Sikhism - how to convert?

Dave!

Hey folks,

I know Sikhism isn't Islam, but there doesn't seem to be a 'general' religion forum, so I think I'll get information here.

Just wondering if there is any process that one has to go through in order to become a Sihk? To convert to Judaism you have to get in touch with a Rabbi and do this and that, is Sihkism similar? Or can I just get up one morning, put on a burka, and start following Sikhism?

Thanks

Donangel

Well, i have no clue about the sikh conversion, but i wanted to comment about judaism conversion.

as far as i know its almost impossible to convert to judaism, and if you go to a rabbi he will actually encourage you not to convert. you might be able to follow the laws of noah or something like that but still you won't be called a jew, to be jewish you have to be born to jewish mother.

yep thats what i know

r3boot

Donangel wrote:

Well, i have no clue about the sikh conversion, but i wanted to comment about judaism conversion.

as far as i know its almost impossible to convert to judaism, and if you go to a rabbi he will actually encourage you not to convert. you might be able to follow the laws of noah or something like that but still you won't be called a jew, to be jewish you have to be born to jewish mother.

yep thats what i know

No ....

read up on something before posting ....

Suff

Thats a new schem to get people who had some Jewish ties to go to Israel.
I agree with the post above where a Jew can only be a Jew if born of a Jewish Mother.

Excelsior

To be a Jewish man you must be circumcised on the 8th day of your life. Otherwise, you are a God-fearer. Your kids can become Jews though....

r3boot

http://www.beingjewish.com/conversion/becomingjewish.html


hope it clears somethings up.

Singh6

DaveMcG wrote:

Hey folks,

I know Sikhism isn't Islam, but there doesn't seem to be a 'general' religion forum, so I think I'll get information here.

Just wondering if there is any process that one has to go through in order to become a Sihk? To convert to Judaism you have to get in touch with a Rabbi and do this and that, is Sihkism similar? Or can I just get up one morning, put on a burka, and start following Sikhism?

Thanks

Yes Sikhism is not Islam...regarding your burka ques... Sikh women do not wear any kind of burkas .....Sikhs fought with muslim rulers for few hundereds years.... and they snatched a big geographical area from them and made it their kingdom {comprising 2 out of four states of (today's) Pakistan, 3.5 northern states of (today's) India, today's divided state 'Jammu & Kashmir} ... they ruled it almost for 100 years and .... they lost it to british after the Anglo-Sikh wars - 1845-1849 when their chief of army staff (a hindu) became a traitor {leaked sikh war plans prepared by kingdom's french (Nepolian's generals), Italian and sikh generals} ..destroyed hundereds of tons of gun powder during the wars.... destroyed a major boat bridge and left sikh army fightying on the other side of river to die without supplies etc etc).... evenough Kingdom's sikh and european generals faught untill the end.....but they lost.....

As far as I know.... to convert... there are diferent stages in sikhism....if someone beleive in 100 % equality between man and a woman.... between all races/all castes....if someone believe in one God.... he/she can start his/her conversion process .... in addition to above mentioned points... if someone believe in the teachings of ten gurus (teachers) and Guru Granth Sahib (the wholy book) then he can call himself a sikh..... As per religion you should not eat any meat prepared in Halal(Muslim)/Koshar(Jew) method (because sikhism oppose the cruel way to take the animal's life as in Halal/Kochar methods)... U can eat meat otherwise....you should stop smoking .... U should stop consuming alcohol etc.

