THE CORRECT ETIQUETTES OF DU’A’

By Jamiatul Ulama of Gauteng

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

اُدۡعُوۡا رَبَّكُمۡ تَضَرُّعًا وَّخُفۡيَةً‌ ؕ اِنَّهٗ لَا يُحِبُّ الۡمُعۡتَدِيۡنَ‌

Supplicate to your Lord humbly and secretly. Surely, He does not like those who cross the limits.

[Maariful Quran 7:55]

Commentary

Mentioned in previous verses were particular manifestations of the perfect power of Allah Ta`ala, and His major blessings. The present verses lead us to consider: When He is the Master of perfect power, the sender of all blessings, and the Lord of all the worlds, it naturally follows that He should be the One to be called upon and prayed to under all circumstances, whether in distress or in need. The attitude of by-passing Him and turning towards some other direction is ignorance and failure.

Along with it, identified in these verses are some rules of etiquette to be followed when making Du’a’ (prayer, supplication). If due consideration is given to these rules, the hope that a prayer will be answered increases.

The Meaning and Etiquette of Du`a’ and Dhikr

The word: دُعَاء (Du’a’), in the Arabic language, means “to call upon someone to remove one’s need”. It is also used “to remember” in the absolute sense. Both meanings can be taken here. The verse says: اُدعُوا رَبَّکُم (Supplicate to your Lord) that is: 1. Call your Rabb for your needs, or 2. Remember your Rabb and worship Him.

In the first case, it would mean: Ask Allah alone for what you need. In the second case, the sense would be: Do your Dhikr and Ibadah for Him alone. Both these explanations have been reported from Tafsir authorities among the early righteous elders.

THE FIRST MEANING OF DUA – IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ‘HUMBLY AND SECRETLY’

After that, it was said: تَضَرُّ‌عًا وَخُفْيَةً (humbly and secretly). The word: تَضَرُّ‌عً (tadarru`) means realization of inability, humility, and submission in a refined spirit of self-abasement (not found in the English language and its modern, secular, cultural context). And the word: خُفْيَةً (khufyah) means secret, secluded, or private (as opposed to open and public – as used in English too, but with no relevance to the dominant sense of secret in English bearing on the mysterious, the occult, and the whole field of espionage).

We should make Du’a’ from our souls, crying from our innermost essence of being

In the frame of these two words, described there are two important rules of etiquette which govern Du`a’ and Dhikr. First of all, in order that Du’a’ be answered, it is necessary that one appears before Allah Ta`ala as weak, helpless and simply unable to hold on his own, modest and humble, and submits to Him with a total negation of what is supposed to be pride, dignity, honour, ego, or self-view – and then makes Du’a’. Du’a’ is a thing of the soul which requires that its words match the feebleness and humbleness of the maker of Du` a’, that the manner of saying it remains a mirror of modesty, and that this overall humility should ooze forth from the very physical approach to this making of Du’a’.

The oversight of our ritualistic Du’a’s – Du’a’ is not ‘read’, it is ‘asked’

Given this anatomy and profile of Du’a’, the common practice of making Du`a’ these days cannot really be called the making of Du’a’. It would, rather, be the reading of it. What happens most of the time is that we do not know what we are saying and it has become a routine as we notice in common Masajid. Imams would usually say, rather read, some words of Du`a’ in the Arabic language which they have memorized and do this at the end of Salah. Most of the time, in some areas, the Imams themselves do not know the meaning and sense of what they say – and even if they do know it, at least the less-knowing participants of the congregation are virtually unaware of what is being said. They would almost mechanically go on saying ‘Aameen’, ‘Aameen’ after the words read by the Imam without having any clue as to what was being said there. The outcome of all this stage demonstration is the vocalization of some words. Du`a’ has a reality of its own which is just not there. Then, this is an entirely different matter that Allah Ta`ala, in His infinite mercy, may accept these very lifeless words and give them the effect of answered prayers. But, it is necessary that everyone understands that Du`a’ is not ‘read.’ It is ‘asked.’ Therefore, it is crucial that one asks as one should, properly, as due.

Dua must be accompanied by proper approach, manner and physical bearing

Then, there is another aspect of Du’a-‘. If a person does know the meanings of the words of his Du`a’ – and even understands what he is saying – still, if it is not accompanied by proper approach, manner and physical bearing, the Du`a’ stands reduced to a bland claim to which no created servant of Allah is entitled.

A simple analogy

Imagine that the love of your life has left you. The one who is an integral part of your life, who you fully depend on, who you can’t live without, suddenly walks out on you and is infuriated with you and also immensely hurt due to your disrespect, treachery, betrayal, deceit, disobedience and due to your transgression and wrongdoing.

You subsequently seek counsel from a trusted senior as to how to make amends and bring that person back into your life. He gives you sound advice and writes for you a few words of atonement and apology and explains that you henceforth intend to reform your vile and loathsome ways.

