The Sikh Society

Original post by Zamestaneh

Halaal meat is killed in a certain manner (irrespective of uttering words) which involves draining the blood out and other things, and it is not Halaal just because someone says 'Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Rahim' when they cut the throat of the anim - it's not that prayer that makes the meat acceptable, it is the actual manner in which it is being killed.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Blessing the slaughter with the name of Allah is as much a part of the Dhabihah as the physical process for the meat to be considered Halal.

"And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience." Surat Al-'An`ām Ayah 121

Not eating the meat because someone says a few words is stupid in my opinion

Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot.

"He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah." Surat An-Naĥl Ayah 115

Reply 2562

Original post by JasonGenova

Honestly, that isn't really true. This may seem conceited, but the overwhelming majority of arguments for things like the Gurus being messengers who actually (literally/verbally) spoke with God, the Gurus being incarnations of God, literal interpretations of heaven and hell etc. are just pure and utter hogwash. I have spent a long time studying them to see if they actually fit in with the teachings in the GGS and it amazes me how little scriptural support there actually is for these ideas. Literally the only fundamental concept I know of in Sikhi which could be interpreted vastly differently by two different people is the concept of God, and perhaps reincarnation (although I'm not even sure about that one), everything else is pretty clear if you actually take the time to study the Guru Granth Sahib in detail and not just pluck lines to suit a particular agenda.

I'm not even trying to be a douche or 'religious zealot' or saying that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong but show me any argument that the Gurus literally spoke with God or that they were incarnations and I will rip it to shreds. It is a mystic path so there is definitely practical leniency and Sikhi allows for us to develop spiritually in the manner we find most comfortable, but the essentials are well-defined. Sikhi has a very solid framework which is laid out clearly in the Guru Granth Sahib.

Do you still maintain that Sikhism does not rely on or appeal to anything supernatural?

Reply 2563

Zamestaneh

21

Original post by Saif al-Koan

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Blessing the slaughter with the name of Allah is as much a part of the Dhabihah as the physical process for the meat to be considered Halal.

"And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience." Surat Al-'An`ām Ayah 121

Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot.

"He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah." Surat An-Naĥl Ayah 115

Say Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim when you are about to eat - praise Allah and than Hi for the meat before eating?

Oh, that's do with our interaction with the Mushrikeen and their practices and how we go against Shirk; Sikhism is more open and says that the God of Hinduism and the God of Islam are the same and is the Lord of all...

Reply 2564

Original post by Zamestaneh

Say Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim when you are about to eat - praise Allah and than Hi for the meat before eating?

No not just then; when asked specifically about slaughtering animals, Prophet Muhammad instructed to "cause the blood to flow and mention Allah's name over it" (Sahih, Sunan Abi Dawud & Sunan Ibn Majah).

Oh, that's do with our interaction with the Mushrikeen and their practices and how we go against Shirk; Sikhism is more open and says that the God of Hinduism and the God of Islam are the same and is the Lord of all...

My point is to not ridicule and call stupid the prohibition of eating meat sacrificed in the name of other entities when you yourself are under the same instruction from Allah.

Reply 2565

Ggmu!

Original post by Saif al-Koan

No not just then; when asked specifically about slaughtering animals, Prophet Muhammad instructed to "cause the blood to flow and mention Allah's name over it" (Sahih, Sunan Abi Dawud & Sunan Ibn Majah).

My point is to not ridicule and call stupid the prohibition of eating meat sacrificed in the name of other entities when you yourself are under the same instruction from Allah.

Mash'allah akhi, the reverts need guidance.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2566

Original post by Ggmu!

Mash'allah akhi, the reverts need guidance.

Posted from TSR Mobile

There's really no need to boast in such manner. Are you also Muslim? Sorry to ask but your avatar is confusing.

Reply 2567

cupcakes87

OP

18

Original post by Ggmu!

Mash'allah akhi, the reverts need guidance.

Posted from TSR Mobile

i lolled

Reply 2568

Ggmu!

Original post by Saif al-Koan

There's really no need to boast in such manner. Are you also Muslim? Sorry to ask but your avatar is confusing.

No, I'm not. Why would my avatar confuse you?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2569

Original post by Ggmu!