The last stage is getting baptized (this stage in not necessary though)... for that u must have unshorn hairs cleanly/nicely tied under a turban.....every man will have to adopt a last name 'Singh' and every women will have to adopt a last name 'Kaur' so that no one will ever be able to rechognise your upper/lower caste etc...... so that you could look equal alongwith all other sikhs...... I've typed what I know.....but... you can get a lot of information from www.sikhnet.com

Gavin123

Wow...I have just read about this monotheistic religion at BBC.com & sikhnet.com... I never knew that this is the fourth monotheistic religion in the world and fifth largest religion in the world as well....I never knew that there is such a great peacefull and martial religion somewhere on this earth. It was amazing to read that Sikhs avoid superstitious behaviour, pilgrimages, statues, buildings, and "blind" rituals. Now I understand that why thousands of whites in Americas and Europe are converting to this religion.... It was interesting to read that their forefathers accepted to die instead of converting to Islam in the past and these are the same people of fought with great Mugals and won.... and also these are the same people geographically who fought with 'Alexander the great' and forced him to go back..... Man... Unbelievable..... I am sure that they will definitally shine some day (again)

Gavin

Singh6 wrote:

Yes Sikhism is not Islam...regarding your burka ques... Sikh women do not wear any kind of burkas .....Sikhs fought with muslim rulers for few hundereds years.... and they snatched a big geographical area from them and made it their kingdom {comprising 2 out of four states of (today's) Pakistan, 3.5 northern states of (today's) India, today's divided state 'Jammu & Kashmir} ... they ruled it almost for 100 years and .... they lost it to british after the Anglo-Sikh wars - 1845-1849 when their chief of army staff (a hindu) became a traitor {leaked sikh war plans prepared by kingdom's french (Nepolian's generals), Italian and sikh generals} ..destroyed hundereds of tons of gun powder during the wars.... destroyed a major boat bridge and left sikh army fightying on the other side of river to die without supplies etc etc).... evenough Kingdom's sikh and european generals faught untill the end.....but they lost.....

As far as I know.... to convert... there are diferent stages in sikhism....if someone beleive in 100 % equality between man and a woman.... between all races/all castes....if someone believe in one God.... he/she can start his/her conversion process .... in addition to above mentioned points... if someone believe in the teachings of ten gurus (teachers) and Guru Granth Sahib (the wholy book) then he can call himself a sikh..... As per religion you should not eat any meat prepared in Halal(Muslim)/Koshar(Jew) method (because sikhism oppose the cruel way to take the animal's life as in Halal/Kochar methods)... U can eat meat otherwise....you should stop smoking .... U should stop consuming alcohol etc.

The last stage is getting baptized (this stage in not necessary though)... for that u must have unshorn hairs cleanly/nicely tied under a turban.....every man will have to adopt a last name 'Singh' and every women will have to adopt a last name 'Kaur' so that no one will ever be able to rechognise your upper/lower caste etc...... so that you could look equal alongwith all other sikhs...... I've typed what I know.....but... you can get a lot of information from www.sikhnet.com

lostexpectation

Gavin123 wrote:

Wow...I have just read about this monotheistic religion at BBC.com & sikhnet.com... I never knew that this is the fourth monotheistic religion in the world and fifth largest religion in the world as well....I never knew that there is such a great peacefull and martial religion somewhere on this earth. It was amazing to read that Sikhs avoid superstitious behaviour, pilgrimages, statues, buildings, and "blind" rituals. Now I understand that why thousands of whites in Americas and Europe are converting to this religion.... It was interesting to read that their forefathers accepted to die instead of converting to Islam in the past and these are the same people of fought with great Mugals and won.... and also these are the same people geographically who fought with 'Alexander the great' and forced him to go back..... Man... Unbelievable..... I am sure that they will definitally shine some day (again)