You then go to the house of your beloved who eventually succumbs and only opens the window a little to hear what you have to say. You then very overconfidently read out the letter in a very blank, superficial and shallow way which has no real feeling of remorse. The only reply you would get is “Get lost!” Your plea will fall on deaf ears, even though all the words were correct and they had a beautiful meaning.

So, given in the first word was the spirit of Du’a’ which requires that one shows his humility and prays to Allah for what he needs.

3 Widoms for making Du’a’ ‘secretly’ (in a lowered voice)

Then, in the second word, the instruction given by Allah Ta’aala, is that the asking in Du`a’ for what one needs should be done secretly and in a lowered voice which is superior in merit and more likely to be answered. The reason is that making Du`a’ in a raised voice is not free of three possible drawbacks.

Firstly, it is difficult to maintain modesty and humility in doing so.

Secondly, there is the danger of hypocrisy and desire for recognition creeping in through this mode.

Thirdly, the manner in which this Du’a is made only goes to show that the person making it almost does not know that Allah Ta`ala is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. He knows what we show on the outside and also that which we conceal inside. He hears everything said quietly or loudly.

Therefore, when the voice of the Companions reached a loud pitch during Du’a’ made on the occasion of the Battle of Khaybar, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: ‘You are not calling someone deaf or absent that you say it in such a loud voice. Instead, your addressee is someone Hearing, Near, that is, Allah Ta`ala’ (so, to raise your voice is redundant).

Allah Jalla Sha’nuhu has Himself mentioned the Du`a’ of a righteous person in these words:

إِذْ نَادَىٰ رَ‌بَّهُ نِدَاءً خَفِيًّا

When he called his Rabb calling in a lowered voice – [19:3]

This tells us that the state of Du’a’ liked by Allah Ta’ala is that it be asked of Him in a lowered and subdued voice.

Ibaadat done in secret is far superior to that done in open and broadcasted

Sayyidna Hasan al-Basri Rahmatullahi Alayhi says: There is a difference of seventy degrees in making Du’a’ openly and loudly when matched by the one made in a lowered voice. It was the habit of early righteous elders that they would exert to their maximum in Dhikr and Du’a which kept them busy most of the time, but their voice was not heard by anyone. In fact, their supplications would remain between them and their Rabb. Many of them would memorize the whole Qur’an and keep engaged in reciting it, but others would not know about it. Then, there would be others engaged in their pursuit of advanced religious knowledge, but they would never go about telling others that they were doing so. There would be many others who would return from their homes after having long sessions of Salah but no one would come to know anything about that. He also said that he had seen such blessed people who would never perform `Ibadat, which they could do in private, out in the open where people could see them – and their voices during Du’a’ would be very low. [Ibn Kathir, Mazhari]

Noisy Du’a’ is Makruh (reprehensible)

Ibn Jurayj has said that raising voices in Du’a’ and making it noisy is Makruh (reprehensible). In his Ahkam al-Qur’an, Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) has said: This verse tells us that making Du’a’ in a lowered voice is more merit-worthy than making it in a raised voice. It has been reported likewise from Hadrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullahi Alayhi) and Sayyidna Ibn `Abbas (Radiallahu Anhu). This verse also tells us that the ‘Amin’ said at the end of Surah al-Fatihah should also be said in a lowered voice, which is more merit-worthy, because ‘Aameen’ is also a Du’a’.

Let not the erroneous custom of loud Du’a’ become a source of disturbing others

May Allah Ta`ala guide Imams of Masajid in our time who seem to have forgotten this teaching of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the instructions of early righteous elders in this matter. After every Salah, what follows as Du`a’ has become an artificial procedure. Some words are read out loudly which, besides being contrary to the etiquette and rules of Du’a’, become the source of disturbing the Salah of those who joined the congregation after it had started and were busy completing the missed part after the Imam had finished. The overwhelming influence of custom has made them incapable of noticing its drawbacks.

This excludes such gatherings where the entire congregation is engaged in one Du’a’

On a particular occasion where the purpose is to have a whole group make a particular Du’a’, one person may say the words of Du`a’ in a reasonably audible voice and others say ‘Amin’ after it, then, it does not matter. However, the condition is that this activity does not displace an established Sunnah practice or become the source of disturbance in the Salah and `Ibadah of others – and that this does not become a matter of habit and custom whereby common people start believing in it as the standard method of making Du`a’, as happening so commonly these days.