No, I'm not. Why would my avatar confuse you?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because you spoke as if you were a Muslim and your avatar, if I'm not mistaken, is of a Hindu. So I guess you are Hindu who is capitalizing on the discussion just to mock a Muslim.

You ought to be ashamed.

Reply 2570

Ggmu!

Original post by Saif al-Koan

Because you spoke as if you were a Muslim and your avatar, if I'm not mistaken, is of a Hindu. So I guess you are Hindu who is capitalizing on the discussion just to mock a Muslim.

You ought to be ashamed.

You got me :awesome:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2571

cupcakes87

OP

18

[video="youtube;DXyzczk-tVE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXyzczk-tVE[/video]

Reply 2572

[QUOTE="Icecream1;51785369"]

Yeah, Singhs did hunt, that was a way of practicing the art of using weapons effectively. The carcass wasn’t necessarily eaten.

That would be a huge waste to not eat it after hunting. I doubt Guru Sahib would've just let them throw the carcass away when it could be used for another purpose (nourishment). Besides, historical sources (as I've already provided) show pretty clearly that Sikhs have historically eaten meat so I don't see the logic behind not eating the meat of the hunted animals.

I play the tabla and am aware that the skin on many instruments was made from goatskin.

Cool, where do you think that goat skin came from?

I know that it is widely accepted that Gangu was the family cook however it was probably unlikely that he actually was the cook, it was probably an amritdhari Sikh.

Err, any references? I don't think I've ever come across a source which says it was anyone other than Gangu. Besides, considering the role he played in the arrest of Guru Sahib's Sahibzaade, I doubt the history around him has been changed much, if at all. Who cooked for Guru Sahib before 1699? And why would he need an Amritdhari to cook for him anyways?

There are many stories of how Banda Singh came to sikhi and that isn’t one that I have heard before. I doubt that story, I have heard other stories that Guru Jee was there and Madhodas tried to use his riddia siddia to push the seat over and move Guru Gobind Singh but simply couldn’t, this is how he knew that Guru Gobind Singh was special.

The version of Guru Sahib cooking goat and turning Madho Das into Banda Singh Bahadur is actually the most prominent. There's even a Gurdwara built on this site: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurdwara_Banda_Ghat (the article also explains the goat incident).

I’m sure you can find quotes to the contrary to the quotes above. Nihang Singhs eat Jhatka meat but would never Halal or Kosher.

The quote with the British observer describing the Sikhs' widespread pork-consumption is taken from the 'Cyber Sikh Museum'. This information is not from some random person's blog- these are historical preservations of objective sources. Unless you can provide a traceable, contemporary source of equal or greater authenticity, this discussion shouldn't even be happening.

Today it is widely accepted that Sikhs do not eat meat. The langar concept which is in every Gurdwara today is all about inclusiveness and allowing everybody to share a meal, so by excluding meat everybody’s dietary needs are met.

Langar has been vegetarian in the past as well and I'm not disputing that. Your point about Gurdwaras being all-inclusive is correct. But that's not what we're talking about. Just because Sikhs didn't eat meat in Gurdwaras, doesn't mean they never ate it at all. You mention how today, it is widely accepted how Sikhs do not eat meat. As I've already explained to you, this attitude of "Sikhs are morally corrupt if they eat meat" came about in the second half of the 20th century through Bhindranwale, a staunch vegetarian who had a huuuge effect on Sikh society. The ONLY time before this when meat-eating was ever an issue in Sikh society was back in the days of Bandai vs Tat Khalsa. For the rest of our history, Sikhs have eaten meat because no one cared, and I have provided sources which back up my statements.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 2573

Original post by Zamestaneh

Say Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim when you are about to eat - praise Allah and than Hi for the meat before eating?

Oh, that's do with our interaction with the Mushrikeen and their practices and how we go against Shirk; Sikhism is more open and says that the God of Hinduism and the God of Islam are the same and is the Lord of all...

That's not entirely true. Who is the "God of Hinduism"? There are Hindus who believe the idols are actually God, Hindus who are extremely polytheistic, Hindus who are strictly monotheistic and even Hindus who are atheists (not a new phenomenon either, this school of thought has existed for ages). So....?

It's also plainly obvious to anyone who reads it that the God of the Qur'an is nothing like anything described in Hindu scripture. Guru Nanak travelled to Mecca, conversed with Sheikhs and Qazis, went to Tibet and spoke with Monks, went atop mountains and brought the Sadhus back to reality, and with his experience, he would've definitely known this better than anyone.

