Talk:Langar 3

From SikhiWiki
Revision as of 09:18, 11 August 2006 by Hari singh (talk | contribs) (Archived 11 Aug 2006)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

That posting was not me

Please I am not arguing about meat, if you read my last posting "Restating the discussion and Refering to Wikipedia.org", I have been trying to ask you the basic questions about Langaar. The reason for this discussion.

The person who posted the "Cutting Off Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Arms" is kingsingh. Please check the history. This discussion is becoming a bit of a mess as people are now not signing and like I said in "Restating the discussion and Refering to Wikipedia.org", lets keep this discussion on track.

I am not losing any argument with your quote "It is very common that when a person loses an argument, they take a swipe and lob insults on their opponent". I do not need to at all. Any audience to this discussion know that.

This discussion is about Langaar and all my views are quite clear on this. It's just you have faile d to reply to the fundamental question ABOUT LANGAAR!.

- Lecturer.

Reply

I am sorry but as there was no name and the above posting followed my reply to you, in a thread started by you, I wrongly assumed that it was you. My sincere apology for this mistake. --Hari Singh 07:36, 28 July 2006 (CDT)


Restating the discussion and Refering to Wikipedia.org

dear Hari Ji

I like your choice selection of refering to Wikipedia when you need to.

Can I try that and refer to their Langaar article too? or is that not acceptable for this point?

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

"At Langar, only vegetarian food is served. This is done to ensure that all people, with whatever dietary restrictions (for example Jains, Jews, or Muslims) will feel welcome to eat as equals."

Remember the reason for this discussion?

I need to restate the reason for this discussion as it seems that you have occupied it mostly for your own agenda.

You changed my correction so your article.

You had written:

"Since it is against the basics of Sikhi to eat meat, fish or eggs; non-vegetarian foods of this sort is neither served nor brought onto the Gurdwara premises."

I changed it to:

"Since the purpose of langaar is to be open to all meat, fish or egg foods of this sort are neither served nor brought into the Gurdwara otherwise it would discriminate the purpose of the langaar. The food should be available to all. Hence the fact that it is usually a basic vegetarian meal."

your rebuke to this was:

" I do not believe that the reason veggie-food is served in Langar is purely for the principle of "equality of all attendees" "

Which will be amazing to any audience reading this but then you went on to say, in a very modern impractical context:

"If the reason for serving veg-food in Langar was only that it served the purpose of equally welcoming vegetarians into Langar then why is it served at wedding parties, where vegetarian also have to attend. Despite non-veg food being served at wedding parties in halls, vegetarians do attend these parties and do not generally complain and eat the food that suits them. So in practical terms, this reason cannot explain the reason why Guru ji appears to have served only vegetarian food in Langar. "

even more...

"Further, it is not very difficult to arrange equal but slightly separate areas for veg and non-veg eaters. It is common in some Gurdwaras to have different areas for men and women. So, I do not believe that this explanation is valid."


And i tried to remid you that:

Remember the basis of Langar. There is no disticntion between people, so everyone can sit together, and the symbolic nature of a Gurdwara having four doors facing all directions is that it is open to all.

That's my reason for changing the article.

I do not think there is any room left on this discussion to remind you of this.

Most of the audience of this discussion is probably wondering beyond belief why you cannot accept this view as the valid reason.

It seems that your fanatic veggie agenda is blinding you.

I hope one day you can put the energies you put into your veggie agenda into being an understanding and compromising soul to all around you.

- Lecturer


Reply

You said: "I like your choice selection of refering to Wikipedia when you need to"

You have failed to mention that these references are to neutral Wikipedia articles, the neutrality of which you are free to dispute – Do you have any objections to the Wikipedia reference for the definition of "meat"; Kingdoms (biology); and article on population of Hindus in India. If not then I wonder why you are mentioning this point? At least, I have made references to other sources, check and see if any of the other posts have used any references? – I think you will find that the other posters have seldom referenced any statement that they make. They just follow their one statement with another with no references and their own Manmat.

It is unacceptable to refer to articles where the neutrality of the article is disputed and several articles on Sikhism at Wikipedia are not accepted as Neutral and adhering to Gurmat principles. Most of my references are to Gurbani. For definitions of some commonly used words, I have referred to Wikipedia – I am sure similar definitions exist elsewhere.

Equality of Food

Thank you for re-focusing on the initial discussion and summarising the history of previous events in this discussion. You say that the serving of Veggie food is for equality reason – because veggie food is acceptable to all and you do not want anyone having any doubt about how the non-veg items were prepared. I put it to you that both veg and non-veg are served at our weddings in halls and no one complains – Where is the equality there? We have had people of all denominations attending these wedding and both types of food are served and I have never heard anyone say that this was unequal. Have you received any complaints, Lecturer ji?

Further at all other major world events like meetings of governments, heads of state, non-Sikh inter-faith do's, etc both foods are served without any problems. In most common places where they serve food to the general community like trains, hospitals, aircrafts, hotel, schools, etc both foods are served. Are you saying that the attendees at these places are getting un-equal treatment? Give me one other example of where else in the world this "equality" argument applies to where both type of food is served or not served.

Now if we analysis your "equality" argument further:

  • What you are saying is that for example the Jews eat "kosher" meat; Muslims eat "Halal" meat; Jains are vegan who avoid root veg; Hindus are vegetarians; the Zulu (I believe) are canibals – To serve them Veg makes it equal. Is that what you are saying? And to serve them a choice of both foods makes it un-equal – Please clarify the point where this equality operates at – Is it at the individual level or are you talking about approach to the masses – ie: We serve the same ( and equal) food to all or is it some higher level intellectual level that I have not grasped.
  • What you appear to be saying is that to give choice is to be un-equal and to restrict the diet is equality? So why do we serve "root Veg" which Jains (see Wikipedia article on Jainism) prefer not to eat? Where do we draw the line in this argument? What about certain sect who prefer to eat fruits (Fruitarians)? (See ^1) or other specialist diet consumers (need I say Zulus). Are we being "un-equal" to them by offering them only veg food?
  • We have people who prefer veg-food, people who prefer meat and other who don't mind either way. Now, you say that serving veggie food to meat-eaters is a sign of "equality" for you then why don't we serve meat to all and call it "equality". You will be serving the same equal food "meat" to everyone. Is this another form of "equality which is the meat-eater will love"? Why does serving veg to all make it "equal" while serving meat to all sound stupid and unacceptable? Think about this very carefully and consider the individual rights of stunch meat-eaters. Are you not discriminating against these individuals who prefer and only like meat? At the 2004 Interfaith Forum, I met a Spanish gentleman who would eat nothing but meat and so did not take langar. Where is the "equality" for him? How would you explain your "equality" to him? Please give me a detailed answer to this without personal attack, please.
  • So isn't the truth that SGGS forbids meat the only answer that can be given to these meat eaters!! How can you discriminate against meat-eater, who you say are openly allowed to eat meat by the SGGS (I am stating your position)?
  • I am sure you will raise the point regarding Kosher, Halal, etc. So how do you explain the lack of fish in langar? I do not believe that Fish can be Halal or Kosher as it dies by "removal from water" (suffocation by air!!!) So why don't we serve fish to all as a sign of equality for meat-eaters.

For different dining areas for men and women in Gurdwara, please contact Shri Guru Tegh Bahadar Gurdwara in Glasgow, where I personally witnessed this and I am informed the most "Bhatra Sikh community" Gurdwaras (see ^2) have these arrangements. (Bit of useless information, perhaps?)

Personal Attack

You have made a personal attack on me by saying "It seems that your fanatic veggie agenda is blinding you." – This is absolutely incorrect. I am a vegetarian by choice and previously, I used to eat meat. What remark have I made which makes you conclude that I am blinded? I am following the clear message of Gurbani. By making this statement, you are refuting the pure Word of Gurbani. Why don't you call a spade a spade? – Please read the Tuks on the article SGGS on Meat. If you don't agree then tackle these tuks one by one. No personal attacks are necessary. You need to deal with these Tuks in a practical, thorough and acedamic manner. And this applies to every one who refutes this message – "Guru ji prefers his Sikhs not to kill or eat meat". Where in Gurbani does Maharaj say you should kill and eat animals? Please provides answers to these questions rather waste your breath making personal remarks and attacks – These are irrelevant and a complete waste of everyone's time.

The Audience

You remarked: "Most of the audience of this discussion is probably wondering beyond belief why you cannot accept this view as the valid reason." –If they were concerned and that bothered, they would have joined in – So please Lecturer ji let's not worry about that – Let's concentrate on Gurbani and recorded history. It may be that most people agree with what I have said and with the Gurbani Tuks. They may not practise Vegetarianism but they accept that that is the message of our Guru. Obviously you cannot attain all your goals overnight and it is perfectly acceptable to slowly change ones habits to follow Gurbani more strictly. For example, Guru ji has vigorously condemned the Five Evils but it can take the whole of one's lifetime to rid oneself of these terrible evils. We don't say that people who have not ridded themselves of any one of these evils is not a Sikh – far from it. In fact we all have varing amounts of these ills but we know and fully appreciate that Gurbani wants us and requires us to discard these passions.

Restrictions in Gurdwara

You state that: "There is no disticntion between people, so everyone can sit together, and the symbolic nature of a Gurdwara having four doors facing all directions is that it is open to all."Yes, it's open to all – but not to abuse the facilty and message of the Guru. You are restrained from doing certain things; there are restriction in place and the "equality" and "liberty" of the individuals is curtained while within the Gurdwara. For example:

  • You cannot smoke, take intoxicating drugs or drink alcohol anywhere in the Gurdwara premises.
  • You cannot go into the Darbar Sahib with uncovered head or with shoes on.
  • You cannot bring or contribute "parsad" of dead meat or other animal product into Gurdwara. But at one time you could give horses, elephants, mules, etc. There is no credible record of cattle, goats and chickens being contributed to the Guru's darbar.
  • You cannot sit on chairs (unless you have a disability or handicap) but all have to sit on the floor, whether you like it or not.

How does your "equality" argument stack up here.

Thank You!

And finally you remark: "I hope one day you can put the energies you put into your veggie agenda into being an understanding and compromising soul to all around you."

Thanking for appreciating that I do expend energies on something and I hope with Saadh Sangat's Ardas I will gain more understanding and knowledge. But on the matter of "compromising" on the message of Gurbani – that, I hope will never happen. As I have said before, the word "Sikh" applies to all who consider SGGS as their Guru, so I have equal respect for all of them whether they eat meat or not – And that is how we must treat all Sikhs regardless of their eating habits - But that does not mean that we should be distorting Gurbani to fit our personal preferences. Accept that Gurbani prefers us to be vegetarians and that is why we serve veggie food in Langar despite the fact that most communities now eat meat freely.