THE SECOND MEANING OF DU’A’ – IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ‘HUMBLY AND SECRETLY’

What has been said above concerned the making of Du`a’ for one’s needs. If Du’a’ is taken in the sense of Dhikr (remembrance) and `Ibadah (worship) at his place, then, according to the established position of early `Ulama, low-voiced Dhikr is more merit-worthy than loud Dhikr. As for the practice of Shaykhs in the Chistiah Order who recommend loud Dhikr for beginners, they do so in view of the spiritual condition of the seeker, as a measure of treatment, so that by voicing it any lack of alertness would go away and the heart would learn to become attuned to the Dhikr of Allah – otherwise, raising the voice in Dhikr, as such, is not desirable even with them, though it is permissible, and its justification stands proved from Hadith as well, of course, subject to the condition that, in it, there be no hypocrisy or the desire to show off (riya’).

The best Dhikr is silent Dhikr

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban, Al-Baihaqi and others have reported from a narration by Sayyidna Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (Radiallahu Anhu) that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said:

خَیرُ الذِّکرِ الخَفِیُّ وخَیرُ الرِّزقِ مَا یَکفِی

‘The best Dhikr is hidden and the best sustenance is what becomes sufficient.’

However, under particular conditions and timings, a voiced Dhikr is actually more desirable and merit-worthy. Details of these timings and conditions have been explained by Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam through his word and deed, for example, calling Adhan and Iqamah with a raised voice, reciting the Qur’an during the voiced prayers with a raised voice, saying the Takbirs of Salah the Takbirs of Tashriq, the Talbiyah in Hajj etc., with a raised voice. Therefore, Muslim jurists, may Allah have mercy on them all, have reached the decision that in particular conditions and places where Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has, by word or deed, taught us to raise the voice, voices must be raised. Under conditions and situations other than these, voiceless Dhikr is most preferable and beneficial.

Allah Ta’ala does not love those who transgress (in making Du’a’ or otherwise)

At the end of the verse, it was said: إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ (Surely, He does not like those who cross the limits). The word: الْمُعْتَدِينَ (al-mu` tadin) is a derivation from I`tida’ which means to cross the limits. The sense is that Allah Ta` ala does not like those who cross the limits, exactly as given in the translation. This crossing of limits, whether in Du`a’ or some other activity, has the same outcome – that Allah Ta`ala does not like that. In fact, if looked at closely, the religion of Islam is the very name of observing limits and restrictions and electing to submit and obey. Take the example of Salaah, Sawm, Hajj, Zakah and all dealings and transactions, when limits set by the Shari`ah of Islam are crossed in them, they do not remain acts of worship anymore – instead, they become sin.

Crossing the limits in Du’a’ may take several forms.

Firstly, that literal formalities, such as loud Du’a’ after salaah, raising the hands at the graveside, rhyming and other stylistic devices, are employed in Du`a’ which may spoil its essential ingredients of humility and submission.

Secondly, that unnecessary restrictions are introduced in Du`a – as it appears in Hadith that Sayyidna `Abdullah ibn Mughaffal (Radiallahu Anhu) saw that his son was making Du`a’ in the following words: ‘O Allah, I seek from You the palace in Paradise which is white in colour and located on the right hand side.’ He stopped him and said: ‘Making such restrictions in Du`a is crossing the limit, which has been prohibited in the Qur’an and Hadith.’ [Mazhari from a narration of Ibn Majah and others]

The third form of crossing the limits is that someone makes a Du`a’ wishing ill of Muslims in general, or asks from Allah something which is harmful for them. Similarly, it is also a form of crossing the limits – as mentioned here – that Du`a’ be made in a raised voice without the need to do so. [Tafsir Mazhari, Ahkam al-Qur’an]

بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

وَلَا تُفۡسِدُوۡا فِى الۡاَرۡضِ بَعۡدَ اِصۡلَاحِهَا وَادۡعُوۡهُ خَوۡفًا وَّطَمَعًا‌ ؕ اِنَّ رَحۡمَتَ اللّٰهِ قَرِيۡبٌ مِّنَ الۡمُحۡسِنِيۡنَ

And do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order. And supplicate to Him in fear and hope. Surely, the mercy of Allah is close to the good in deeds.

In the second verse (56), it was said: وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا (And do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order). Two antonyms have appeared here: صَلَاح (salah) and: فَسَاد (fasad). ‘Salah’ means the state of being good, correct, right, proper or set in order as in the translation. Then, Fasad refers to the state of evil, corruption, mischief, disorder. Imam Raghib al-Isfahani has said in his Mufradat al-Qur’an that Fasad refers to something going beyond the limits of moderation, whether this crossing over is insignificant or enormous, and the measure of an increase or decrease in every Fasad depends on this crossing of the limits of moderation. The farther the limits are crossed, Fasad will increase. Fasad means to make things bad and Islah means to correct, reform or put into order. Therefore, the verse: وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا means: ‘do not make things bad on the earth after that Allah has made it good and proper.’ [For the detailed Tafseer of this part of the Aayat kindly refer to Maariful Quraan, we have included the Tafseer concerning Du’a’ below]

Therefore, included in the sense of the verse: لَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا (And do no mischief on the earth after it has been set in order) are crimes and sins which cause disorder in the world physically and outwardly – and also included there are sin, disobedience, and heedlessness towards Allah Ta`ala. Immediately afte,r in this verse, it was said: وَادْعُوهُ خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا (And supplicate to Him in fear and hope). It means that it should be done in a way that, on the one hand, one has the fear of the Du`a.’ remaining unanswered, while on the other hand, one has full hope tied to His mercy. These very twin attitudes of fear and hope are the two wings of the human soul on its journey with truth and fortitude. On these it flies high and through these it reaches superior ranks destined for it.

