kosher. Zsero 19:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the sources provided thus far are pretty clear on restricting both Halal and Kosher meat and my suggestion would be to keep it in barring additional sources that clarify or cast doubt on the translation of the Hukamnama encompassing both.--Isotope23talk 20:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that argument originally and to me, it isn't relevant to this discussion. The sources are rather clear on the point of prohibiting Halal and Kosher meat. Even if it is because of a misunderstanding of Shechita, that is a theological point (and an interesting one at that), but it doesn't really impact the fact that the verifiable sources at this point would indicate both are prohibited.--Isotope23talk 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you kindly refer me to how and why and where and who included or mentioned any references of Judiac or Kosher in Sikhism?
I ask this because the Sikhs throughout their medieval history have never come into contact with the Jewish people (when such ::::::rules were created)
Throughout medieval Indian history, the muslims had come into direct confrontation with Sikhs and as a result their Gurus faced ::::::constant persecution from the Islamic authorities, the sikh commandment to never eat halal food did not imply or state any ::::::OTHER ritualistic form of slaughter because if that had been the case, then it would have existed before any Islamic ::::::confrontation had occurred. Something to think about ?
Please. The confrotation was with Mughal Rulers (Majority held liberal views, and born from Hindu princess) and not Islam as you seem to wrongly think. Mahaakaal (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Having Premarital sex?
Is this ok for sikh guys but not ok for sikh girls ? If we apply equality here then the answer is NO. But some tit keeps on maintaining that it seems to be kosher (pun intended) to fuck around with muslims when its againt Islam to operate in such a manner, ok lets apply equality, then its surely ok for sikh girls to date muslim guys ? Resolved.
Premaritial sex is not mentione din the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, however, Kaam or Lust is. It is relationships based on Kaam we must concern ourselves with. People get married in many different ways. Is a person who has no Marriage certicate yet get married in a Gurudwara infront of Sangat any less married. According to the Law they are not married.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Amritdhari
It is mentioned in the last line In some Sikh groups, ie Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Namdhari, Amritdhari or Radhasoami eating any meat is believed to be forbidden, but this is not a universally held belief.[5].
Amritdhari redirects to Khalsa. Is Khalsa a Sikh Group? The reference provided has somehing else to state about Khalsa [5]. It states "Amritdhari Sikhs are not prohibited from eating meat" (2nd para 2nd line) It also states that those who insist on vegetarianism have no authority from in teachings of Sikh Gurus. Why are references being mis-used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.137.12 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You are obvuiously knowledgeable. Please create a proper Id rather than an IP to edit here.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Muslim women and Meat in langar
Please provide a Reliable source regarding sexual relation with muslim women.
Meat is not served in "Langar of Gurdwara". It is so because people of various backgrounds, there are many Hindus visiting and most are veg., do not get offended. (Hindus and Sikhs share cultural ties) But langar can be organised outside Gurdwara or anywhere, and you can serve meat in that Langar, provided it is not ritualistically prepared. Only meat prepared in ritualistic manner is prohibted. But that should not be taken to suppose that Sikhism encourages meat eating or vice-versa.
Also the reference used here [6] is highly flawed in many contents and observations. There are many discrepencies in the work. A better source is needed. 117.96.130.186 (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying is the exception not the rule. Majority of Sikhs do not eat halal, or sleep around with muslims or take crack cocaine or smoke dope etc..
You appear to be really knowledgable about Sikhism. But you know as long as you are adding links such as these [7] as you did in Islam and Sikhism you betray your propagandist views. And your knowledge is superficial :-)Mahaakaal (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
NEVER ANY MENTION OF Kosher meat II
Firstly, yes rules are rules. But I do not use the rules to create pov, if anything I wish to put facts straight.
Can you kindly refer me to how and why and where and who included or mentioned any references of Judiac or Kosher in Sikhism?
I ask this because the Sikhs throughout their medieval history have never come into contact with the Jewish people (when such rules were created)
Throughout medieval Indian history, the muslims had come into direct confrontation with Sikhs and as a result their Gurus faced constant persecution from the Islamic authorities, the sikh commandment to never eat halal food did not imply or state any OTHER ritualistic form of slaughter because if that had been the case, then it would have existed before any Islamic confrontation had occurred. Something to think about ?
Before we continue, can I ask did Guru Nanak travel to the mIddle East? Is it plausible that he came into contact with Jews? There is mention of the Bible in the Guru Granth Sahib ji too. Where is this from? Also there are synagogues in Southern India that have been there for over 700 years, would the Guru's have known about that? Also I would like to know the definition of Kuttha. The Sikh Rehit Maryada refers to Kuttha meat. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Recently, a few years back, many people of a tribe in Meghalaya went to live in Israel. They claimed they were driven out from Israel about two thousand years ago. They look like Nepalis, probably due to inter-mixing with locals. Now thay are living in Israel. So, Jews have been living in India for a thousand years (We all know that Guru Tegh Bahadur travelled to Assam and other places in North East India ).I will try and look for the reference, it was big news back then. Mahaakaal (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, there is no mention of anything Judaic or Kosher in Sikhism, you are implying there is by conjecture and not solid evidence.