Many thanks for your continued time and effort. I am sorry that at present we are unable to agree on what is the real message of Gurbani in relation of this subject. Hopefully, with Guru's kirpa, he will bless both of us with "Shud Maat" so that we can both appreciate each others point of view and that we both become better individuals and enlightened Sikhs of Our Great Guru. --Hari Singh 07:54, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Cutting Off Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Arms

Hari, thanks for your responses because you have demonstrated the point this essay was trying to make (Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh). You are a classic example of somone who is a "one line merchant). You are butchering the arms (Angs) of our Guru by selecting one line out of a paragraph and distorting the meaning. A classic example of someone who has limited understand of Bani and Sikh History. Why you are even commenting on a site Sikh Wiki when you cannot even get the basics of Sikhi right is beyond me.

Every child knows that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is not only a teacher of a way of life but a teacher on the errors of man made religions. When Guruji say :

Page 747, Line 18 ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਸਿਮ੝ਰਿਤਿ ਸਭਿ ਸਾਸਤ ਇਨ੝ਹ੝ਹ ਪੜਿਆ ਮ੝ਕਤਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ बेद कतेब सिमढ़रिति सभि सासत इनढ़ह पड़िआ मढ़कति न होई ॥ bayd katayb simrit sabh saasat inH parhi-aa mukat na ho-ee. One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation.

He is making a direct attack on the hypocrasy of the people of the followers of those faiths, and when he says:

Page 518, Line 7 ਤ੝ਧ੝ ਧਿਆਇਨ੝ਹ੝ਹਿ ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬਾ ਸਣ੝ ਖੜੇ ॥ तढ़धढ़ धिआइनढ़हि बेद कतेबा सणढ़ खड़े ॥ tuDh Dhi-aa-eeniH bayd kataybaa san kharhay. The followers of the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, standing at Your Door, meditate on You.

He is acknowledging that the truth is there somewhere.

I am affraid you lack the ability to discern where Guruji is making a dierect attack on ritualism in Koranic and Hindu terms. You do not understand the significance of the sacrifice by Abraham, or the rites of Anustrani. Our Guru's were surrounded by these people (we were those people), and using Bani he showed the errors of the hypocrasy of these rituals.

Alas, all you are doing is making an A-La-Carte Menu of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. What a shame. I fear Sikhism is doomed with people like you.

Reply

KingSingh Ji,

It is very common that when a person loses an argument, they take a swipe and lob insults on their opponent – So it does not surprise me that you have started doing that. I will not resort to the same thing as I think that is a demeaning position to take.

Every Tuks has a message. If the message is not complete then read the group of lines or the whole of the Shabad. If you care to look at the SGGS on Meat article, from which all the Tuks were taken, you will see that none of the sections quoted is a one line quotation – So even your basic observation is completely wrong. You will also notice that each quoted section is hyper-linked to the full Shabad and Ang at Srigranth.org. See example below:

SGGS Page 1350 Full Shabad
ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹ੝ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥

ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥

bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai.
ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai. ((1))

Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ((1))

The Shabad is a complete unit and gives a precise message from the Guru. When one takes a Hukamnama – You normally read just a Shabad or Pauri and that gives a complete message from the Guru. You don't have to read the complete page to understand the message being conveyed by the Guru. So please stop making comments like "You are a classic ……one line merchant". This sort of behaviour does not help the discussion. Also, what is wrong in taking the message conveyed in a full Tuk of Gurbani? Explain this to me. If the practise of reading and understanding Gurbani Line by line was not suitable, then why has no respected scholar mentioned this before? Why is it that you appear to be the only ones who seem to oppose this method? Has Bhai Gurdas Ji followed or promoted your example? Perhaps Guru ji may have supported you if it was so important. But I have never before come across this point made here by you.

So what you are saying is that if one line of Gurbani gives a certain message; we should forget it until one has read the full page and then try and "see" what message the whole of the page conveys. My friend, this cannot be true. This rule does not apply to any other text or scripture. All scriptures are read Line by line or at most a hymn at a time and then the message is conveyed. When quoting in an article, only a brief section is normally quoted with the refernce so that the reader can follow the article without too much distraction and return to the reference is he or she requires futher clarification. That is why the hyperlinks have been inserted. Can you tell me how the meaning of the above line changes when read as part of the Shabad?

You said "You are …. selecting one line out of a paragraph and distorting the meaning (of Gurbani)" My friend, it is you who is distorting the meaning. When Kabir ji asks: "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?" Why don't you reply and deal with this statement head on! The statement is very simple, patently clear and tremendously precise. Please tell us exactly why you do not provide us with a reply? So please, let us be fair – I am following the precise words of the Guru. It is you who does not want to deal with this tuk!! This line to anyone who understands English questions the killing of animals in whom we say the Lord exists – Obviously, you do not like dealing with this fact and so you want to divert the attention to the whole page of Gurbani, history implications and try and muddle the issue. I'm sorry but that will not wash with me!

You stated: "…someone (referring to me) who has limited understand of Bani and Sikh History" Please let me know how you have established that my understanding is lacking. What have I said or not said for you to make this statement? And on the other hand, perhaps you can enlighten us on your precise qualification in Gurbani and Sikhism. Are you a qualified Giani or Graduate, MA or Professor in Sikh Studies?

You stated: "Why you are even commenting on a site Sikh Wiki when you cannot even get the basics of Sikhi right is beyond me." Perhaps you can teach me the basics. Please feel free. I am a good student. Please use a new page and start your lessons.

What do you mean by "errors of man made religions" – What are man made religions and what are these "errors"? Please provide references.

You are wrong in interpreting this Tuk – This is a couplet – If you look at the numbering system at the end of the line, you will see that after two lines the number changes – In this case, you must look at the two complete lines up to the number to get the complete message. The lines are: "One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation. One who, as Gurmukh, chants the One Word, acquires a spotlessly pure reputation. ||3||" What Maharaj is saying is that by reading and studing these holy books (and in fact any holy book) one does not obtain liberation – that is obtained by Naam Simran – (Chants the One Word) remembering the Lord and Good deeds (from elsewhere "So perform good deeds, and chant the Naam, the Name of the Lord; you shall never have to go to hell." (p461)).

The Section beginning with: "The followers of the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, standing at Your Door, meditate on You." Has to be read to the next number which is 8 lines down – Nowhere has Maharaj mentioned "ritualism in Koranic and Hindu terms". If you think Guru ji does, then please point it out to me. Your explanation is completely incorrect and is unsupported.

What I have done in this discussion is to explain the simple and clear message of Gurbani – It is obvious that you do not like this message of the Guru as you practise the complete opposite. So please do not try and pull wool over my eyes. With Guru's blessing, I have a very clear and precise idea of what Maharaj has said. You want to be blind to this issue – I have no problem with that but please do not try and bring unnecessary complication when none exist. Do not try and mislead me as it will not work!! --Hari Singh 23:05, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

Reply

What an underhand person you are Harji, not giving me a chance to reply. Anyway I continue:

Please refer to both your user talk page and please read them. I do not want to be unfair and I am pleased to engage in discussion with a fellow Guru Sikh - Even if he call me a "fanatic Hindu Vaishnav". But please let's stick to a few ground rules.


My second replies are in italics

Intro:

KingSingh Ji,

It is very common that when a person loses an argument, they take a swipe and lob insults on their opponent – So it does not surprise me that you have started doing that. I will not resort to the same thing as I think that is a demeaning position to take.


Far from. I am calling it as I see it. You are a Kenyan “Sikh”.

Are we discussing Guru's Langar or are we discussing me. You must stay focused on the job in hand. I have said many times that we are not here to fire personal insults at each other – but you have failed to listen. If you repeat this next time, I will not answer any of those questions. It is clear that you do not wish to discuss Gurbani and that you will keep going back to personal issues. THIS PAGE IS TO DISCUSS LANGAR NOT HARI SINGH!!!! So remember next time – no more replies to anything of a personal nature.

Yes, I am from Kenya as I state on my User Page - So what difference does this make to the argument? Is there anything wrong with Kenyan Sikhs?

You follow a Jatha Baba. You follow Jatha Baba Math and not the teachings of the Akal Takht or othodox Sikhs.

No, I follow our eleven Gurus but will accept help from any fellow Gursikh who can assist me with my journey on Earth. Are you saying that the Panj Pyara in Birmingham are "inferior" to those at Akal Takhat or "Orthodox Sikhs", whatever that is? You, my friend are playing a very dangerous game and if you start discriminating against the Guru's institution then you will be on very shaky ground.

Your Baba's Nishkam Sevak Jatha's botch job of the guilding of Harmandhir Sahib is on par with your understanding of Bani.

What does the above add to your argument? As you keep reminding us of how great you are and how good your understanding of Gurbani is and how bad GNNSJ is, etc, etc - Why don't you go and re-gild the Darbar Sahib yourself. Or are you only good at making noises but have no substance?? And if you can't do it then I suggest you shut up from all this negativity and egotism. Have some respect for people who do sewa no matter how small or how big. What have you done for Sikhi that compares to any Sant Baba's Achievements? How many Sikhs have taken Amrit from you? How many Asthans have you made and maintained? Etc, Etc

Let's see whose understanding is good and whose is bad. I am honoured for you to compare my understanding of Gurbani with the re-gilding of Harmander Sahib. Thank you very much

You are not in a position to be lecturing any Sikhs who have taken Amrit at Harmandhir Sahib and eat Jhatka meat on the finer points of Sikhism.

I am not lecturing anyone. What you do as a Sikh is up to you. All I am doing is explaining Gurbani as it is - Using approved English Translations. It is you who is twisting the Guru's word without any real understanding. Show me what proof you have to support your habit of eating "Jhatka meat" with clear references and then we will see how we can change this article until then it will remain as it is. All changes must be supported by Gurbani or recorded Historical proof. --Hari Singh 22:03, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

The Shabad & Each Line:

Every Tuks has a message. If the message is not complete then read the group of lines or the whole of the Shabad. If you care to look at the SGGS on Meat article, from which all the Tuks were taken, you will see that none of the sections quoted is a one line quotation – So even your basic observation is completely wrong.