The balance between hope and fear

Then, as the text obviously shows, the degree of fear and hope should be equal. Some `Ulama have said that it is appropriate to keep fear dominate during life with health, so that there be no shortcoming in being obedient. And when comes the time to die, it is better to let hope dominate, because the strength to do what should have been done is not there anymore and there is nothing left to do except hope for the mercy of Allah Ta’ ala. [Al-Bahr Al-Muhit]

Another interpretation of hope and fear

And some researchers among scholars have said that the purpose is to hold on to the straight path of religion and be constant in obedience to Allah Ta`ala. Then, the temperaments and tastes of human beings differ. Some achieve this station of fortitude and constancy in obedience by keeping fear as the dominant factor. Others achieve these by keeping love and hope as dominating factors. So, whoever finds help’ to achieve this purpose through either of these two options, should try to achieve it through that option.

The physical etiquette of Du’a’

To summarize the comments made about Du`a’, it can be said that the first verse tells us about two rules of etiquette relating to Du’a’: (1) That it be with humility and submission, and (2) that it be secret and low-voiced. These two qualities belong to the outward human physique – because “tadarru”‘ suggests that one should, while making Du`a’, assume the looks and manners of someone weak, helpless and needy and should never allow it to be proud, arrogant or seemingly need-free. Then, that it be secret also relates to one’s speech through the mouth and tongue.

The spiritual etiquette of Du’a’

As for the spiritual etiquette of Du’a’ as given in this verse, there are two rules to be followed. These relate to the human heart. They require that the person making the Du`a’ should feel the danger in his heart that his Du’a’ may, perhaps, remain unanswered while, at the same time, he should also hope that his Du’a’ may be answered – because becoming careless about one’s errors and sins is contrary to ‘Iman (faith) and losing hope in the infinite mercy of Allah Ta`ala is Kufr (disbelief). Both are impermissible extremes. The hope that a prayer will be answered can be entertained only when one keeps in between the two states of fear and hope.

An incentive for hope

Then, at the end of the verse, it was said: إِنَّ رَ‌حْمَتَ اللَّـهِ قَرِ‌يبٌ مِّنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ (Surely, the mercy of Allah is close to the good in deeds). The hint given here is that, though there should be the two states of fear and hope present while making a Du`a’, but, out of the two states, the option of hope is the weightier option – because the prayer is being made to the Lord of all the worlds the extent of Whose mercy cannot be conceived, and in whose generosity and favour there is no shortage or reluctance. He can answer the Du`a’ of the worst of offenders, even the Du’a’ of the Satan himself. Of course, should there be a danger of Du`a’ remaining unanswered, that could only be possible on account of one’s own misdeeds or due to the hanging curse of sins – because being good in deeds is necessary to become close to the mercy of Allah Ta`ala.

Ahaadeeth on Dua

Therefore, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said that some people travel long distances, look like faqirs and raise their hands for Du`a’ before Allah Ta`ala, but حَرَام haram is their food and حَرَام haram is their drink and حَرَام haram is their dress. So, how can a Du`a’ made by such a person be answered? [Muslim, Tirmidhi from Sayyidna Abi Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu]

According to another Hadith, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: The prayer of a servant of Allah keeps finding acceptance until such time that he does not pray for some sin or for the severance of some relationship – and that he does not make haste. The noble Companion asked about the meaning of ‘making haste.’ He said: It means that one may think – here I am making a Du`a’ for all this time and it has not been answered yet – until he becomes disappointed and stops making Du`a’. [Muslim, Tirmidhi]

According to yet another Hadith, the Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: Whenever you make Du` a’ before Allah Ta` ala, do it in a state when you have no doubt about its being answered.

It means that one should keep his or her sight on the most extensive mercy of Allah Ta’ ala and let the heart believe that the prayer be¬ing made shall be answered. This is not contrary to the danger one may feel that his or her sins may become an impediment in the acceptance of one’s Du`a’. صلی اللہ تعَالیٰ علی نَبِیِّنَا وسلم

[Maariful Quran 7:56]

THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY FAKE JAAHIL ‘SUFIS’

By Mujlisul Ulama

Once Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “No other sect/group has caused so much harm to the Deen as have the sufis (i.e. the jaahil, fake/fraud ‘sufis’). They have harmed the Deen by means of narration, beliefs, practices and concepts.