What Sikhi really teaches is that Ik Oankar is the eternal Truth, the singular ever-lasting presence through the reality we perceive. Both Hindus and Muslims have attempted to describe this presence (so they are trying to talk about the same thing), but they have described it in completely different ways (so we can't say the God of the Muslims and Hindus is the same).

The exception to this is the mystic paths. Orthodox Muslims and Hindus may have completely different ideas of what God is, but the mystics in both paths have elevated their understandings of God to 'Ik Oankar', which (according to Sikhi) is the deepest possible understanding of God. Everything else puts some sort of limit on it.

Your statement wasn't entirely 'wrong' either, just needed a bit of appending/explanation.

Reply 2574

Original post by cupcakes87

this

can you please explain this to me :redface:

i go to the mandir and i pray there but i dont see anything wrong with it.

i asked bith my grandparents who are Amrit Shak and they say that there is nothing wrong with it for me. They say that Amrit Thari person should not bow down to any other that Guru Granth Sahib Ji but if they were to go into a Mandir and pray its fine.

I think its fine and when i go to the Mandir, i dont know how to sing the Bhajans i will say Waheguru because thats the only way i really know how to pray so i dont see the problem but I know people who think im a nutcase for it :sigh:

what do you think? you seem to know quite a bit which is why im asking :redface:

As I've pointed out in a previous reply, we need to make a distinction between 'Sikh' and 'Khalsa' to have a proper appreciation of both. The simple answer is this: the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib are universal and can be applied by people of all faiths and those with none at all. This is why throughout our history, we've had people who would best be described as 'Hindu-Sikhs' and 'Islamic-Sikhs' rather than just 'Sikh' (although this only works if you focus on the spirituality in the other religions and not the dogma. For example Sufi-Sikh could work pretty well but orthodox Sunni-Sikh would not). Bhai Mardana, Bhai Mat Das, Bhai Sati Das and Peer Buddhu Shah are all great examples of this. In present times, we can look to the Sindhis (who are Hindu-Sikhs) and the Rabbabis (Muslim (Sufi)-Sikhs).

If you read the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, you'll find that it criticizes empty rituals, people who make pilgrimages, give in charity or keep fasts thinking that doing these things alone will make them Saintly or bring them closer to God. It criticizes them when they're performed emptily BUT it doesn't specifically forbid them either. It is not a rule book or list of commandments, so why would it? Guru Granth Sahib frowns upon performing empty rituals but doesn't necessarily tell us not to do them if they're done with understanding, even the rituals found in other religions.

So to answer your question, if you're just interested in being a Sikh, imo you probably could go pray at the Mandir and as long as you're not contradicting some very fundamental aspect of Sikhi (doing it emptily etc, or thinks it makes you better than those who don't do it), and your understand of God does not change to idol-worship and remains 'Ik Oankar', it isn't a big deal.

Now the other part: You may be able to do that as a Sikh, but you definitely can't as a Khalsa. Guru Gobind Singh established the Khalsa as those purely dedicated to Sikhi, free from any Hindu or Muslim influence, with it's own identity and sovereignty. And while ideally, being Sikh should have freed you from caste et al, the Khalsa literally does so by making you part of a greater group. Which is why Bhai Gurdas talks about "the four Varnas coming into one," but Guru Gobind Singh made this literally happen.

This is also the reason why Khalsa are afforded the highest respect and authority in the Sikh Panth. Guru Gobind Singh very clearly said that the Khalsa/Panj Piare (and 5 Baptized Sikhs) together should make political decisions for the Panth. This isn't something that any regular Sikh (which is what I am right now as well) can do. The Khalsa is sovereign, does not have Islamic/Hindu influences (this means none of their ritualism either) and is purely dedicated to Sikhi. The Rabbabis, Sindhis, Udasis are all free to practice Sikhi as they see fit but CANNOT make supreme/political decisions for the Panth. Only the Khalsa has that authority.

tl;dr as a 'Sikh' you can (under certain conditions), as a 'Khalsa' you cannot. I believe every Sikh should strive to one day take Amrit and become Khalsa and eventually rid themselves of any Hindu and Islamic influences.

Reply 2575