Sorry you are wrong yet again, and I will you give and example blow by blow of how completely and utterly wrong you are and how you Vaishnav Hindu Sant Mat is destroying Sikhism.

First, you have not answered the question – Please deal with every question that is posted. Which Shabad is a one liner? Let us see your blow by blow analysis

Let us take - You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?

Line 1

parbhaatee. Prabhaatee: bayd katayb kahhu mat jhoothay jhoothaa jo na bichaarai. Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.

So here is the opening line of the Ang. It is saying basically there is truth is Christianity, Islam and Hinduism…the background to this…..

STOP – First this is not the opening line of the Ang (page)- It is the opening line of the Shabad. Second, there is no reference to any background in the Shabad and who asked for the background – Just stick to the Shabad and its meaning – Please - No history or background unless there is reference to it within the Shabad.

when Kabir was around his own city of Benares was sacked….100,000 people had been massacred in Dehli………Timur then sacked Benares with, even Mullahs taking part in killing Brahmins……… http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/742629/posts

This above section is irrelevant and not necessary

………..so what Kabir is saying is there is truth in all religions….so far so good….you understand?

All Kabir ji has said is that: No one should say that the holy books Hindus, Christians, Islam, etc are wrong – The followers who do not study and understand these holy books are wrong.

Nowhere has Kabir said anything about religions only about Holy books and the followers. So when you say: "Kabir is saying is there is truth in all religions" – That is not the message. Please be precise in your interpretations.

Line 2

ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai. ||1|| You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ||1||


This is saying that God dwells in and in everything, so why are you killing a chicken as a sacrifice to him (quarbani)……understand?


Now where does it say Sacrifice or Qurbani in this Tuk? Please see SGGS page 1350 where I have set out the Original text with 3 English translations. None of these translations refer to Sacrifice. I know why it suits you to add this at this stage. You want to narrow the tuk so that it goes to apply to everyone who kills. Please stick to what the Guru ji has said!

Why are you just adding this extra bit about sacrifice and qurbani? – It not in Gurbani – Have I missed a few words somewhere? PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. Nowhere does Kabir ji refer to sacrifice or Qurbani at this point or anywhere else in this Shabad. Please let us stick to the Original text as far as possible.

ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ
ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai
If all within one God say that then why chicken kill

Looking at the table above tell me where you get the words Sacrifice and Qurbani. If you understand Punjabi, then you must understand the Original Gurmukhi.

  • Ja-o means Whosoever / If / when; sabh means everyone or all; meh mean within or in;
  • Ayk is one; Khudaa-ay mean Creator/God; Kahat mean say;
  • ta-o is why; murgee is chicken and maarai is to kill. The Shabad breakdown as:
  • "ja-o sabh meh" means "If within everyone"
  • "ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o" means "you say there is one God"
  • "ta-o ki-o mugee maarai" mean exactly "then why kill chicken"

NOW please explain where this qurbani and sacrifice comes in from? There is no mention of qurbani or sacrifice here –Are you agreed on this?

Line 3

mulaaN kahhu ni-aa-o khudaa-ee. O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?

THE CRUX…..this is being asked of a Mullah…..so Mulla (a Muslim Priest)……why do you kill chicken when Khudha (one of the words for allah or Gods), dwells in all)…….in other words, you are sacrificing chickens to God….God lives in the chicken to.


NO, I am Sorry but you are over stepping the mark here again I will accept: "So Mulla why do you kill chicken when Khudha dwells in all – Is this God's justice?" – No mention of any sacrifice or Qurbani! What you appear to have missed is the fact that Guru Arjan Dev included this Shabad in the Adi Granth. The reference to the Mullah here is of little significance (see reference ^1 Reference to Qazi in SGGS also ^2 Reference to Pandit in SGGS).

There are many hundreds of references to Qazi, Mullah, Pandit, Yogi, etc. But in all these cases, we as Sikhs have to learn from the message being given by our Guru.

Do you think that the Mullahs were going to read the SGGS?

I don't believe that Maharaj included this Shabad for the benefit of Mullahs. What do you think our Guru was thinking when they included this Shabad? - "Oh, the Mullahs will read the SGGS?" - No. Come on my friend. This Shabad is for our consumption NOT for any Mullah. Maharaj is explaining to us by using the Bani of Kabir. So yes, Kabir ji is addressing Mullah but Maharaj wants us to read and understand from it and get the message. No Mullah is going to read this text or care about it. Maharaj knew that.

WHY did Maharaj INCLUDE this Shabad? Please think carefully, I urge you. I would say that when a Sikh read this Shabad then:

  • 1. He is told that God dwells in the Chicken & other living beings
  • 2. Why should one kill Chicken that has God in it?
  • 3. Is it just in God's eyes to kill chicken in which resides God?

That is what a Sikh learns. The Mullah address is of little relevance. The rest of the Shabad reinforces the first two lines of the Shabad.

Line 4

tayray man kaa bharam na jaa-ee. ||1|| rahaa-o. The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. ||1||Pause||

You still have doubts about this ritual….(see line below about purification)…….in other word (see below about hypocraasy)…….your heart is full of hypocrisy etc (similar etc to when Guru Nanak prayed with Muslims in a Mosque and laughed at them for their minds were elsewhwere.


No reference to ritual (at all in this shabad) or hypocrisy (yet) – just read the translation as it stands – It is spot on. If you understand Punjab – you should clearly understand the original text. It very simple everyday words:

  • "tayray man kaa bharam" means "the doubt of your mind"
  • "na jaa-ee! Means "doesn't go"

You don't need any of your additions that you have made to the translation by Dr Sant Singh. You are totally wrong and as before you have put your spin on the Tuk.

  • Maharaj is saying that the Mullah has doubts about God and about His existence in all beings – So although he says the holy lines, he cannot bring himself to completely and totally believe in God – He has uncertainties about God & His presence in All beings.

Line 5

pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa. You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.

So when you are carrying out the sacrifice to God, the life force just goes somewhere else (see below)……there is no actual sacrifice to God. In anycase, God require no such appeasement. Read this about animal sacrifice: ame=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544988


We don't need to read about animal sacrifice because nowhere has Maharaj mentioned anything to do with sacrifice. (the link does not work anyway). Look at SGGS page 1350 Out of the three translations and the word by word translation nowhere is the words "SACRIFICE" or "QURBANI" to be found? I think you are imagining things!!

These words are not mentioned but you have deliberately polluted the Guru's Shabad by bringing them in. The Bani is saying that "you seize a being, bring and kill it, you have destroyed the clay. (matee) – As simple as that!! Why are bringing in this bit about Sacrifice and Qurbani?

Line 6

jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa. ||2||
The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed? ||2||

See above

I would have said – "the light of the Soul joins "Anaahat" which is God but the translation is almost in keeping with the Guru's words. So Kabir ji is saying that the Soul light merges with the Lord – So what have you Halaled (killed)?

Line 7

ki-aa ujoo paak kee-aa muhu Dho-i-aa ki-aa maseet sir laa-i-aa.
And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?

This is a General comment about all these purification Mullahs carried out above. Kabir ji then asks about the other things they do and why they do them?


Absolute Rubbish – "Ujoo" is the purification by washing of hands & feet before praying – another Shabad which is by Bhagat Farid Ji may make it easy for you to understand this word –

SGGS Page 1381 Full Shabad

ਉਠ੝ ਫਰੀਦਾ ਉਜੂ ਸਾਜਿ ਸ੝ਬਹ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗ੝ਜਾਰਿ ॥
uth fareedaa ujoo saaj subah nivaaj gujaar.
Rise up, Fareed, and cleanse yourself; chant your morning prayer.


What Kabir ji is saying is: Why do you wash your hands & feet; Why do you wash your face: Why do you bow your head in the mosque?

Putting it in a nutshell, Guru ji is basically conveying the message – What good are these washings and bowing in the mosque if you cannot understand the simple message of the Lord – God dwells in All!

Line 8

ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa. ||3||
Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca? ||3||

Again Mullahs, you carry out all these rituals, washing faces, sacrifice etc, yet you are hypocrites (these Mullahs sactioned the massacre of 100,000’s of Hindu’s under the nose of Kabir, and yet they had the ordasity to appear pious).


You are doing your spinning again – Stick to the translation as its almost perfect. Apart from the word "gujaarahu" which means "5 Prayers" every other word is simple Punjabi.

  • ja-o dil meh kapat nivaaj" mean "one who harbours deceit in their heart"
  • "gujaarahu ki-aa haj kaabai jaa-i-aa."means "What for the 5 prayers & your pilgrimage to Mecca?"

Together that means: "One who harbours deceit in their heart, what good are the 5 prayers & your pilgrimage to Mecca?"

So Maharaj is carrying on from the previous like and saying – What good are these prayers & pilgrimages if you have deceit and malice in your heart?

Line 9

tooN naapaak paak nahee soojhi-aa tis kaa maram na jaani-aa.
You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery.

The second crux, after, carrying out animal sacrifice, washing faces, praying, pilgrimage, you are still a hypocrite Mulla


The translation is almost perfect but your spin is crooked.

I will give you my commentary on this line and the Shabad so far:

  • Maharaj says "you are impure" – why does Maharaj say this to the Mullah? – Because Mullah, you say: God is in all living beings, yet you kill chicken – You are deceitful ("Kapat"), what good are your ablutions, prayers and pilgrimages?
  • The message to the Sikh is clear. Maharaj says: "ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥ sabh meh jot jot hai so-ay. The Divine Light is within everyone; You are that Light." (p663) – So if you believe the Guru's word, and believe that God's light is in all beings, then why do you kill these beings with His light?
  • This is the message of the Shabad for a Sikh who follows Gurbani and principles of Gurmat.

Line 10

kahi kabeer bhisat tay chookaa dojak si-o man maani-aa. ||4||4||
Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell. ||4||4||

Mullah you are set on hell because of the way you treat people….it doesn’t matter if you sacrifice animal for allah, or pilgrimage, or fast or whatever, so long as you carry on being bigoted you will go to hell


Where has Maharaj mentioned "the way you treat people" or "you sacrifice animal for allah" or even "fast" in the above Shabad? I am sorry but you have continued to put your spin again and again. Please, just stick to words of the Shabad? Because of your own spin, you have not understood the Shabad – If you remove your spin, only then you will understand the real meaning. You have mixed the two seperate parts of the Shabad:

  • Maharaj starts the Shabad with a question: Don't say the holy books are wrong, wrong are those who do not study and understand them followed by "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
  • Nowhere is there any mention of "the way you treat people" or "you sacrifice animal for allah"
  • And nowhere is the "why do you kill chickens" mixed with "Washing, bowing in the mosque, prayers and pilgrimage" One is seperate from the other.