The spiritual power of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was of such a lofty calibre that even the greatest kaafir who recited Laa ilaha il lallaah would attain the rank of Ihsaan (this is an extremely lofty state of Divine Proximity). In the next era of the Taabi-een, there was a reduction in the spiritual power, and in the following age there was a further reduction. 

Therefore, for achieving the elevated stage of spirituality, the   Auliya in the later eras introduced Mujaahadaat and Riyaadhaat practices which were regarded as mere ways and means of achieving the objective (Maqsood), which is Ihsaan. However, the further the early eras receded, the more practices were increased, and ultimately began to be considered as Maqaasid (objectives) whilst in reality these spiritual exercises were only the means for attaining the Maqsood.

The consequence of this development was the innovation of innumerable bid’aat (innovations) in the Deen pertaining to beliefs, practices and concepts. Although the   genuine Sufiya had combatted and reformed these innovations, the result was only a reduction in the bid’aat, not total eradication. Among the Muhaqqiqeen Sufiya who had been reformers were Shaikh Abdul Qaadir Jilaani, Shaikh Shuhaabuddin Suharwardi, Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani and Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed (Rahmatullaah alayhim). Although these illustrious Sufiya had effected considerable reformation, total elimination of all the bid’aat was not achieved.

Allah Ta’ala had revealed to these illustrious Sufiya the Tareeq of the Sunnah. Alhamdulillaah, Allah Ta’ala has also opened up this Tareeq for me. A great barkat of the Sunnah Tareeq is that shaitaan finds extremely little scope for perpetrating dacoity.  While according to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the Maqsood is Ihsaan (Divine Proximity), the ignorant sufis considered Istighraaq (absorption in contemplation) to be the Maqsood.”

Gunyat al-Talibeen and Answer to the Accusation of Irja to Imam Abu Haneefah (Rahmatullah Alayh)

Ghair Muqallideen, the so-called Ahl-e-Hadith, target Hanafis and present a text of Gunyat al-Talibeen by Shaikh Abdul Qadir  Jeelani (rahmatullah alayh) against the Hanafis and label them as deviant and Bid’ati sect.

The Ghair Muqallideen say that Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (rahimahullah) has counted Hanafis and their Imam Abu Hanifa Nu’man  Bin Thabit (rahimahullah) under the category of Murjiya sect and regarded them as Ghair Naji (who will not get deliverance from hellfire).  [Gunyat al-Talibeen by Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani (rh), Page: 222, Translation: Hafiz Mubassir Hussain Lahori, Darul Ilm Mumbai]

So, therefore, let us analyze this text in detail:

Answer 1:

Imam Ibn Hajr Haythami  (rahimahullah) says about the book Gunyat al-Talibeen: “There were inserted many things in the book which were not therein earlier” as Imam Ibn Hajar Haythami (rahimahullah) writes in his book:

ﻭَﺇِﻳَّﺎﻙ ﺃَﻥ ﺗﻐﺘﺮ ﺃَﻳْﻀﺎ ﺑِﻤَﺎ ﻭَﻗﻊ ﻓِﻲ ‏[ﺍﻟﻐُﻨْﻴﺔ‏] ﻹِﻣَﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﻴﻦ ﻭﻗﻄﺐ ﺍﻟْﺈِﺳْﻠَﺎﻡ ﻭَﺍﻟْﻤُﺴْﻠِﻤﻴﻦ ﺍﻟْﺄُﺳْﺘَﺎﺫ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟْﻘَﺎﺩِﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﻴﻼﻧﻲ، ﻓَﺈِﻧَّﻪُ ﺩﺳَّﻪ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻓِﻴﻬَﺎ ﻣَﻦْ ﺳﻴﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪُ ﻣِﻨْﻪُ ﻭَﺇِﻟَّﺎ ﻓَﻬُﻮَ ﺑﺮﻯﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺫَﻟِﻚ ﻭَﻛَﻴﻒ ﺗُﺮﻭَّﺝ ﻋَﻠَﻴْﻪِ ﻫَﺬِﻩ ﺍﻟْﻤَﺴْﺄَﻟَﺔ ﺍﻟْﻮَﺍﻫِﻴَﺔ ﻣَﻊَ ﺗﻀَّﻠُﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟْﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭَﺍﻟﺴّﻨﺔ ﻭَﻓﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸَّﺎﻓِﻌِﻴَّﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻨﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺣَﺘَّﻰ ﻛَﺎﻥَ ﻳُﻔْﺘِﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻫﺒﻴﻦ،

“You must not be deceived by the contents of the book [Ghuniya] of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani  (rahimahullah)”, THESE THINGS WERE ADDED TO IT, Allah Ta’ala  will take revenge from them, otherwise the author should not be blamed for it. And how can this issue be hidden from him even being well-versed in the Qur’an, Sunnah and the fiqh of Shafi’i and Hanbali Schools, even he used to issue fatwas according to these schools.” [Fatawa Hadaththiyah by Ibn Hajr  Haythami, Vol.: 2, Page: 280]

Note: There are distortions at many places in Gunyat al-Talibeen as it was quoted by Ibn Hajr Haythami (rahimahullah). Therefore, calling Hanafis as deviant by referring to the distorted book is stubborness and fraud.