Gavin

*does a double take*

schorl12

As for conquering lands then many nations have conquered lands and its not something to bragg about.nor is it a yard stick to verify the authenticity of a religion. As for the Burka question sikh women should wear a turban and cover their hair -dress exactly as men-(dont forget equality). However majority of sikh women do not practice this and just resort to a dupatta or a chunni (scarf). As for the equality for women in sikhism its just a statement with no action to support it. in fact in reality the sikhs are totally the opposite in giving their women rights. Firstly no Gurus came from the opposite sex, women and men are segragated in the gudwara. also no where in the guru grant sahib does it mention anything about forced marriage which is well known issue in punjab and other parts of the indian subcontinent. The guru Nanak is well known to be away from his wife for a long period of time no such rights were fulfilled then. Female feticide is rife! in the sikh community and the list goes on,so where is the equality there. It is but lip service. As for the caste system the sikhs have their own gudwaras depending on what caste their are from so a ramgharia will not go to other gudwaras i.e the chamars. moreover non of the ten Gurus married their children outside their gots or zats. At times of marriage sikhs hold on to the catse system vigourously.
As for the kosher and halal meat id like to know how the gurus facilitated their meat? did they not slaughter them? why is it inhumane to slaughter and if so how do we consume meat then, dead carcases? There are more factors. In reality sikhism is actually a sant tradition like many other sant traditions. And if it wernt for the mughals there wouldnt have been a religion or a sect called sikhism.
Its just an ideology that jumps on the band wagon of pseudo equality to impress ppl but the reality is far from the claims. please my intention was not to say anything bout any religions but to attack muslims and say they are inhumane then it it calls for an answer.

Sukhbir Singh

schorl12 wrote: »

As for conquering lands then many nations have conquered lands and its not something to bragg about.nor is it a yard stick to verify the authenticity of a religion. As for the Burka question sikh women should wear a turban and cover their hair -dress exactly as men-(dont forget equality). However majority of sikh women do not practice this and just resort to a dupatta or a chunni (scarf). As for the equality for women in sikhism its just a statement with no action to support it. in fact in reality the sikhs are totally the opposite in giving their women rights. Firstly no Gurus came from the opposite sex, women and men are segragated in the gudwara. also no where in the guru grant sahib does it mention anything about forced marriage which is well known issue in punjab and other parts of the indian subcontinent. The guru Nanak is well known to be away from his wife for a long period of time no such rights were fulfilled then. Female feticide is rife! in the sikh community and the list goes on,so where is the equality there. It is but lip service. As for the caste system the sikhs have their own gudwaras depending on what caste their are from so a ramgharia will not go to other gudwaras i.e the chamars. moreover non of the ten Gurus married their children outside their gots or zats. At times of marriage sikhs hold on to the catse system vigourously.
As for the kosher and halal meat id like to know how the gurus facilitated their meat? did they not slaughter them? why is it inhumane to slaughter and if so how do we consume meat then, dead carcases? There are more factors. In reality sikhism is actually a sant tradition like many other sant traditions. And if it wernt for the mughals there wouldnt have been a religion or a sect called sikhism.
Its just an ideology that jumps on the band wagon of pseudo equality to impress ppl but the reality is far from the claims. please my intention was not to say anything bout any religions but to attack muslims and say they are inhumane then it it calls for an answer.

Your overly defensive posturing see's bragging where there was none,why you should be so defensive in the first place is known to you alone.The OP simply gave a brief history of Sikhism and it would be difficult if not impossible to do this without mentioning the rise of the Sikh Kingdom.I would say at this point that it is not my intention to criticise the religious beliefs of others and I have no particular enmity with Islam or any other faith.My personal gripe is with those who are unable to see merit in any other belief other than their own.That Islam disagrees with what I believe is not reason for me to attack it.The original OP merely pointed out what he understands as the Sikh position.The reply by schorl is in my opinion unnecesarily hostile and offensive that it relies on wholesale error and ignorance to achieve it,simply adds insult to injury.

You have made a number of gross errors in your post and in many other areas your basic knowledge and clear predjudice has drawn you to subjective conclusions.I will answer your critique in the order in which you wrote it.


Firstly there is no compulsion for Sikh women to wear a turban.
The equality of men and women in Sikhism is paramount,you say there is nothing to support it?


Well it happens to have been one of the fundamental beliefs from the 1st Sikh Guru to the last and is repeatedly cited within the Sikhs central scripture and spiritual guide the Guru Granth Sahib.Further there are many instances of Sikh female generals in the khalsa army as well as the fact that there is no position or activity that a Sikh man may secure that aSikh woman cannot.Sikh women can and have occupied the highest positions within the Sikh community.