Please don't mix the separate parts of the Shabad up to suit your own views of life. Stick to what Gurbani tells us!

Hyper-linked:

You will also notice that each quoted section is hyper-linked to the full Shabad and Ang at Srigranth.org. See example below:

see my comments above

quote:


The Shabad is a complete unit and gives a precise message from the Guru. When one takes a Hukamnama – You normally read just a Shabad or Pauri and that gives a complete message from the Guru. You don't have to read the complete page to understand the message being conveyed by the Guru. So please stop making comments like "You are a classic ……one line merchant".


I have posted the entire Angs and Pauris’, however you quote one lines. For me the biggest insult to Sikhism, is treating it divine revelation like an a-la-carte menu. Tell me, what is the difference between that and a Sharia type law?


The posting of the Gurbani line (Tuk) is to give the reader the main essence of the Guru's message. The reader can look at the full Shabad or Ang by pressing the hyperlink. You cannot in a discussion, while making a point veer off and quote the whole Shabad to make your point. Most people would get completely distracted. Give me one example where an article quotes a whole page as reference to a topic being discussed?

Also, when you listen to Gyani's doing Gurbani Vichaar (See iKirtan Katha) where they are explaining the message of Gurbani, they only quote the main lines of Gurbani and not the full Shabad or Ang.

Line by line

This sort of behaviour does not help the discussion. Also, what is wrong in taking the message conveyed in a full Tuk of Gurbani? Explain this to me. If the practise of reading and understanding Gurbani Line by line was not suitable, then why has no respected scholar mentioned this before? Why is it that you appear to be the only ones who seem to oppose this method? Has Bhai Gurdas Ji followed or promoted your example? Perhaps Guru ji may have supported you if it was so important. But I have never before come across this point made here by you. ‘’’The problem is you are a one line quote merchant and your understand is limited. Just the one Pauri above has needed so much intense research before understanding it, and you have the ordasity to claim you are some sort of expert on Bani because you have published articles on Sikh Wikhi? Truly lghable and unbelievable’’’ So what you are saying is that if one line of Gurbani gives a certain message; we should forget it until one has read the full page and then try and "see" what message the whole of the page conveys. My friend, this cannot be true.


it is and always shall be true as clearly demonstrated above. I suggest you start by reading works of Dr Jodh Singh etc who are expert in Bani and have been quoed in the research for “Fools Who Wrangle Over Flesh”. Dr Jodh Singh has stressed the need for not quoting one lines from Bani and always reading them in context. Bani is a living Guru, hence why we refers to its parts as Angs. We cannot dismember the Angs. Quoting one liners is dismembering.


I asked for quotes from Gurbani or from scholars like Bhai Gurdas ji and you have failed to provide such references. If what you say is important, don't you think that Bhai Gurdas ji or other prominent Sikhs would have made this point.

Please refer to www.sikhphilosophy.net Dr Jodh Singh which is one of his articles.

In this article by Dr Jodh Singh, also uses "one line" from Guru ji to explain a point. Please examine the article and you will see that he uses just one line:

SGGS Page 423 Full Shabad

ਜ੝ਗਹ ਜ੝ਗਹ ਕੇ ਰਾਜੇ ਕੀਝ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਕਰਿ ਅਵਤਾਰੀ ॥
jugah jugah kay raajay kee-ay gaavahi kar avtaaree.
In each and every age, He creates the kings, who are sung of as His Incarnations.

in his article in the following context:

"Yet Sikhism does not show ….., and came to be hailed as gods and goddesses. Says Guru Amar Das – Jagah Jugah ke raje kie gavahi kar(I)avtari – SGGS: p. 423). No amount of incitement can compel Sikhs to …… followers of pseudo nationalism and upon their mentors sitting at their headquarters."

Also look at the article at All About Sikhs which also uses one line and other sections of Bani. See in particular the quotes: ""Maya is a slave of the Lord, it serves those in constant communion with Him".[6] Maya functions to hide the reality. "Maya makes us forget God, creates delusion and makes man love the other."[7]"

  • So what you are saying is that your respected scholar is also "Cutting Off Of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Arms"

My friend, what's your answer to this?

Rule does not apply

This rule does not apply to any other text or scripture. All scriptures are read Line by line or at most a hymn at a time and then the message is conveyed. When quoting in an article, only a brief section is normally quoted with the refernce so that the reader can follow the article without too much distraction and return to the reference is he or she requires futher clarification. That is why the hyperlinks have been inserted. Can you tell me how the meaning of the above line changes when read as part of the Shabad?


Bani is a living Guru, it is more than just Script or text. It gives us a divine message to live our lives, and should be taken as whole and not dismembered. It certainly should not be quoted by people like you who are not familiar whith the background of the Bhagats, or the History line of its compilation

See previous sections and again please provide us with one article in connection with Sikhism where the author has consistently used a full Ang as a quote to make a point.

True Meaning

You said "You are …. selecting one line out of a paragraph and distorting the meaning (of Gurbani)" My friend, it is you who is distorting the meaning. When Kabir ji asks: "You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?" Why don't you reply and deal with this statement head on! The statement is very simple, patently clear and tremendously precise. Please tell us exactly why you do not provide us with a reply? So please, let us be fair – I am following the precise words of the Guru. It is you who does not want to deal with this tuk!! This line to anyone who understands English questions the killing of animals in whom we say the Lord exists – Obviously, you do not like dealing with this fact and so you want to divert the attention to the whole page of Gurbani, history implications and try and muddle the issue. I'm sorry but that will not wash with me!


READ above, reanalyse your Manmat. I don’t care about your washing but I expect my fellow Sikh scholars to have immpecable standards, and not to tow the Mcleodian, or Hindu Vaishnav line when interpreting Bani.


I have and you are wrong as you have added your own spin to the Bani Tuks. Either you do not understand Gurmukhi as I said before or you do not have access to all the 3 translations of SGGS in English. They all disagree with your translation of the Shabad. Please retract your article from the net as it is completely wrong and unsupported by Gurbani and our Gurus.

I have proved that you wrong in this Shabad and clearly shown that you have put your spin at every corner – So who is Manmukh and who is Gurmukh – Only the Saadh Sangat & Waheguru know!

Also this business of "Cutting off the arms of SGGS" is another non-starter where you have been proven wrong.

  • So you are wrong on both counts. Please re-examine your position on this issue

Hatful of degrees

You stated: "…someone (referring to me) who has limited understand of Bani and Sikh History" Please let me know how you have established that my understanding is lacking. What have I said or not said for you to make this statement? And on the other hand, perhaps you can enlighten us on your precise qualification in Gurbani and Sikhism. Are you a qualified Giani or Graduate, MA or Professor in Sikh Studies?


I have a hatful of degree’s but that does not matter, because the people who compiled this essay are Doctor’s (Medical, History, Engineering, Philosophy) etc. I myself have been studying Bani since I was a child and Sikh History for nearly 20 years. It is my life. It is my Love. It is my passion. The fellows I have quoted share this, and when we see people denegrating Bani to Carrots and Drumstiks, it pains us.


Please give me the names & email addresses to these people because I would like to speak to them.


Be my Teacher

You stated: "Why you are even commenting on a site Sikh Wiki when you cannot even get the basics of Sikhi right is beyond me." Perhaps you can teach me the basics. Please feel free. I am a good student. Please use a new page and start your lessons.


Unfortunately you do not wish to listen.

A good teacher will overcome these difficulties – At least try


Quote:

What do you mean by "errors of man made religions" – What are man made religions and what are these "errors"? Please provide references.

The message of God is divine, unfortunately it gets interferred with by men who wish to turn divine revelations into dining arrangements

I asked "What are man made religions"? - you have as before not answered this question.

God's divine message has to be translated into language of everyday, doesn't it? To you Daya has no meaning and what you eat and how you behave in life have little value - What then is Dharma? What is living righteously? Please address these issues.


quote: You are wrong in interpreting this Tuk – This is a couplet – If you look at the numbering system at the end of the line, you will see that after two lines the number changes – In this case, you must look at the two complete lines up to the number to get the complete message. The lines are: "One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Bible, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they will not bring liberation. One who, as Gurmukh, chants the One Word, acquires a spotlessly pure reputation. ||3||" What Maharaj is saying is that by reading and studing these holy books (and in fact any holy book) one does not obtain liberation – that is obtained by Naam Simran – (Chants the One Word) remembering the Lord and Good deeds (from elsewhere "So perform good deeds, and chant the Naam, the Name of the Lord; you shall never have to go to hell." (p461)).


Read above, and try and learn before commenting

see detailed analysis above


quote: The Section beginning with: "The followers of the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, standing at Your Door, meditate on You." Has to be read to the next number which is 8 lines down – Nowhere has Maharaj mentioned "ritualism in Koranic and Hindu terms". If you think Guru ji does, then please point it out to me. Your explanation is completely incorrect and is unsupported.


Unfortunately this is a lack of your understanding. The fact you don’t understand Guruji’s ,ockery of meaningless rituals, such as Quarbani, Fasts, Anustrani etc shows a shortage of knowledge on your part

Please refer to the part of the Shabad – the actual word – that mentions Sacrifice, Qurbani, etc. You don't have to do anything else – JUST REFER TO THE WORD! We don't need a lecture in how good you are and how bad everyone else is – Just the word in the original text. Thank you. Please provide this.

Simple and Clear message of Gurbani

What I have done in this discussion is to explain the simple and clear message of Gurbani – It is obvious that you do not like this message of the Guru as you practise the complete opposite. So please do not try and pull wool over my eyes. With Guru's blessing, I have a very clear and precise idea of what Maharaj has said. You want to be blind to this issue – I have no problem with that but please do not try and bring unnecessary complication when none exist. Do not try and mislead me as it will not work!! --Hari Singh 23:05, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


No my friend. I love the message of Bani, but you wish to denigrate it to one of a Vaishnav Hindu one, dealing with dining arrangements, place settings, and what you cannot and can eat. Oh how our Guru’s must be wondering, whether their time was competely wasted in the compilation of The Sri Guru Guru Granth Sahib ji, and to see its arms and legs dismembered by people who follow Sant traditions rather than the Guru itself.

You love the message Gurbani but you don't love Gurbani. If you did, you would try and understand each word & Tuk and follow it. You would not have to wait for the whole Shabad or Ang before you understood. You would not keep adding your own SPIN TO THESE WORDS so that it fits your own perceived message.