If something is plausiable you need evidence, and there is absolutely NIL evidence that anything of Kosher format or Judaic principles entered the Sikh or Indian mindset.
To ascertain Jews ahve been in Nepal or India for several hundered years is ludicrous as saying Christ was a Kashmiri. LOL
Just because the Bible is mentioned in the SGGS (which I seriously doubt) does not categorically state Sikhs must not eat Kosher prepared food.
The term Kosher was introduced recently in wikipedia either in error because some simpletons seem to think 'Kosher = halal' and that the Bible is the book of the Jews which any Jew will tell you its a book of the Christians.
THe truth is that The Sikh Rehit itself bans the eating of halal meat, no mention of the word 'Kosher' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.194 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are many other sources, take your time to search them. And please, don't bring up pamphlets or non-credible website stuff againMahaakaal (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And here is the news for the 'Ten Lost Tribes of Israel' living in India for past 2700 years.[11]
About Jesus visiting Kashmir, i think there is a story about this too though i don't really know about it. Will search and let you know soonMahaakaal (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Your google searches are unreliable due to the fact you need to search in the first place.
Why not look to the original Rehit Maryada, the commandment was introduced not because sikhs had confronted Jews but because they confronted Muslims, it was specifically the muslim method of slaughter that the Gurus objected to, not the Hindu manner nor the Jewish manner nor the Christian manner. If its OK for you to provide unreliable sources, let me initiate you in the art of reliable factual sources.
It was the ritualistic method that Guru Gobind Singh objected to. As for confrotation with Islam, you are very wrong on this point. Guru Gobind Singh was never against Islam, or any other religion for that matter. His fight was with Mughals. You can get a reliable book on his life and read it. There are many books on him. Also the twenty two Hill-Chiefs were Hindus, were they not? so was he fighting Hindus??? About Kosher, some sources mention this fact while some do not. It is not a big deal to create such a fuss about (both being ritualistic meat) whats in a name?Mahaakaal (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Those google searches are valid. The Guru's would not allow ANY sacrificial type meat to be consumed. The word Kuttha refers specifically to sacrificial meat i.e. Bali (done by Hindu's), Kosher (by Jews), Halal (Muslims). The reference to Kuttha as specifically Halal became more preminent in the struggle for Independence where many Sikhs haboroued anti-Islamic feelings because they felt betrayed at the formation of Pakistan.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove Amritdhari
The word Amritdhari is pov and wrong. Shouldn't it be removed. Even the reference provided does not state this. So, obviously it is pov. Although the Amritdhari almost abstain from meat eating, but still it is not prohibited. Also Amritdhari is not group, they are mainstream Sikhs.Mahaakaal (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Read an admins observance as why he was banned. (copied from the talk of his earlier avtaar)
"== July 2008 ==
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
It does not state anywhere that alcohol is not allowed in SGGS?
Perhaps Bhagat Kabir spoke against it but also spoke more vehemently against meat eating, but you seemed to have overlooked that one!
If you can prove that no sikh drinks or has ever drunk alcohol including Maharajah Ranjit Singh then it would be a Universally held belief that it is wrong, but until then, it remains NOT a universally held belief —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.2 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are several orders (hukamnamas) written by our last prophet, i.e. Guru Gobind Singh Jee which are part of foundation of Sikhism. Sikh scholars spent almost 50 years to collect, study and analyze all the hukamnamas issued by Sikh Gurus (Sikh prophets) and finally an official Sikh Code of Conduct was released by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. Please refer to the Sikh code of conduct. It is useless for some of the editors to spread wrong information about prohibitions in Sikhism in this article. Singh6 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit-warring
I see that there has been edit-warring on this article, but that the participants are not discussing their edits at the talkpage. Please be sure that as soon as a dispute begins, that there is an explanation of the situation at talk. This will also allow other editors to join the discussion, which may help break any deadlock. Thanks, Elonka 03:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would request all the editors editing this article to prove their points in the discussion page first. I respect all the religions and I will definitely oppose any distortion of Sikh code of conduct if some one try to malign Sikhism or Sikh code of conduct for his/her/their vested interests. There are several orders (hukamnamas) written by our last prophet, i.e. Guru Gobind Singh, which are part of foundation of Sikhism. Sikh scholars have spent almost 50 years to collect, study and analyze all the hukamnamas issued by Sikh Gurus (Sikh prophets) and finally an official Sikh Code of Conduct was released by Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. Please refer to the Sikh code of conduct. It is useless for some of the editors to spread wrong information about prohibitions in Sikhism in this article. Singh6 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
SGPC was not established by Guru Nanak ji or Guru Gobind Singh ji. The Reht Maryada published by SGPC was not written by the Gurujis either. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is the only supreme guideline. Rest all is left to the follower's discretion and wisdom. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop this crap please. Your additions are not making any sense. All Sikhs required to follow rehit maryada of SGPC , official sikh body recognised by all, hence i undid all your additions117.96.177.253 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What has SGPC got to do with the removal of the section? The section is totally relevant to the article. The fact remains that there are Sikhs who do not respect these prohibitions, and this needs to be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is not censored. By the way, SGPC is the largest and the most respected body of Sikhs, but it was not established by the Gurus. It was created in 20th century, and cannot be called "official Sikh body". Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is the only supreme Guru now. What SGPC says is irrelevant, unless the eternal Guruji says it too. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
SGPC rehit maryada is official rehit maryada of Sikhs. SGPC is the official sikh body recognized by Supreme Court of India and goverened by special law framed by government of India. The rehit maryada was formed from various hukamnamas of Sikh Gurus. These hukamnamas are not part of sggs, they are seperate. Hence, rehit maryada derives it's authority from Hukamnamas of Gurus and not from sggs. Rehit maryada is not making of SGPC or SGGS but writings, orders and directives issued by Sikh Gurus from time to time.
