Some people argue that if Guru Gobind Singh Ji intended to completely prohibit Sikhs from consuming all kinds of meat, why did he specifically include kutha among the four major sins (Bujjer Kurehits) outlined during the Amrit Sanchar? Instead, the term meat itself would have been used. The inclusion of the term kutha indicates that Guru Gobind Singh Ji permitted the practice of jhatka (quick slaughter) for Sikhs, as the word kutha refers specifically to the halal meat prepared by Muslims.

Using the term jhatka as a label for meat, people who argue in favor of eating meat claim that if the word meat (maas) had been included instead of kutha among the Bujjer Kurehits, it would have indicated a prohibition against all types of meat. However, since only kutha is mentioned, they believe the restriction applies solely to that.

If, according to their personal interpretation, the term kutha refers only to halal meat prepared by Muslims, then it implies that Sikhs are permitted to eat all other types of meat. This could include meat from Christian butchers, meat from animals like cats or dogs, leftovers from predators like lions or wolves, or even the flesh of animals that died naturally. It would not necessarily have to be jhatka meat prepared by Sikhs. Thus, the inclusion of kutha among the Bujjer Kurehits does not automatically establish jhatka as the only permissible method for consuming meat. Instead, it seems to allow Sikhs to eat any type of meat as long as it is not halal. 

Now, it is possible that the people who advocate for eating meat might interpret the term jhatka to mean all types of meat other than Muslim halal meat.

If that’s the case, we ask: when you’re already okay with eating all kinds of dirty and impure meats, why is halal meat from Muslims the only problem? The word halal sounds clean and pure, and its meaning is also good. So, rejecting something so clean and meaningful, and instead running after all other dirty and impure meats, doesn’t that seem unreasonable?

If meat-eating Sikhs believe that the term jhatka refers to meat prepared in a way opposite to the Muslim method (halal), even then, the inclusion of kutha in the four Bujjer Kurehits does not prove that jhatka is the only acceptable method for Sikhs. The reason is simple: apart from the Muslim method, there could be many other ways of preparing meat, not just jhatka.

Thus, the mention of kutha in the four Bujjer Kurehits only establishes that kutha is forbidden. It does not imply that jhatka is the only permissible method. Furthermore, the term kutha does not specifically mean halal meat prepared by Muslims; its meaning is broader and not limited to that.

Let us now examine the true meaning of the term kutha. Kutha is an abstract noun derived from the root verb kuhna(ਕੁਹਣਾ), which, in its infinitive form, means “to slaughter.” From this root, the gerund kuhan(ਕੁਹਣ) is formed, which, according to dictionaries, means “to kill a living being by cutting its throat with a sharp weapon.”

Thus, the term kutha refers to something obtained through the act of slaughtering a living being with a weapon. And what is obtained through such an act? Meat. Therefore, kutha refers to meat obtained by slaughtering, not specifically to halal meat prepared by Muslims.

In Gurbani, wherever terms like kutha (ਕੁੱਠਾ), kuhan (ਕੁਹਣ), kuh (ਕੁਹ), or kuhat (ਕੁਹਤ) are used, they primarily address the rejection of meat consumption, specifically prohibiting the eating of meat. In cases where Muslims were criticized for their practice of consuming halal meat and misleading Hindus, Gurbani does not use the term kutha alone. Instead, it appears in context, as in the following lines:

ਅਭਾਖਿਆ ਕਾ ਕੁਠਾ ਬਕਰਾ ਖਾਣਾ ॥
ਚਉਕੇ ਉਪਰਿ ਕਿਸੈ ਨ ਜਾਣਾ ॥

The meaning of this is that (the hypocritical Brahmins) after reciting the Muslim kalma in a foreign language, consume a goat that has been slaughtered in the Muslim manner, and at the cooking area, say- no one should enter without washing their feet, and no one should come without permission.

Thus, it is clear that in Gurbani, the term kutha does not refer to halal meat prepared by Muslims. Instead, kutha refers to meat in general.

If it is said that terms like kutha, kuhna, etc., refer solely to the halal practices of Muslims, then Gurbani gives a clear decision. These terms were used in relation to the act of slaughtering animals like goats by Hindus. For example:
ਕੁਹਿ ਬਕਰਾ ਰਿੰਨੑਿ ਖਾਇਆ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਆਖੈ ਪਾਇ ॥

Where Guru Sahib condemned the Hindu practice of slaughtering goats during the time of their sacred thread ceremony, the term kuhi (ਕੁਹਿ ) was used in relation to the act of slaughtering goats by Hindus. If there is still any doubt, here is another Gurbani verse that clearly clarifies that the term kuhn (ਕੁਹਣ) refers to killing living beings, and not to the Muslim halal practice. The verse is:
ਬੇਦੁ ਪੜੈ ਮੁਖਿ ਮੀਠੀ ਬਾਣੀ ॥
ਜੀਆਂ ਕੁਹਤ ਨ ਸੰਗੈ ਪਰਾਣੀ ॥੩॥

That is, O being, with a sweet voice you recite the Vedas (you claim to be a scholar of the Vedas), but you do not feel shy to engage in the act of slaughtering living beings. This means that being a Vedic scholar is of no value if you don’t shy away from killing animals.

Now, tell me, who does the action referred to by the term kuhat (slaughtering)? Are Vedic scholars Hindu or Muslim?

So it is clearly established that the terms ‘ਕੁਹਣਾ’, ‘ਕੁਹਤ’, ‘ਕੁਹ’, ‘ਕੁੱਠਾ’ and similar words are not used in Gurbani to refer to any specific religious practice. Instead, the term kutha refers to any meat that is obtained by slaughtering (killing) living beings, regardless of whether the person performing the act is a Hindu, a Muslim, a religious person, an atheist, a Sikh, or a non-Sikh.