Whether that is as president of the Sikh temple or any position within the religions hierarchy as well as that of head priest.
Islam as example doesnt allow for female imans whereas Sikhism (though not having a clergy as such) may have a female granthi that leads a service in the same manner as a iman or vicar.Moreover go to any Sikh Gurudwara and you will see men and women cooking,cleaning,serving food and washing dishes together.


It is a complete lie to talk of Sikh women as being subjugated.As an example just look at Sikh women and the community as a whole in the UK it is argueably the most integrated of all the South Asian communities with far higher percentages of female Sikhs going into higher education than any other group in the asian diaspora.


The fact that no Gurus were women is an irrelevance,women played a major role in the shaping of the religion in many other ways and if we say that equality is the key then what does it matter from whom the message comes?Furthermore we are talking about the sub-continent some 500 years ago a society in which women were culturally not in prominent positions,bear in mind women only got the vote in this country less than a 100 years ago and Guru Nanak was preaching absolute equality 500 years ago in a far more conservative society!


Men and women are not seperated in the Gurudwara,you would have to go to a mosque to experience this,were women cannot pray in the same room as men or where they are not allowed to enter if they are menstruating.In a Sikh temple men sit on one side and women the other in one room this is simply in deference to social cultural norms and it is not mandatory.As I have mentioned the langar hall(food hall) is entirely mixed with men and women working together to serve a free meal to anyone from any background that wants it.


Forced marriage is wrong whichever community happens to practice it.It is not associated with the Sikh community either in the UK or in the sub-continent,most Sikh marriages in the UK take place here with both partners having been born and brought up here in the UK.Contrast that with the Pakistani or Kashmiri community who often carry out marriages between first cousins from their place of origins these are truly arranged marriages in that the indiviuals will probably never have met one another prior to marriage.The home office statistics bear out that forced marriages are far more prevalent in these muslim communities than any other group in the UK.Should forced marriage take place amongst Sikhs then it is wrong in the context of Sikhsim.


Your point regarding Guru Nanak and his travels away from home dont make much sense.He emphasised that God could be realised at home living and working as a family man and that becoming an ascetic,sitting on a mountain top for years had no intrinsic value.His life following his travels in which he searched for knowledge were spent at the homestead living a simple working life.


Female abortion is a problem throughout india and is absoloutely not a 'Sikh problem'. The arrival of technology that allows the determination of sex to be known has brought misery for the sub-continent,where the birth of a boy is favoured over that of a girl for largely economic reasons.This type of practice is an absolute anathema to Sikhism and the fact that this may take place in a Sikh home as well as a Muslim home doesnt mean that it is correct.Think of it this way I have a number of muslim friends that drink alcohol,should I then claim that muslims drink alcohol? The point is as a matter of doctrine Sikhsim tells us that there should be as much to rejoice in the birth of a girl as there is to rejoice for the birth of a boy.That some people who happen to have been born Sikh do not follow this is the same as a minority of people born muslim that decide to drink.


Moving on to your comments regarding the Gurudwaras(Sikh places of faith).When Sikhs first came to the UK in the 60-70's and established themselves they were acutely aware that they couldnt worship together since there were no Sikh temples.So small groups from the community started to pool funds and bought what would have then been small terraced homes and turned them into small Sikh temples.Of course these small groups of men and women bought what they could when they could and over the years these communities have grown as have the gurudwaras.

As a result there may be a number of different Sikh temples in any one town BUT they are not different they are all open to everyone.Sikhsim doesnt have castes as a matter of doctrine the different names you mention ramgarhia etc simply refer to the traditional occupations that people from that background would have been involved in historically.As example a Jatts ancestors would have likely been farmers and the Ramgarhia tradition would have been one of carpentry..Go to any Sikh Gurudwara and you will find Sikhs from all backgrounds in any one Gurudwara since there is no difference in belief and no restriction on anyone from any background carrying out any duty or holding any position at all in any Sikh Gurudwara.So there we have in both practice and doctrine the core belief within Sikhism that we are all manifestations of the one light so how can one be better than another?