The SGPC is a focal point of Sikh Gurdwara Administration. It is recognised by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act.
And wikipedia is not a soapbox. Lots of sikhs do not follow the rehit maryada in a same way as hindus don't follow their scriptures or muslims do not follow theirs.Mahaakaal (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Also the following book published by SGPC makes it clear that Rehit is based on Hukamnamas of Sikh Gurus and how it was framed. Rehit is not making of SGPC
The Code of Sikh Conduct and Conventions: English Version of the Sikh Reht Maryada. By Kulraj Singh. Published by Dharam Parchar Committee, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, 2002Mahaakaal (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no concept of Judaism or Kosher in Sikh understanding
It is wrong to assume that 'Halal' also means 'Kosher' and to confuse the two together when only Halal was prohibited by the 10th Guru when he faced confrontation with Islamic forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.218 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The ban refers to meat that is Kuttha. Kuttha is ritually slaughtered meat. Ritually slaughtered meat can include Halal, Kosher, Bali etc.Please discuss before changing text.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Kutta according to ACTUAL definitions ie not recent modified ones on Wikipedia are follows:
During medieval India which was ruled by Muslims, all meat was halal ie it couldn't have been Jewish or electrically stunned or butchered any other way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.218 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The article you posted is invalid and considered a POV and not a credible source for wikipedia.Please learn meaning of word Kuttha as defined by Rehat Maryada, and do not make changes without prior discussion. I am assuming the changes you have made are in good faith and I have reverted them. We have already had a long a protracted discussion on this issue and the consensus was that Kuttha = ritually slaughtered meat that = halal, Kosher, Bali etc.
And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not.
— Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.ISBN-13: 978-8173040580
This Edict only came into being when Guru Gobind Singh confronted Islam Sikhism did not confront Hebrew or or any other slaughter systems. Instead of confusing or lumping all systems as the same, it would be useful if YOU could give a PROPER historical reference, ie (not biased) until then I will support what others have said in that Kutta either means meat in its entirety or specifically Halal as Halal was the only accepted system of slaughter during Muslim rule of the Sub-continent
I have furnished a verifiable source with ISBN number - Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.ISBN-13: 978-8173040580. Please do the same. Until then your view will be considered a POV. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Please *sign* your comments. ناهد/(Nåhed)speak! 22:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Your book is POV, please explain why the article link above is POV, as its used on may other articles.
This article for example states categorically that.."Guru Gobind Singh dictated that Sikhs cannot eat Muslim Halal (Kuttha) meat, where the animal has been slowly bled to death or has been sacrificed according to a religious ceremony."
NOTE: There is not a single mention of anything specific on Kosher! How could there be? The Jews hadn't set foot on Indian soil and the Muslim rulers were at odds with the Indian rebellion including the Sikhs and their Gurus.
Ritual sacrifice came into being on the arrival of Islam (in the Indian Subcontinent)
I just want you to be totally and absolutely SPECIFIC and state where any Guru denounced or forbade his followers on Kosher meat (specifically) many people can accept that it was Hahal meat he referred to (ritual sacrifice, as that was the only meat consumed in the Indian-Subcontinent at that time) OR... NO meat at all (traditional interpretation) since meat is banned in Sikh Temples, but be specific on 'Kosher' exactly with dates and quotes from reliable sources and not POV. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.246 (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wrong! The veds contain many passages for ritual sacrifices of animals in them and they were written thousands of years before islam was even born. But seeing your history on wiki i know with you it is a waste of time. my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.135.123 (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