Answer 2:

Even the Ghayr Muqallid scholar, Hafiz Mubasshir Hussain Lahori  Sahib, has written marginal note on GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN (Published by DARUL ILM, MUMBAI) and therein he very categorically refuted the attribution of Irja to Imam AbuHanifa (rahimahullah) with the reference of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Hafiz Mubasshir Hussain Lahori  Sahib writes in the footnote:

“In some versions of Gunyat al-Talibeen, there is mention of GHASSANIYA instead of Hanafis. See for example: Al-Gunyat Ma-Ta’aliq Wa Takhreej by Iza Abu  Abdur Rahman Saleeh Bin Muhammad Bin Owaizi Vol. 1, Page: 185.

Moreover, he writes in refutation of Murjiya sect: “However if we suppose it means Hanafis, so why Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani  (rahimahullah) has regarded Hanafis a branch of Murjiya? The reason seems that it was due to allegation of Irja against Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah)! But what is the reality of the quotes from which this allegation was hatched. Shaikh Ibn Abi Al-Izz, the commentator of Aqeeda al-Tahawiyah has presented several interpretations of the same. (Sharah Aqeeda al-Tahawiyah, Page: 232-234). It is also to be clear that IBN TAYMIYYAH has mentioned several praiseworthy attributes of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah) and refuted many allegations levelled against him and counted him among the Aimma-E-Salaf. See for example: Minhaj Al-Sunnah Vol.: 1, Page: 259 and Vol.: 2, Page: 333. [Gunyat al-Talibeen, Translated: Hafiz Mubasshir  Hussain Lahori, Page: 222, 223, Darul Ilm, Mumbai]

Note: There are two clarifications in the footnote of Ghayr Muqallid scholar Hafiz  Mubasshir Hussain Lahori.

1. The distorters replaced the word Ghassaniyah with Hanfiya.

2. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah  (rahimahullah) refuted the allegation of being Murjiya against the Imam Abu Hanifah.

Answer 3:

According to the great scholar and Imam of Ghair Muqallideen, Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai, the versions of GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN are not proved with right connected chains, as he writes in the answer to a question:

“As far as I know the prevalent version of GUNYAT AL-TALIBEEN are not proved with right connected chain, Allah Knows Best.” [Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah, Vol.: 2, Page: 421]

Therefore, referring to the book which is not proved as per the Imam and Shaykh of Ghayr Muqallideen is mere deceit and fraud.

Answer 4:

Even Allama Ibrahim Sialkoti, the prominent Ghayr Muqallid scholar, has refuted this accusation as he writes in his book Tareekh Ahl-e-Hadith:

“Indeed some authors (may Allah have mercy on them) have counted Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah), Imam Muhammed (Rahimahullah), and Imam Abu Yusuf (Rahimahullah) among the Murjiya sect.” while in the next lines he discards this notion saying: “This is an accusation against him. [Tareekh Ahl-e-Hadith, Page: 56]

Answer 5:

There are scores of Muhaddithin and Ulama who have refuted the allegation of Irja to Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah); for example:

1. Imam Muhammad (rahimahullab) writes that labeling any “SALAF” as Murjiya is “KUFR”. [Kitab Zad al-Sunnah]

2. Imam Ibn Qayyim says that accusing any Salaf of being  Murjiya is destroying one’s own faith.

3. Imam Ibn Rajab and Shaykh Abdul Aziz Bin Bazz wrote that it is Kufr to associate the Salaf and the Four (4) Imams with the Murjiya sect… [Mukhtasar Zadal- Ma’ad]

4. Ibn Taymiyyah says: “It is a great Innovation (Bid’at) to accuse the Four (4) Imams as being Murjiya.” [Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, Vol.: 4, Page: 46]

5. Saleh Al-Fawzaan also has refuted the allegations of Irja to Imam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah). [Lu’mat Ul-I’tiqaad, Page: 312]

6. Imam Ali Ibn Abi Al-Izz Hanafi (d. 792 Hijri) also refuted the accusation of Irja to Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahullah). [Sharh  Aqeedah Tahawiyah, Page: 283-284]

7. Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri (rahimahullah) also rejected the attribution of Imam Abu Hanifa  (rahimahullah) to Murjiya. [Faydh al-Baari, Vol. 1, Page: 61]

Answer 6:

Allama Ibn Abdul Barr Maliki  (Rahimahullah) has very emphatically refuted the attribution of Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah) to Murjiya, as he writes:

“Some scholars of Hadith have accused Imam Abu Hanifa  (Rahimahullah) with Irja, whereas there are many Ulama who have been accused with it, but the accusation towards Imam Abu Hanifa (Rahimahullah) was very much publicized unlike others;since it is also fact that some people have malice against him and accuse him with things that he never had. They fabricate improper things against him, whereas he was overwhelmingly commended by a large number of Ulama and they admitted his merits and virtues.” [Jaame Bayan al-Ilm Wa Fazlihi, Vol.: 1, Page: 1081]

Therefore, I request the Ghayr Muqallideen to pay heed to the words of the “SALAF” at least, otherwise abandon proclaiming to be SALAFI.”

NOTE: The famous scholar of Ghair Muqallideen, Maulana Ibrahim Sialkoti , the author of “Salaatur Rasool”, writes: “One who disrespects the Imams of Deen is semi-Rafidhi.” [Taarekh Ahl-e-Hadith, Page: 73]

Therefore, one who accuses  Imam-E-Azam Abu Haneefa (rahimahullah) he, according to Ghayr Muqallid scholars, is as semi-Rafidhi (Shia).

And Allah Knows Best!

Upheavals – Allah’s Taqdeer

By Mujlisul Ulama

“WHAT! Do you not see (realise) that Allah has created the heavens and the earth with Haqq (i.e. not in idle sport). If He Wills, He can eliminate you and substitute you with a new creation (to inhabit the earth).” [Ibraaheem, Aayat 19]

The massive political, economic, social, moral and natural upheavals occurring in this world are not fortuitous or accidental happenings devoid of purpose and direction. All these upheavals are created by Allah Ta’ala. Everything, down to the most infinitesimal particle acts and happens by His Command.

“Not a leaf drops (from a tree),  but He is aware.” [Qur’aan]

The primary concerns of Muslims are the disastrous upheavals which have emaciated, humiliated and disempowered this Ummah in every sphere of life. While Muslims, even the Ulama of this era, are seeking for the causes and searching for solutions, their focus is in entirety diverted from Allah Ta’ala, The Actual Cause. The Qur’aan and Ahaadith conspicuously spell out the earthly or secondary cause for these upheavals.

However, despite the awareness of the Ulama of the diagnosis and prescriptions of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, even they fail to understand the relationship between these upheavals and Divine Ordainment.  Thus even the Ulama resort to humiliating bootlicking of the kuffaar in search of solutions for remedying the disgraceful state of impotency and decadence of the Ummah.

Due to abject Imaani deficiency, they fail to realise that all these upheavals are created by Allah Ta’ala as punishments for the treachery of the Ummah, the worst treasonists being the Ulama about whom Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Soon there will dawn an age when the worst of the people under the canopy of the sky will be their Ulama. From them will emanate fitnah, and the fitnah will rebound on them.”

The preaching and the supposedly ‘deeni’ activities of the Ulama – their Darul Ulooms, Khaanqas, Tablighi Jamaats, Jalsahs and so-called ‘deeni’ functions will be FITNAH which they will present to the ignorant Ummah in Deeni guise to further ruin their morals and Imaan. With their fitnah will they aid the zanaadaqah (deviates and blasphemers) to undermine Islam.

They scan over all the Qur’aanic aayaat and Ahaadith which state with the greatest clarity that the calamities befalling Muslims are the consequences of their treacherous misdeeds, and that these calamities are Allah’s punishment which he administers to Muslims in a variety of ways such as kuffaar domination, natural disasters, crime, etc.

The Qur’aanic aayat cited in the  beginning as well as many similar Aayaat and Ahaadith state with clarity that Allah Ta’ala is in control. If He so wishes, He has the power to eliminate in a second all mankind and replace them with another creation.

Similarly, He can change the condition of the Ummah overnight from defeat to victory, disgrace to honour and weakness to power. But whilst the pre-condition for this success is the full adoption of the Sunnah and submission to the unadulterated Shariah as it has reached us from the Sahaabah, this Qur’aanic prescription has become meaningless for the Ummah of today. While Muslims are knocking at the door of aliens and bootlicking the kuffaar for honour and worldly prosperity, Allah Ta’ala says in His glorious Qur’aan:

“What! Do you search for honour from them? All honour belongs to only Allah.”

Allah Ta’ala further informs us:

“Say: Allah is the King of Mulk (the lands and the world). You grant Mulk to whomever You will, and You snatch away Mulk from whoever You will. You honour whomever You will and You humiliate whomever You will. In Your Power is goodness (success, prosperity, honour, etc.). Verily, You have power over all things.”

But, Alas! This Aayat and numerous other Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith of this theme have become antique for Muslims.