Your comments regarding Sikh marraige and adherence to what you describe as caste are again misplaced.There may be amongst some families a desire to marry within a family of the same background tradition ie.Sikhs with a farming heritage marrying within a similair family.This is not a caste based distinction for a number of reasons.Firstly there is no assumption of hierarchy in that one is superior to another,it is simply a preference to have what they regard as more in common culturally.It is not supported at all by religious doctrine.In many ways it is no different than a C.O.E. family wanting their daughter in law to come from 'oop north' like them rather than being from 'down sowf'..Muslim families are often so keen to preserve this familiarity that they marry to first cousins.I had a muslim friend whose father and himself were married to two sisters,he was effectively married to his aunt.This is not a crticism simply a illustration of what is a common human motivation.


To Halal meat,Sikhsim neither condones nor condemns the killing of animals to eat.It does suggest the killing of an animal by oneself to fully appreciate what it entails and it suggests that this should be done in the most humane way possible.ie as quickly and painlessly as possible.The British veterinary society has condemned the killing of animals to true halal standards as cruel and inhumane.Sikhisms rejection of halal meat is also based on the belief that any ritualistic killing is wrong.It implies that killing a animal is wrong but if we do it in a particular way that wrong will be righted.Its reasoning is that we are trying to satiate our conscience with a ritual.


To say that Sikhism is just a part of the Sant tradition is saying nothing really.Its no different than saying Islam is just a part of the self appointed prophet tradition..all it is doing is denigrating by suggesting it is not in and of itself but instead a lesser part of another.Sikhism is a unique and distinct religion it has far less in common with another faith than say the correlations between Islam,Judaism or Christianity who view themselves as entirely distinct from one another.


Finally to say that it jumps on the bandwagon of equality is to show your lack of knowledge and brazen ignorance.Let me explain when Guru Nanak began preaching the equality of men,women,creeds and castes there was no bandwagon.It was incendiary things that he was saying rather than being populist his teachings were revolutionary and put him at odds with almost all.The higher castes did not wish to lose their priviliged positions,the men didnt want women to become empowered the muslim rulers feared that solidarity amongst the masses would lose them their kingdom.So rather than jumping on a bandwagon he was jumping on a blazing cart that was about to fall of a cliff!!


This tradition of speaking the truth come what may was followed throughout the period of the 10 Sikh Gurus and has left a unprecedented history of sacrifice and martyrdom.The Sikhs could have made peace with the Mughals at anytime but they chose death over compromise.Measure a religion by the conduct of its adherents the Sikhs are regarded throughout the world as some of the finest soldiers to have graced the battlefield in the 20th century.In fact their defence of Saragahri fort finds its way into UNESCO's listing of the greatest feats of collective bravery in human history.It actually makes it into the top five most significant events of its kind in the history of the world which, includes the Saga of Thermopalyae 480 B.C.


The British Army rightly acknowledged the contribution of its Sikh battalions. 89,000 killed in action and over 109,000 wounded during WW1 and WW2 fighting with the allied forces.Sikhs were amongst the most highly decorated soldiers during WW1,WW2 5 being awarded the Victoria Cross.All this from a tiny community that makes up less than 2% of indias population.

Lastly we do not have to as you put it 'impress people' because unlike Islam amongst others we dont seek converts.Sikhs are a minority in every country they reside in and never seek to convert others because Sikhism doesnt believe it has a monopoly on the 'truth'instead believing that there is ultimately one power in the universe which may be realised through any number of means not neccesarily any one faith.


SOME QUOTES ABOUT SIKHS.

"Finally, we that live on can never forget those comrades who in giving their lives gave so much that is good to the story of the Sikh Regiment. No living glory can transcend that of their supreme sacrifice, may they rest in peace.
In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded. They all died or were wounded for the freedom of Britain and the world and during shell fire, with no other protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith."