Speak to Saadh Sangat; speak to Gurmukhs and you will understand. Bhai Randhir Singh and all his followers; Bhai Yogi Ji and all his followers; All Sant Jathas; Sant Isher Singh, Sant Nand Singh, Sant Puran Singh, etc, etc which is many millions of people understand this Shabad as I have outlined it. These are the millions who have the deepest respect for Gurbani and so have changed their ways to follow the message of the Guru.

Gurbani is about what you think; what you speak; what you eat; how you eat; with whom you associate; etc, etc. To you this appears to have no meaning; having taken Amrit gets you nowhere unless you understand the Guru's message and follow it. You are swollen with pride; have no humility; have no compassion; are egoistic; lack the main quality of a Sikh, be a student or learner; discriminate against Hindus for whom Guru Tegh Bahadar sacrificed his life - How can you even call yourself a Sikh – You have no perception of Sikhi – I sorry but it's people like you who give Sikhi a bad name and are always negative in life.

Please keep all these negative qualities with you and you will never progress spiritually. Unfortunately, you have not even understood Gurbani – Forget about following it's message. How do you think you will obtain salvation if you do not even understand such a simple message?

Reply by LC

what non-sense. We should not be pro-meat or pro veggie. Equality people... we should accept all diets as is. Langar is supposed to be basic food - and it does not matter what style or ingredients used. Cause every society and culture on the planet has different food preferences. We cannot export one type of style to everyone. It really does not matter what type of food is served. Just remember all food shoudl be equal.

As for gurbani quotes: do not just quote one sentence, please quote the entire message - cause just taking one or two words out will destroy the message and peopel can use it to prove a point. so hari singh or anyone else - quote the entire message. -LC

Reply by HS

Lionchild:

Its Ok to make wild statements - That's easy but you need to support these statements with Gurbani or other scriptures. I have quoted the whole Shabad - what difference has it made – Some people are blinded by their own emotions and will not listen to any thing else – Please open your mind and see the Truth – Show me one Shabad that says that for a Sikh its OK to kill animals and eat them. I can assure you that I have never come across it and I bet you will not.

Further, what people of other religions eat is not a matter that troubles or concerns me – It is entirely for them – It is their Karma. I have quoted the whole of Kabir ji Shabad on page 1350 – see discussion above and at SGGS page 1350 where you will see all the Shabads regarding this subject. Where does it say that it "does not matter what style or ingredients (are) used" or consumed by us.

I know that you are new to Sikhi and I respect your sense of fairness and equality but please also realise that all our actions also need to be fair and equal. Why create a Karmic deficit? Please read the Sakhi of Bhagat Sadhna here


Please read what Bhai Gurdas ji had to say about this matter at: Bhai Gurdas

Summary:

  • 1.) Bhai Sabib talks about goat being cut by butcher to be eaten :

> "kuhe Kassai Bakkari, lai loon seekh mass proyia" Hass hass bole kuhidi, khade ak haal eh hoyia, Maas khan gal churi de, haal tinada kaun aloyia" (Vaar 37-21)

Means: Goat is being killed, cut into pieces and salt being spread on the pieces. While being killed goat says this all happened to me while I was just eating Ak plant (weed found in India's desert fields). In last line goat puts a question, WHAT WILL BE FATE OF THOSE IN COURT OF LORD WHO CUT MY THROAT WITH KNIFE AND EAT MY MEAT ??????


  • 2.) While describing the fate of those who kill the poor creatures of God and eat them, Bhai Sahib uses instance of the goat who is caught by a lion and is moments away from being ripped into pieces and eaten. In goats words Bhai Sahib Ji explains:

> "Sheeh pajooti Bakkari, maradi hoie harh harh hassi, Ak Dhatura khadian kuh kuh khal ukhal vinassi, Maas Khan gal wad ke, haal tinada kaun hovassi. (Vaar 25-7)

Means the goat says, "I was eating Ak and Dhatura plants (weed plants found in India) for whole of my life, to which no body else liked to eat. And even then I am being brutally killed and my skin being ripped, WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THOSE WHO CUT MY THROAT AND EAT MY MEAT ??????

  • 3). Bhai Gurdas Ji in Vaar 31 gives strong warning against eating meat. He said, due to some good doings in previous births, Pootna (a witch who tried to poison Krishna Ji) was forgiven. But don't take it as that act of poisoning others is acceptable. And due to some pious acts in previous births and grace of Lord, Sadhana the butcher was forgiven (there is mention about him in Gurubani too, later on he became bhagat). But it should not be interpretted as, that killing animals and eating their meat (word "Bhanga" here) is acceptable. Please read the following lines of Bhai Sahib Ji:

> "Jekar udhari pootna, Wihu pialan kam na changa, Je Kassai udharia, jeean ghai na khaiye Bhanga" (Vaar 31-5)

Kind regards,--Hari Singh 16:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Error In Translation of Shabad used By Hari Singh

Hello all, I have observed this debate on many sites including www.sikh-history.com and would like to point out a fundemental error by Hari Singh's translation. It was a point I see Randip Singh has picked up on, on his website.

Here is the shabad:

SGGS Page 1350 Full Shabad
ਪ੝ਰਭਾਤੀ ॥

੧. ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹ੝ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥
੨. ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥1॥
੩. ਮ੝ਲਾਂ ਕਹਹ੝ ਨਿਆਉ ਖ੝ਦਾਈ ॥
੪. ਤੇਰੇ ਮਨ ਕਾ ਭਰਮ੝ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥1॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
੫. ਪਕਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਆਨਿਆ ਦੇਹ ਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਮਾਟੀ ਕਉ ਬਿਸਮਿਲਿ ਕੀਆ ॥
੬. ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪ ਅਨਾਹਤ ਲਾਗੀ ਕਹ੝ ਹਲਾਲ੝ ਕਿਆ ਕੀਆ ॥2॥
੭. ਕਿਆ ਉਜੂ ਪਾਕ੝ ਕੀਆ ਮ੝ਹ੝ ਧੋਇਆ ਕਿਆ ਮਸੀਤਿ ਸਿਰ੝ ਲਾਇਆ ॥
੮. ਜਉ ਦਿਲ ਮਹਿ ਕਪਟ੝ ਨਿਵਾਜ ਗ੝ਜਾਰਹ੝ ਕਿਆ ਹਜ ਕਾਬੈ ਜਾਇਆ ॥3॥
੯. ਤੂੰ ਨਾਪਾਕ੝ ਪਾਕ੝ ਨਹੀ ਸੂਝਿਆ ਤਿਸ ਕਾ ਮਰਮ੝ ਨ ਜਾਨਿਆ ॥
੧੦. ਕਹਿ ਕਬੀਰ ਭਿਸਤਿ ਤੇ ਚੂਕਾ ਦੋਜਕ ਸਿਉ ਮਨ੝ ਮਾਨਿਆ ॥4॥4॥

prabhaathee.
1. baedh kathaeb kehahu math jhoot(h)ae jhoot(h)aa jo n bichaarai.
2. jo sabh mehi eaek khudhaae kehath ho tho kio muragee maarai ॥1॥
3. mulaa(n) kehahu niaao khudhaaee.
4. thaerae man kaa bharam n jaaee ॥1॥ rehaao ॥
5. pakar jeeo aaniaa dhaeh binaasee maattee ko bisamil keeaa.
6. joth saroop anaahath laagee kahu halaal kiaa keeaa ॥2॥
7. kiaa oujoo paak keeaa muhu dhhoeiaa kiaa maseeth sir laaeiaa.
8. jo dhil mehi kapatt nivaaj gujaarahu kiaa haj kaabai jaaeiaa ॥3॥
9. thoo(n) naapaak paak nehee soojhiaa this kaa maram n jaaniaa .
10. kehi kabeer bhisath thae chookaa dhojak sio man maaniaa ॥4॥4॥


Prabhaatee:
1. Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
2. You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ॥1॥
3. O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?
4. The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. ॥1॥Pause॥
5. You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
6. The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed? ॥2॥
7. And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?
8. Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca? ॥3॥
9. You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery.
10. Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell. ॥4॥4॥


Two points to note are ka-o bismil kee-aa and halaal ki-aa kee-aa.. At one level this means to kill (howver that is incorrect), but Bani is very precise. Bismil is short for Bismilah or the incantation used by Muslims when performing a ritual sacrifice or Quarbani.

Halal, is the ritualistic method used by Muslims when the slaughter animals. The actual slaughter done by Muslims is actually refered to as Qarbani by Muslims.

On these points that this shabad refers to animal, and ritual sacrifice, Randip Singh is 100% correct. Hari Singh should ammend the translations he has accordingly because I think they are misleading. I don't think this is Hari's fault since he has used these translations in good faith.

One last point, Randip, please be kinder when making points. I am sure Hari would have listened if you had put it like this.

I hope I have cleared this point up, and you will both work together to btter Sikhism, as you are both very good intellectuals. (posted by NeutralObserver on 5 August 2006 at 12:37)


Reply by HS to NeutralObserver

Welcome to SikhiWiki and many thanks for your continued help in clarifying the most precious message of Gurbani. I have a deep and binding respect for you in taking time and noble position of following the message of our Guru in a true and loyal manner.

Point Number 1

If I understand you correctly, (and please correct me if I am wrong) you say that:

  • 1: Bismil: is a reference to the incantation (prayer or chant) used by Muslims when killing an animal.
  • 2: Halaal: is the slow killing of the animal by bleeding it to dead.

I have looked up these words and translation of the words (as before) from

  • 1 Srigranth.org
  • 2 Dictionary of Guru Granth Sahib by Surinder Singh Kohli
  • 3 Punjabi - English English - Punjabi Dictionary by Krishan Kumar Goswami
  • 4 Checked with Persian Sources.

Bismil

  • from 1: SGGS Gurmukhi-Gurmukhi Dictionary

ਬਿਸਮਿਲਿ: means ਜ਼ਿਬਾਹ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੋਇਆ, ਮਰਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ

  • from 2: (Persian) adj. Bisamila: means Slayed, slaughtered.
  • No mention in 3 as not a Punjabi word

Other Research:

As I have gathered from 2, that this is a Persian word so I have looked up the following from Persian Sources:

Persian/Farsi Dictionary

a bismil (contracted from bi-smi-llĝh,), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;
bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.
a bismil-gĝh, Slaughter-house, butchery.
a bismilī, For sacrifice, for slaughter.
  • So yes, the word is derived from "Bismillah", which is the prayer or chant made at the time of the killing but "Bismil" actually refers to the "killing". Various other words are derived from this such as "Bismil-gah" meaning "Slaughter-house" and "Bismili" meaning "For slaughter"


Persian Poetry

Nami danam chi manzil bood shab jaay ki man boodam;

Baharsu raqs-e bismil bood shab jaay ki man boodam.
Pari paikar nigaar-e sarw qadde laala rukhsare;

I wonder what was the place where I was last night,
All around me were half-slaughtered victims of love,
tossing about in agony.

