Many who seek to understand why the four taboos have been prescribed as a part of the Khalsa code of conduct, take inspiration for the inquiry from the Guru's own command that a Sikh must "exercise reason in the service of God" "aklin sahib seviai". Generally speaking, a taboo in religious history has never required an explanation. All societies have, from time to time, prescribed social taboos and punishments for violation of these. A threat of divine wrath has also been harnessed to ensure the conformity of lay believers. There are no rational explanations and no one seriously seeks any. These are to be meticulously observed and not reasoned out.

Perhaps it is legitimate to try and discover the Guru's mind on the subject of halal, provided we start with the understanding that we can at most arrive at a part explanation only.

The origin of the ban on halal has to be traced to Guru Nanak. It was he who first condemned the eating of meat prepared in the fashion of halal. In his Asa di Var, meant for daily public recital, he treats its imposition as a symbol of cultural and political domination. He exhorts the people interested in authentic living "such hovai tan sach paeai" to avoid it. This, surely, is the bold beginning of the proposition, which eventually developed into a strict taboo for the Khalsa.

Those who ask questions like; why did the great Guru forbid halal or kosher meat to the Sikhs? ; are not satisfied with answers which suggest themselves in the above context. The explanation that by prescribing common taboos, the Guru wanted us to feel one, in so many different ways, also seems inadequate to them. To any man of mere faith, however, this much should have been sufficient.

Significantly, at the first initiation ceremony, held exactly 230 years after the birth of Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh formally laid down that his Khalsa would not eat meat prepared by the method of halal. The commandment is one of the four absolute taboos a Sikh is supposed to adhere to. Recently, this, along with the other commandment not to smoke, has been interpreted as an anti-Muslim measure. It is inconceivable that the Guru had any such bias, for the validity of other religions is freely accepted in Sikh thought. The Guru had noticed what he considered shortcomings in other faiths, but he seems to suggest that trans-valuation of values is the only right possible answer to the existence of such problems.

Kosher or halal mode of slaughter of animal for human consumption is a mandatory ritual in both Judaism and Islam. In the latter, it involves cutting of the jugular vein of the animal or bird and letting the blood drain out completely. Some people believe that it is a cruel mode of slaughter inflicting much pain on the animal. There is also a pseudo-scientific opinion that the method results in infliction of great fear on the animal and the consequent generation of certain harmful chemicals in the slaughtered body. This has been given as a reason for banning the use of meat prepared by halal. It does not appear to be an adequate reason, for the meat prepared thus has not done great harm to a people who have been using it for thousands of years. If we take to killing for food as a necessary condition for the existence of life on this planet, as the Guru suggests "jean ka ahar jea khana eh karai", then the cruelty involved is, all primarily, in the mode of slaughter and not in the act of slaughter. It, perhaps, constitutes only a part of the reason for the ban.

Human sacrifice appears to have originated in tribal societies as a blood revenge. It was resorted to in the circumstances of murder, culpable homicide or even accidental killing. The killing of a person from a tribe was interpreted as an offence against the presiding deity of the tribe, for it was his position that was weakened by reduction in the number of adherents. Since the deity was the principal aggrieved in such a case, human sacrifice had to be offered to appease it. Generally speaking, human sacrifice was offered only as blood revenge (Judgement 8: 18-21 and II Samuel 21: 1-9).

The object was to atone for the sin, to appease the anger of the tribal god and to restore the balance of strength. In times of war, the tribal god had to be coaxed to do its best, and had to be tempted with the large-scale enhancement of its power. So a promise of a great offering of men and property of the conquered was often made to the deity (Numbers 21: 2; Joshua 6: 17-19, 21; Samuel 15: 3, 9-23). What was thus offered to the deity was considered unlawful to human beings. No other use for it could be conceived, and hence the promise was meticulously executed after the war.

The story of Abraham, who was commanded by Jehovah to sacrifice his son to him, has been interpreted to record that period of history when human sacrifice was being replaced by animal sacrifice. We all know that it ended in the greatly beholden old prophet finally sacrificing a ram instead of his only and much loved young son. If it really does record that transition, then surely it records a great leap in the development of Jewish faith. Considering that the act of sacrificing animals to Jehovah perhaps replaced human sacrifice, it was a most humane measure at the time of introduction.

During the human sacrifice days, it was the blood of the victim that had to be offered to the deity. The ritual concerning it was that a mud platform was prepared and the victim's blood was drained on it after cutting the main throat vain. When animals replaced humans on the sacrificial platform, blood still remained a taboo to human beings in accordance with the principle that blood was a sacrifice to the deity, and hence strictly not meant for human consumption. The Jewish dietary law prescribed that meat must be salted and watered to drain it of all vestiges of blood (Leviticus 17: 11-12).

It was under these circumstances that the practice of kosher or halal became prevalent amongst the followers of Judaism and Islam. Though Abraham is equally a prophet of Christianity, yet this mode of sacrificing to God was not adopted by it. Perhaps amongst the Christians, it got replaced by a more satisfying ritual of transubstantiation, whereby wine and bread got converted into the blood and body of Christ.

Sikhism does not believe that God can be bribed by sacrifice to change His decision. His power is always available to the righteous and can never be available to those whose cause is wrong, no matter what sacrifices are offered. In His sight, ethical conduct alone can win approval. Since God is the common father of all mankind, it is not possible to win Him over for sectional causes. So, Sikhism had no sympathy for the doctrinal position which inspired the ritual or the practice. Nor did it have any affinity with the development of the idea in history.

A person has to realize His Will and act according to it to execute His purpose in the world. That is the duty of the realized soul: that constitutes the "moksha" or the concept of final release in Sikhism. This is also its celebrated concept of "jiwan mukta". A "jiwan mukta" must act and exist in God as a `fish in water'. In Sikhism, there is no place for ritualistic sacrifices. The only sacrifice acceptable is that of one's self, which eventually tantamounts to renunciation of vices and illusions which distort the realization of God and the spontaneous acceptance of Divine Guidance. One is required to offer oneself as a sacrifice, and to live only for the purpose of executing His Will. Nothing less suffices.

It was, perhaps, under these circumstances that the Guru prescribed eschewing of kosher or halal meat.

Meat for the Sikhs is simply an item of diet for sustaining the body and not a sacrificial offering to a deity. No Sikh is to be encouraged to eat or not to eat meat. At the common kitchen, meat is not prepared because vegetarians are also to partake of the food there, and so also people of other faiths including Jews and Muslims. Food in the common kitchen has to be such as everybody may eat without hesitation or qualms of conscience.

The Tenth Guru was a great lover of animals. He personally tended to his white hawk and had the warmest feelings for his blue horse. He tenderly named it Jaan Bhai. It is recorded that although in the thick of battle, he would not suffer it to be struck even with a cane. It is said that he forgot all about the battle raging around him, turned to Baba Dan Singh's young son who had hit it and reprimanded, "may madness strike you. Why did you hit my brother?" Praised be the merciful Guru who was so sensitive to the suffering of our mute companions. He took care to see that his followers are saved from inflicting wanton cruelty upon them under any pretext, whatsoever! Never did a teacher before him discharge his duties so diligently and so lovingly. He imparted to his Khalsa a sense of keen responsibility towards all creation. Among other reasons, he is known as the "Lord of the White Hawk" and as the "Master of the Blue Steed" in commemoration of his love for animals.