General Sir Frank Messervy KCSI, KBE, CB, DSO

"In the highest sense of the word,extreme gallantry has been shown by this fine Battalion..In spite of the tremendous losses,there was not a sign of wavering all day.Not an inch of ground was given up and not a single straggler came back...The ends of the enemy's trenches leading into the ravine were found to be blocked with the bodies of Sikhs and of the enemy who died fighting at close quarters,and the glacis slope is thickly dotted with the bodies of these fine soldiers all lying on their faces as they fell in their steady advance on the enemy.The history of the Sikhs affords many instances of their value as soldiers,but it may be safely asserted that nothing finer than the grim valour and steady discipline displayed by them on June 4th has ever been done by soldiers of the Khalsa.Their devotion to duty and their splendid loyalty to their orders make a record their nation should look back upon with pride for many generations"

General Sir Ian Hamilton,writing of the 3rd battle of Krithia in 1915 by the 14th Sikhs.Gallipoli Diary(London 1926)

happy09

Dave! wrote: »

can I just get up one morning, put on a burka, and start following Sikhism?

Thanks

Sikh women do not wear burkas... Sikhism is about equality....I've been in the land of Sikhs, I would say women there are very independent....

http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/social/history/index.htm

Jannah

Singh6 wrote: »

As per religion you should not eat any meat prepared in Halal(Muslim)/Koshar(Jew) method (because sikhism oppose the cruel way to take the animal's life as in Halal/Kochar methods

It's actually not cruel, because they cut the nerve of the animal of well as the main artery which is actually a very quick and relatively painless way to kill an animal, while at the same time allowing the animal to drain away the blood which is seen as harmful for humans to digest (all Abrahamic scriptures warn against consuming blood products)

philologos

Indeed Jannah. Kosher / halal slaughter is about the most humane way you can kill an animal and to drain the blood away from the meat itself so as to be lawful for Muslims, Jews and Christians to eat.

Also as for burqas being against equality, I disagree with that comment. I personally don't like the idea of the burqa but many Muslim women do, just as some like wearing hijab.

Jannah

Jakkass wrote: »

Also as for burqas being against equality, I disagree with that comment. I personally don't like the idea of the burqa but many Muslim women do, just as some like wearing hijab.

Exactly! Personally, I think parading women around in bikinis is a hell of a lot more against equality than a woman choosing to wear a burka, yet who is portrayed as bowing to the orders of men in the media? The burka pre-dates Islam and the vast majority of scholars agree that no woman is ever told she must cover her face. In Afghanistan where women are forced to wear burka, it is simply corrupted rulers that is the issue- it has no basis in Islam.

schorl12

No matter how you picture your reply and paint it the fact is known. Your Spin on the reply doesn't change the facts and your approach of me being ignorant is a typical one. Many Sikhs (well my friends) prefer the halal meat as they are convinced as are others that it is clean and very humane.

Thanks for your reply i'd love to reply further, however i think enough is said and those who read the two thread will know that its not as 'hunky dory' as one may want it to be.

Regards my friend

Sukhbir Singh

Given that all your reply amount's to is A)your assertion that some of your friends prefer Halal meat and B)letting us know that your often described as ignorant...there isnt a great deal to add.

For the record I neither condone nor condemn ritual slaughter for those faiths that require it..It is specifically outlawed within Sikhism but Sikhism doesnt allow for its adherents to impose their beliefs on others...

However I would say anyone who prefers Halal meat(like your friends) because it is to their mind 'more humane' should consider these expert opinions.

In 2003, an independent advisory group - the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) - concluded that the way halal and Kosher meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. FAWC argued that cattle required up to two minutes to bleed to death when such means are employed. The Chairperson of FAWC at the time, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, added, "this is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."

And.