Khusrau's Persian Poetry translation by S.A.H.Abidi

It appears that "Bismil" means "slaughtered" another translation says " slain"

Halaal

  • from 1:

ਹਲਾਲ means ਧਰਮ ਦੀ ਕਮਾਈ। Ara. adj. Permitted, not forbidden from SGGS Gurmukhi-English Dictionary

English Translation (1) Permissible, legitimate, lawful; sanctioned or permitted by religious law or morality. (2) A method of slaughtering animals by Muslims or Jewish rite for consumption of meat.


Point Number 2


The translation for the 2 lines in question is shown below, please refer to SGGS page 1350 for a full breakdown:


  • Line 5: ਪਕਰਿ ਜੀਉ ਆਨਿਆ ਦੇਹ ਬਿਨਾਸੀ ਮਾਟੀ ਕਉ ਬਿਸਮਿਲਿ ਕੀਆ ॥
    pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa.
    You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
    Thou seize and bring a living being and kill its body. Thou has merely killed the clay and not the soul.
    Thou seizest life and killest the 'dust' of its body and callest it pure food


  • Line 6: ਜੋਤਿ ਸਰੂਪ ਅਨਾਹਤ ਲਾਗੀ ਕਹ੝ ਹਲਾਲ੝ ਕਿਆ ਕੀਆ ॥੨॥
    jot saroop anaahat laagee kaho halaal ki-aa kee-aa.
    The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed?
    Its imperishable soul is attached to another body. Say then, what has thou slaughtered.
    But, the undying, pure Soul, Mergeth in God : then dost thou partake of the pure, or the impure part of it?


Point Number 3


The slight change that this may make to line 5 has no bearing on line 2 of the Shabad which is most important –

  • Line 2: ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਝਕ੝ ਖ੝ਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮ੝ਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥
    ja-o sabh meh ayk khudaa-ay kahat ha-o ta-o ki-o murgee maarai.
    You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens?
    When thou say that one God abides in all, then why kill thou a hen?
    He is like the one who says God is in all, and yet slaughters life6 (for food).

How do overcome this?

Conclusion

From these exercises, I believe that the translations by 3 important scholars are probably correct and that the Shabad does not apply only to sacrificial killing of animals but to the killing of all animals, however killed and for whatever reasons. I believe that Kabir ji is telling us that the killing of any animal brings a negative impact on our Spiritual life.

I ask you to point me to other Shabads where this matter is more clearly demonstrated. I don't think that this Shabad is totally relating to sacrifice because elsewhere, Maharaj has referred to his very clearly like here:

SGGS Page 332 Full Shabad
ਮਾਟੀ ਕੇ ਕਰਿ ਦੇਵੀ ਦੇਵਾ ਤਿਸ੝ ਆਗੈ ਜੀਉ ਦੇਹੀ ॥ ਝਸੇ ਪਿਤਰ ਤ੝ਮਾਰੇ ਕਹੀਅਹਿ ਆਪਨ ਕਹਿਆ ਨ ਲੇਹੀ ॥੨॥

maatee kay kar dayvee dayvaa tis aagai jee-o dayhee. aisay pitar tumaaray kahee-ahi aapan kahi-aa na layhee. ॥2॥

Making gods and goddesses out of clay, people sacrifice living beings to them. Such are your dead ancestors, who cannot ask for what they want. ॥2॥


SGGS Page 471 Full Shabad
ਤਗ੝ ਕਪਾਹਹ੝ ਕਤੀਝ ਬਾਮ੝ਹ੝ਹਣ੝ ਵਟੇ ਆਇ ॥ ਕ੝ਹਿ ਬਕਰਾ ਰਿੰਨ੝ਹ੝ਹਿ ਖਾਇਆ ਸਭ੝ ਕੋ ਆਖੈ ਪਾਇ ॥

tag kapaahahu katee-ai baamHan vatay aa-ay. kuhi bakraa rinniH khaa-i-aa sabh ko aakhai paa-ay.

The thread is spun from cotton, and the Brahmin comes and twists it. The goat is killed, cooked and eaten, and everyone then says, "Put on the sacred thread".

I hope this will allow you to make further comments as I am not sure how you can say that Maharaj is only talking about Kurbani on page 1350. Everything points is a different direction. Where Maharaj in other Shabads does refer to Kurbani or Sacrifice, it is very clear and no doubt is left.

Please consider what I have written as I do feel that this is correct- But as we all know, only the Guru is perfect! I hope he will assist us in reaching the correct interpretation of Gurbani.

Need For Precision

Bani is very specific and we must reflect this in works of scholary. Halal and Bismil does not mean slaughter at all. They are conditions to be met for a specific type of sacrificial slaughter. The translation s posted above for Bismillah are totally incorrect. Bismillah has a much deeper meaning :

http://www.wahiduddin.net/words/bismillah.htm

On sacrifice:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/introducingislam/Worship/Pilgrimage/article05.shtml

First, one must have the intention (niyyah) of sacrificing before doing so. The sacrifice has to meet certain conditions, the first of which is the intention. The person who sacrifices must set his or her intention before slaughtering. The sacrifice is not accepted without it because slaughtering is done for different reasons: It could be done for the meat or to get closer to Allah. If the slaughtering is done to seek closeness to Allah, then the intention has to precede the act. It is not required that the person who is actually doing the slaughter mention on whose behalf he is slaughtering because the intention will suffice.

Second, the person who does the slaughtering should be a Muslim. It is preferable that a Muslim do the slaughtering because the sacrifice is an act of worship for the purpose of pleasing Allah Almighty. Therefore it is better if a Muslim does the slaughtering himself or herself. If a Muslim delegates a non-Muslim to slaughter on his behalf, it is acceptable but hated (makruh). This is the opinion of the schools of Ibn Hanbal and Ash-Shafi`i, Abu Thawr, and Ibn Al-Mundhir.

On the other hand, Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik forbid the non-Muslim to slaughter the sacrificial animal; Imam `Ali, Ibn Abbas and Ghabir said it is hated (makruh) for a non-Muslim to slaughter. But Ibn Qudamah argued that if it is permissible for a non-Muslim to slaughter for Muslims for the meat, why should he not be permitted to slaughter for the sacrifice? If a non-believer is permitted to participate in the building of mosques for Muslims, why should he not also be permitted to slaughter the sacrifice for them? Third, it is preferable for the person who sacrifices to slaughter the sacrificial animal himself or herself. It is preferable for the person sacrificing-be it a man or a woman-to slaughter the animal with his or her own hands. The Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him) slaughtered two rams with his own hands.

Fourth, one should say “Bismillah” (In the name of Allah) before slaughtering. It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say when slaughtering, “Bismillah, Allahu Akbar” (In the name of Allah, Allah is the Greatest). Ibn `Umar and Qutadah said they don’t know anyone who disagrees with the foregoing. If one has forgotten to utter these words, the sacrifice will be acceptable; and if one adds to it the following supplication it would be even better according to many scholars: “O Allah, This is from You and unto You, so please accept it from me or from the person on whose behalf I am slaughtering.

As one can clearly see, Bismillah actually mean in the name of Allah and NOT slaughter, and is used for a SPECIFIC type of "sacrifice". It is not used by any other denomination or faith, and the SGGS is very specific on this point. My suggestion is for you to be specific on this point.

On Halal:

http://www.eat-halal.com/articles/qurbani.shtml

In Islam sacrifice, commonly known as Qurbani, means slaughter of a permissible animal in the name of Allah' on the 10th, 11th or 12th of the Islamic month of Zil Hijjah. Religious Significance It is Sunnah (a symbolic obligation) practised by Holy Prophet Muhammad in an essential religious rite in memory of the sacrifice performed by Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him). God put Abraham to a most difficult trial, the details of which are described in the Quran. “O my Lord! Grant me (Abraham) a righteous (son)!” So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. “Then, when the (the son) reached the age of serious work with him, he said: “O my son I see in a vision that I offer you in sacrifice: Now say what is your view!” (The son) said: “O My father! Do as you are commanded: You will find me if God so wills, one practising patience and constancy!” So when they had both submitted their wills (to God), and he had made him prostrate on his face (for sacrifice), We called out to him: “O Abraham! You have already fulfilled the vision!” Thus indeed do we reward those who do right. “For this was obviously a trial and We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice: and We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times: Peace and salutation to Abraham! (37:100-109). This is the origin of the Islamic precept of sacrifice in fulfilment of God’s command provided in the Quran: “... to your Lord turn in prayer and sacrifice.” (108:2). The aim of sacrifice, like all other fundamentals of Islam, is to imbibe piety and self righteousness. It also promotes the spirit of sacrifice for a right cause. To explain its purpose, God says in the Quran. “It is not their meat, nor their blood, that reaches God, It is their piety that reaches God”: (22:37) Prophet Muhammad said: “On the 10th of Zil-Hijjah, there is no better act in the view of Allah than shedding the blood (of Slaughtered animals). And verily sacrifice earns the approbation of Allah even before the drop of blood (of the slaughtered animal) falls on the ground. Hence you should offer it in good spirit. For every hair of the sacrificial animal, there is a blessing.” We propose to deal here with the precepts and practices pertaining to Qurbani, according to Hanafi Fiqh. Qurbani is Fardh for: Qurbani, like Zakat, is essential for one who has the financial means and savings that remain surplus to his own needs over the year. It is essential for one’s own self. However, a slaughter of animal can also be offered for each member of one’s family. It may be offered, though it is not essential, for one’s deceased relations, too, in the hope of benediction and blessings for the departed souls. What to Sacrifice All the permissible (halal) domesticated or reared quadrupeds can be offered for Qurbani. Generally, slaughter of goats, sheep, rams, cows, and camels is offered. Sharing It is permissible for seven persons to share the sacrifice of a cow or a camel on the condition that no one’s share is less than one seventh and their intent is to offer Qurbani. Age of Sacrificial Animals Sacrifice of goat or sheep less than one year old (unless the sheep is so strong and fat that it looks to be a full one year old) is not in order. Cow should be at least two years old. Camels shouldn’t be less than five years old. Disqualifying defects Sacrifice of an animal will not be in order if it is one eyed, or blind, or has lost an estimated one third or more of its eyesight, or estimated one third or more of its tail, or its ear has been cut off, or it is lame, or its bones have no marrow, or it has no ears by birth or its horns have been broken from their roots, or it has no teeth at all. If the number of teeth intact exceeds the lost ones, it is permissible. If it has no horns by birth, or has less than one third broken horns it is permissible. Distribution of meat One should eat the meat of the sacrifice, give it to relations and friends, (to non-Muslims also) and also to the poor in charity. One third should be given in charity, but if it be less it will not be a sin. Injunctions as to Skin, etc. It is not permissible to give a portion of meat or the skin of the slaughtered animal as wages. They should instead be given to the needy in charity. Even the rope and cover of the sacrificed animal should be given away as charity. Injunction as to sacrifice giver It is commendable that one who intends to offer a sacrifice should refrain from having a hair cut, a shave, and pruning of nails, from the 1st of Zil-Hijjah (upto the time he has performed the sacrifice). Intention In the first instance, one who proposes to offer sacrifice must make an intention to that effect. Method of Sacrifice The animal for slaughter should be laid on its left side facing Kaabah and its throat cut open with a sharp knife, and its blood allowed to drain. In the case of a camel, it should be allowed to remain standing after its left fore leg has been stringed. A sharp spear should then be thrust in its breast and in both sides of its neck, and the blood allowed to drain. Taken from Islamic Voice (http://www.islamicvoice.com) with permission.


Pleae be more precise in tranlations. Again the meaning is precise and is not reflected in what has been written here. To suggest it is mere slaughter is plainly wrong. Other word such as "marai" are used to suggest kill or slaughter.

Thank You posted by NeutralObserver at 09:38, on 6 August 2006


Need to Focus on Gurbani

I think we need to keep a tight focus on Gurbani - We are looking at the interpretation of a Shabad which is for us as Sikhs to read and understand. The parts that you have chosen are : ka-o bismil kee-aa and halaal ki-aa kee-aa. Let us just ONLY look at these words and concentrate on the meaning of these words and the meaning of these particular lines of Gurbani.

The word "Bismillah" is not used in the Shabad and so I do see why you have spent so much of your valuable time on this aspect – I have looked at the 3 links provided and although they do not help me with the present debate, I found the material of potential value for the future. All this reference to foreign text about Qurbani; Sacrifice; etc is a side show not mentioned or given any weight in Gurbani. Going into these areas has, in my opinion brought no benefit in the understanding of the words in question. Although, I now understand the Muslim sacrifice and halaal better, it does not help me at all in understanding your point. I think we need to focus on the precise words in Gurbani. Now, let's look at these words and prove what they mean.

You say that the text "bismil kee-aa" does not mean: "to kill or slaughter". I quote your initial post: --<<<<<At one level this means to kill (howver that is incorrect), but Bani is very precise. Bismil is short for Bismilah or the incantation used by Muslims when performing a ritual sacrifice or Quarbani.>>>>

What I have said is Bismil is not shorter version of Bismilah, it is derived from it but Bismil refers to the act of "slaughtering" or "killing" rather than the "chant" or "prayer" which is to do with Bismillah. They have different meanings. Please refer to my quote from a Persian Dictionary. Bismil means "Slaughtered" or "killed" or "Slayed". So the words maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa means "have killed the clay" all three translations support this. How can you dispute these three prominent scholars without any real evidence? What are you saying this line means? Please just be precise and give us an answer to this and tell us why?

I see no point in going into the history of the sacrifice; its ceremonies; their history; different rules and regulations for the Muslims as this has no bearing on the Shabad. All we need is to understand the word "Bismil"!! Tell us what this mean for you and show us the proof where this precise word is used to mean what you say it means. THAT IS ALL WE WANT!!!

The three reputed scholars Dr Sant Singh, Bhai Manmohan Singh and Dr Gopal Singh have translated this Shabad respectively as shown below:

  • You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
  • Thou seize and bring a living being and kill its body. Thou has merely killed the clay and not the soul.
  • Thou seizest life and killest the 'dust' of its body and callest it pure food


Question Number 1

In all three the line is translated as kills the clay (or dust). Please explain why you think this is wrong with clear references.

If you read the original carefully, you will understand the meaning – look at each word and its translations. (Use Srigranth.org with its word by word translation to Punjabi and in some cases English)

  • pakar jee-o aani-aa dayh binaasee maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa.

My Commentary:

  • pakar jee-o: Means "Catch a life" as "Pakar" means "catch" and "jee-o" means life
  • aani-aa dayh binaasee: means "Bring & destroy the body" as "aani-aa" means "bring"; "dayh" means "body" and "binaasee" means "destroy"
  • maatee ka-o bismil kee-aa. Means "Killed the clay" or more literal "Caused death to the clay" as "maatee" means "clay or dust"; "ka-o" means "to"; "bismil" means "killed/slaughtered/slain"; and "kee-aa" means "do/done"
  • "You catch a life, bring & destroy it, You have killed the Clay" is the total meaning of the line

WHAT IS YOUR VERSION AND WHY? What do the words "BISMIL" and "HALAAL" mean to you? --Hari Singh 18:21, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Need For Clear Understanding In Order To Understand Bani

Hi Hari,

Let us focus on one point that Neutral Observer has made.

Above you said:

Where has Maharaj mentioned ............... "you sacrifice animal for allah"?

Your own link to the Persian dictionary states that Bismil means sacrifice or slaughter. This word actually is sacrificial slaughter. Do you concede that this word means Sacrifice now?

Also from your links:

Bismil actually means in the name of God, and come to mean a specific type of slaughter. From your link:

1. bismil: (page 187)

'(for bi-ismi), In the name of;--bismi- ʼllĝh, In the name of God (an ejaculation frequently used by Muhammadans, espe- cially when going to commence anything); God be with you! God speed you! very well! all right!'

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;--bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.



2. bismil: (page 187)

ʼllĝh, In the name of God (an ejaculation frequently used by Muhammadans, espe- cially when going to commence anything); God be with you! God speed you! very well! all right!

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;--bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.



3. bismil: (page 187)

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;--bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.

basmalat

A basmalat (v.n. of Q), Pro- nouncing the sentence bi-ʼsmiʼllĝh, In the name of God.

Going back to Bani

Leave the translation into English of Bani to one side, because there are many others I can cite too. English is imperfect when translating Gurbani as you know, and the word Bismil is a classic example.

So Again the question:

Do you concede that this word means Sacrifice now?

Reply to Ridiculous by HS

Dear Ridiculous

Most hearty welcome to Sikhiwiki and many thanks for your comments on the Langar Talk page.


Point Number 1

As I posted on my first reply to NeutralObserver the word "Bismil" is NOT as quoted by him: "Bismil is short for Bismilah or the incantation used by Muslims when performing a ritual sacrifice or Quarbani."

This clearly is totally wrong. As explained by me the word "Bismil" is:

  • from Gurbani Dictionary: (Persian) adj. Bisamila: means Slayed, slaughtered.
  • from Persian Dictionary: a bismil (contracted from bi-smi-llĝh,), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;

So, if we take the global meaning of the word, it can mean: Slayed, slaughtered, Sacrificed, meek, forbearing; that's looking at both Gurbani and Persian dictionaries – However, the Gurbani Dictionary has narrowed it to mean just Slayed, slaughtered. This dictionary is more relevant to the Sikhs. The reason I looked at the Persian Dictionary was to prove that NeutralObserver was totally incorrect. That's the first point.

Point Number 2

The second point is that the ritual of sacrifice as applied to the Muslim faith is a very specialised act which only takes place for a few days in the year.

To quote from the link provided by NeutralObserver: (see: www.islamonline.net)

  • The Time of Sacrifice The slaughtering days, therefore, are three: the `Eid and the two days following it.

Why have you selected the word "Sacrifice" instead of "Slayed" or "Slaughtered" as these are just as good? The lines of the Shabad give no indication as to the time or occasion of the act of slaughtering. Only when the slaughtering is done during these special days is it called a "sacrifice". I do not see any reference in the Shabad to indicate when this act took place. Where in the Shabad does it point to this specialised meaning? If you cannot point to this special time, then the translation has to be "slaughtered" rather than anything else!

You appear to be saying that Guru Arjan Dev has included this Shabad in the SGGS and that it only applies to the act of sacrifice carried out by the Muslims a few days each year and the rest of the year this Shabad does not apply? Is that the case? If so, then where does it indicate that? Why, in your opinion, has our Guru then included this Shabad in the SGGS?

Point Number 3 No Proof or Clear Evidence.

You state in your post: <<<Your own link to the Persian dictionary states that Bismil means sacrifice or slaughter. This word actually is sacrificial slaughter.>>>

  • 1. Where is your reference to show that this word means sacrificial slaughter. If you are correct, the Gurbani Dictionary would have mentioned this or some other Sikh Site. Do you have a reference to such a Site or Book? Or have you just stated that yourself?

Further, you say: <<<Leave the translation into English of Bani to one side, because there are many others I can cite too. English is imperfect when translating Gurbani as you know, and the word Bismil is a classic example.>>>

  • 1. Please do cite these translations (by prominent authors, if possible) because that is exactly what we are trying to determine – The exact translation of the Shabad!!
  • 2. Do you feel that that the Authors Dr Sant Singh, Bhai Manmohan Singh and Dr Gopal Singh are all wrong in all the translations of the Shabads in the article SGGS on Meat?


Point Number 4

Looking at the Shabad in total:

1. Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false.
2. You say that the One Lord is in all, so why do you kill chickens? ॥1॥
3. O Mullah, tell me: is this God's Justice?
4. The doubts of your mind have not been dispelled. ॥1॥Pause॥
5. You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and kill its body; you have killed only the clay.
6. The light of the soul passes into another form. So tell me, what have you killed? ॥2॥
7. And what good are your purifications? Why do you bother to wash your face? And why do you bother to bow your head in the mosque?
8. Your heart is full of hypocrisy; what good are your prayers or your pilgrimage to Mecca? ॥3॥
9. You are impure; you do not understand the Pure Lord. You do not know His Mystery.
10. Says Kabeer, you have missed out on paradise; your mind is set on hell. ॥4॥4॥

-SGGS page 1350

Say, for a second we change the line to include the word sacrifice instead or killed: So we get:

*5. You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and sacrifice its body; you have only destroyed the clay.