In April 2008, the Food and Farming minister in the UK, Lord Rooker, stated that Halal and kosher meat should be labelled when it is put on sale, so that the public can decide whether or not they want to buy food from animals that have bled to death. He was quoted as saying, "I object to the method of slaughter ... my choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after and slaughtered in the most humane way possible.". The RSPCA supported Lord Rooker's views. [14]

Also your contention that they believe it to be more clean should be tempered by the fact that in the UK shops selling what is described as Halal meat are disproportionately found to fall below health and safety standards when compared with non halal meat retailers.

Just a little food for thought..... my friend.

schorl12

you still failed to educate us on how humanely the gurus slaughtered the animals? if your religion was so animal friendly the gurus would not have hunted FOR PLEASURE AND TARGET PRACTICE!

schorl12

Oh by the way how humane is this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoXKwZxW7OA

As i said sikhism and lip service!

schorl12

And this gruesome video?!!! lol!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqwAqZVCZhY

Sukhbir Singh

Read my previous posting the opinions cited are those of experts not my subjective opinion. This was never a question of how Sikhs slaughter animals versus how Muslims do, to try and bring it down to such an infantile level shows only that you do not have the answer to the central question.


That being why do the people who have the greatest scientific and practical knowledge of the subject regard it as cruel? It is not a question of me saying that it is cruel but when you have eminent organisations and indiviuals such as the Farm Animal Welfare council, the UK food and farming minister, the Royal Veterinary Society and the RSPCA saying its cruel then I would say their opinion is far more valid than yours or mine for that matter.

As for the videos you post that is Jhatka which means the killing of an animal with a single blow. It is essentially based on the same principle as that applied in this country and around the globe as the most humane way to kill an animal ie. as quickly as possible. In the absence of the electrical equipment required to stun an animal first it is still the quickest way for the animal to lose consciousness which is the idea behind bolt/electrical stunning.

In fact that Jhatka method that you show is basically the way that animals would have been slaughtered in the UK prior to the use of electrical/bolt stunning.

Therefore the jhatka method would be considered more humane than the halal method by those very same experts that feel the halal method is cruel, because the principle of Jhatka and bolt/elec. are the same...
to have the animal lose consciousness and die as quickly as possible as opposed to the halal method which serves to have the animal suffer a drawn out death whilst conscious.

To answer your question with regard to as a example the tenth Sikh Guru killing animals..yes its called hunting and I think you will find should you look that the practice was common place from time immemorial and still is.

To try and return you to the point, rather than deflect the question by pointing to Sikh practice.

The question was is the halal method of slaughter likely to cause more suffering to the animal? Well those people that know far better than you or I say YES.

Is it true that a disproportionate number of establishments in the UK that describe themselves as sellers of halal meat fall foul of health and safety standards that govern hygiene etc. YES.


In a nutshell the Sikh tradition contends that a animal should be killed as quickly as is possible. This same principle is applied by all developed nations in the world and is based on the opinions of leading scientists and doctors who cite proven scientific evidence....

In a nutshell Islam/Judaism contends that an animal should be killed in accordance with a ritual as dictated by their faith...this principle is based on the centuries old opinions of indiviuals, written at at time when the opinion that the earth was flat was considered reasonable..

You choose who to believe...

Sukhbir Singh

Want to see a barbaric video? Not even being killed for food but simply for sacrifice...remind me how many goats are slaughtered at Hajj on one day?
Not even to be eaten but simply for blood sacrifice..

Intresting to note that the comment on this video by the poster is 'amazing video' he seems to think the guy stabbing these animals is 'amazing' because he is doing such a good job of 'speed wounding'

Amazing in his capacity to leave animals writhing around on the blood soaked floor in a protracted death....i guess the sentiment peace be upon him doesnt apply to Camels or goats for that matter..


http://www.mecca.com/modules/video/view_video.php?uid=3602&video_id=125&lang=english

Nerin

well this has escalated to ridiculous levels. Closed. Both infracted. See a red card on a post? Don't post the same as it!