What difference does it make to the overall message of the Shabad?


Point Number 5

In the following Shabad, the word "Bismil" is used twice:

SGGS Page 1165 Full Shabad
ਬਿਸਮਿਲਿ ਗਊ ਦੇਹ੝ ਜੀਵਾਇ ॥ ਨਾਤਰ੝ ਗਰਦਨਿ ਮਾਰਉ ਠਾਂਇ ॥੨॥

bismil ga-oo dayh jeevaa-ay. naatar gardan maara-o thaaN-ay.॥2॥

Bring this dead cow back to life. Otherwise, I shall cut off your head here and now."॥2॥

ਬਾਦਿਸਾਹ ਝਸੀ ਕਿਉ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਬਿਸਮਿਲਿ ਕੀਆ ਨ ਜੀਵੈ ਕੋਇ ॥੩॥

baadisaah aisee ki-o ho-ay. bismil kee-aa na jeevai ko-ay.॥3॥

Naam Dayv answered, "O king, how can this happen? No one can bring the dead back to life.॥3॥

Now, in the context of the surrounding words, how can you justify your version of this definition of the word. Especially in the second line, your version would have the restricted meaning of: "Muslim sacrificed animal cannot be brought back to life." Or do you think it makes more sense to say: "The dead cannot be brought back to life"? If you were right, then the line would have the narrow meaning that "only Muslim sacrificed animals cannot be brought back to life" and hence "other dead animal can be brought back to life". Obviously, what makes real sense is to say the "Any dead being cannot be brought back to life" – So it is clear to me that the word "bismil" means "killed or slaughtered" animal and not ONLY "Animal sacrificed/killed by Muslim ritual!


Conclusion

Summary of Evidence in Support

  • 1. All 3 English translations support the Vegetarianism article.
  • 2. The Gurmukh Dictionary supports the translation.
  • 3. The overall message of the Shabad does not change despite your view.
  • 4. The Vegetarianism article has support of many other Shabads at SGGS on Meat.
  • 5. No credible opposition either in the form of clear Gurbani or Historical record.
  • 6. Support from Prominent Historic Scholars like Bhai Gurdas ji.
  • 7. Support from many Prominent Sikh leaders with a huge following like Bhai Randhir Singh, Yogi Harbhajan Singh, Sant Isher Singh & all other Sants of the Sikhs with millions of followers.
  • 8. Verbal Support from leader of SGPC/Akal Takhat.

I fail to see how you can justify your stand with such weak, almost non-existent evidence. All the evidence is stacked heavily against you and your camp has not produced any credible or substantial evidence – only innuendos, personal abuses, personal statements & views. This, my friend, cannot be sufficient for help a Gursikh form an opinion. You have to produce good Gurmat evidence and proof.

Further, the Gurmat principles of Daya, Nimrata, God in all, etc are completely against your views. In my opinion you are fighting a losing battle!! However, I hope this answers all of the questions that you posed in your post. If not, please accept my apology and kindly post them again. Many thanks, --Hari Singh 04:33, 9 August 2006 (CDT)



Rebuttle To HS

Point Number 1

You stated This clearly is totally wrong. As explained by me the word "Bismil" is:

Actually your own link contradicts you and backs up Neutral Observer 100%. "In the name of Allah" can be viewed as an incantation. Read below:


3. bismil: (page 187)

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced),

Therefore Bismil is short for Bismillah.

Point Number 2

You stated : The second point is that the ritual of sacrifice as applied to the Muslim faith is a very specialised act which only takes place for a few days in the year.

That is irrelevant to the debate as no time frame or point in time is given to this shabad. The word Bismil (which is short for Bismillah) is used for killing any animal at any time. Bismillah is the blessing used for Halal method of slaughter which means all Islamic slaughter is seen as a sacrifice to Allah. The shabad makes reference to both Halal and Bismillah.

Point Number 3 There Is Clear Evidence.


You stated:*1. Where is your reference to show that this word means sacrificial slaughter. If you are correct, the Gurbani Dictionary would have mentioned this or some other Sikh Site. Do you have a reference to such a Site or Book? Or have you just stated that yourself?

Your own link proves this point. To reiterate:

1. bismil: (page 187)

(for bi-ismi), In the name of;--bismi- ʼllĝh, In the name of God (an ejaculation frequently used by Muhammadans, espe- cially when going to commence anything); God be with you! God speed you! very well! all right!'

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;--bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.




2. bismil: (page 187)

ʼllĝh, In the name of God (an ejaculation frequently used by Muhammadans, espe- cially when going to commence anything); God be with you! God speed you! very well! all right!

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;--bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.




3. bismil: (page 187)

bismil

a bismil (contracted from bi-ʼsmi- ʼllĝh, because on killing an animal the words "in the name of God" are to be pro- nounced), Sacrificed, slaughtered; meek, forbearing;--bismil kardan, To sacrifice, to slaughter.

basmalat

A basmalat (v.n. of Q), Pro- nouncing the sentence bi-ʼsmiʼllĝh, In the name of God.


Three clear references and translations of the word. Gurbani dictionary is not the only refrence point for Sikhs. Guru Nanak was fluent in Arabic, Persion, Sanskrit and several other texts. So no your narrow use of the Gurbani dictionary does not hold.

You stated:

  • 1. Please do cite these translations (by prominent authors, if possible) because that is exactly what we are trying to determine – The exact translation of the Shabad!!

That is the point. English translations are imperfect. Gurbani is not.

  • 2. Do you feel that that the Authors Dr Sant Singh, Bhai Manmohan Singh and Dr Gopal Singh are all wrong in all the translations of the Shabads in the article SGGS on Meat?

They have tried there best to translate something as complex as Gurbani. It is up to the student and individuals to read the Gurmuki text and derive deeper meanings. English word do not reflect the deeper meaning. Bismil and Halal are two classic examples of this pitfall. May I recommed a translation available from Singh Brother by (DS) Chahal. It flows better. The translations you have cited are awkward, and tend not to flow in terms of the English language. This is a shame (especially from authors like Dr Gobal Singh, who has translated Shakespeare into Gurmukhi).

Point Number 4

You said: *5. You seize a living creature, and then bring it home and sacrifice its body; you have only destroyed the clay.

What difference does it make to the overall message of the Shabad?

Totaly, changes the meaning and how this fits into the Sikh view of the world and the futility of sacrifice.Note also that the meaning is for you to figure that out. I would also suggest read the couplets leading up to this Shabad. They "set the scene".

Point Number 5

Now, in the context of the surrounding words, how can you justify your version of this definition of the word. Especially in the second line, your version would have the restricted meaning of: "Muslim sacrificed animal cannot be brought back to life." Or do you think it makes more sense to say: "The dead cannot be brought back to life"? If you were right, then the line would have the narrow meaning that "only Muslim sacrificed animals cannot be brought back to life" and hence "other dead animal can be brought back to life". Obviously, what makes real sense is to say the "Any dead being cannot be brought back to life" – So it is clear to me that the word "bismil" means "killed or slaughtered" animal and not ONLY "Animal sacrificed/killed by Muslim ritual!

my suggestion would be "The animal sacrificed in the name of Allah, cannot be brought back to life". That for me has a much deeper, profound, and hard hitting meaning. I would substitute Bismil for "sacrificed in the name of Allah" in these cases.

What do you think?

Conclusion

  • 1. All 3 English translations support the Vegetarianism article, however the translations are imperfect and Gurmukhi is not. Gurmukhi itself does not support the Vegetarianism argument.
  • 2. The Gurmukh Dictionary supports the translation, however, the Persian translation does not. The Gurmukhi dictionary needs to be revised.
  • 3. The overall message of the Shabad does not change despite your view - This is not my view, but the view of Gurbani. You are ineffect pushing your view. I am exploring deeper meanings rather than an at face translation (which is poor).
  • 4. The Vegetarianism article has support of many other Shabads at SGGS on Meat. - There are many Meat eating articles [1] that are written where Gurbani supports them. Both arguments are a folly. Gurbani does not support meat eating or vegetarianism.
  • 5. No credible opposition either in the form of clear Gurbani or Historical record - I would disagree, that firm evidence has been appointed, but there seems to be an entrenched position from which you will not shift, therefore any evidence would not seem credible. Also the article [2] has many historical records and views of prominent authors and writers.
  • 6. Support from Prominent Historic Scholars like Bhai Gurdas ji - Bhai Gurdas also talks about killing a deer to get Kasturi (Musk) [3].
  • 7. Support from many Prominent Sikh leaders with a huge following like Bhai Randhir Singh, Yogi Harbhajan Singh, Sant Isher Singh & all other Sants of the Sikhs with millions of followers.- a moot point and irrelevant to the debate since these people follow the version of Sikhism they see fit to follow. This is however, not a competition of which Sant/Bhagat is greater.
  • 8. Verbal Support from leader of SGPC/Akal Takhat - Wrong 'Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee.' Amritsar 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). .

I fail to see how you can justify your stand with such weak, almost non-existent evidence. All the evidence is stacked heavily against you and your camp has not produced any credible or substantial evidence – only innuendos, personal abuses, personal statements & views. This, my friend, cannot be sufficient for help a Gursikh form an opinion. You have to produce good Gurmat evidence and proof.

Accusation and opening statements of Manmat against people who disagree with a view point too do not help the debate.The evidence is not stacked at all against any camp. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the fact that Gurbani does not advocate any particular diet. Here are the views of some prominent scholars:

Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi 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.

Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar 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.

A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi 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.

Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar 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).

A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England 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.

Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 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).

Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi 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.

Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi 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 G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto 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.

The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver 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.

Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal 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.

Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi. 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.


Further, the Gurmat principles of Daya, Nimrata, God in all, etc are completely against your views. In my opinion you are fighting a losing battle!! However, I hope this answers all of the questions that you posed in your post. If not, please accept my apology and kindly post them again. Many thanks,

The Sikh principles are not in conflict with Daya, Nimrata and God in all. If that were the case, Sikhs would have fled from battle in terror. This is your view and not Bani. I do not see this as a battle, wheras you do. I see this as a search for truth, and shunning ignorance and prejudice. Much like the battles against the castists and racists, that use play on word in Gurbani to justify their standpoint. Set your prejudice to one side.

Back to the question:

Do you conceed Bismil can mean sacrifice as well as slaughter?