Remember and understand that whatever we desire is obtainable from only Him. But the condition for its obtainment is obedience. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whatever (of goodness which) is by Allah, is obtainable only by means of obedience.” Obedience is only in the Shariah and the Sunnah.

Understand well that in all the upheavals overtaking us, there is Divine purpose and direction. The kuffaar have no inherent power. They are being automated by Allah Azza wa Jal.

کوے کی حلت و حرمت کا مسئلہ – حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ پر اعتراض کا تحقیقی جواب

[علامہ ساجد خان نقشبندی مدظلہ العالی]

قارئین کرام! دراصل قطب الاقطاب فقیہ العصر حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ سے سہانپور کے کسی باشندے نے سوال کیا کہ:

سوال: جس جگہ زاغ معروفہ کو اکثر حرام جانتے ہوں اور کھانے والے کو برا کہتے ہوں تو ایسی جگہ اس کوا کھانے والے کو کچھ ثواب ہوگا۔ یا نہ ثواب ہوگا نہ عذاب؟

جواب: ثواب ہوگا۔

(فتاوی رشیدیہ، ص۱۳۰، ج۲)۔

اتنی سی معمولی بات پر نام نہاد بریلوی مولویوں نے اپنا کمالِ علم یہ ظاہر فرمایا کہ وعظ و تقریر اشتہارات و رسائل غرض جملہ مراحل طے کر ڈالے اپنے اکابر و اساتذہ کو گالیاں دیں اور عوام سے دلوائیں حالانکہ متعارف کوے کا یہ مسئلہ کوئی جدید مسئلہ نہیں ۔دیگر آئمہ کرام کے زمانے میں بھی اس کے متعلق سوال ہوئے اور انھوں نے اس کی حلت پر فتوے دئے۔۔

لیکن زمانہ کا اقتضاء اور چودہویں صدی کی آزادی کا منشاء ہے کہ عقل و فہم کو، اصول و شریعت کو، مسلک حنفیت کو سب کو بالائے طاق رکھ کر آنکھیں بند کرکے وہ وہ خامہ فرسائی کی گئی کہ الامان والحفیظ۔

جبکہ مجھے یہ سمجھ نہیں آتی کے محض زاغ معروفہ کی حلت کے فتوے کی بنیاد پر اگر علمائے دیوبند کو طعن و تشنیع کا نشانہ بنایا جارہا ہے تو یہ حضرات امام مالک رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے بارے میں زبان کیوں نہیں کھولتے جو ہر طرح کے کوے کو حلال مانتے ہیں۔حوالہ ملاحظہ ہو:

مسلک مالکی میں ہر قسم کا کوا حلال ہے:

المالکیۃ قالوا: یحل اکل الغراب بجمیع انواعہ۔

(الفقہ علی المذاہب الاربعہ، ج۲، ص۱۸۳، کتاب الحظر والاباحۃ، طبع مصر)

مالکیہ کے نزدیک ہر قسم کا کوا کھانا حلال ہے۔

حیرت ہے کہ مسلک مالکی والے اگر ہر قسم ،ہر نوع کے کوا کھانے کو حلال لکھ دیں تو ان کے خلاف ایک لفظ ان حضرات کے منہ سے نہیں نکلتا۔ مگر علمائے دیوبند اگر فقہ حنفی کی روشنی میں کسی چیز کی حلت کا فتوی دے دیں تو آسمان سر پر اٹھالیا جاتا ہے ۔۔؟؟؟ آخر یہ محض تعصب اور دیوبند دشمنی نہیں تو اور کیا ہے۔؟۔

پھر بریلوی حضرات کو فتاوی رشیدیہ کا یہ فتوی تو نظر آتا ہے مگر کیا کبھی اپنے گھر کی خبر بھی لی ہے کہ جن کے اعلحضرت نے ’’چمگادڑوں ‘‘ اور ’’الوؤں‘‘ تک کے حلت کے فتوے دئے ہیں۔ملاحظہ ہو:

مولوی احمد رضاخان کے نزدیک ’’چمگادڑ‘‘ حلال ہے:

چمگادڑ چھوٹا ہو یا بڑا جسے ان دیار میں باگل کہتے ہیں اس کی حلت و حرمت ہمارے علماء کرام رحمہم اللہ تعالی میں مختلف فیہ ہے ۔بعض اکابر نے اس کے کھانے سے ممانعت فرمائی۔ اس وجہ سے کہ و ہ ذی ناب ہے مگر قواعد حنفیہ کے موافق وہی قول حلت ہے کہ مطلقا دانت موجب حرمت نہیں بلکہ وہ دانت جن سے جانور شکار کرتا ہو۔ ظاہر ہے کہ چمگادڑ پرند شکاری نہیں لہٰذا درمختار میں قول حرمت کی تضعیف کی گئی ہے۔

(فتاوی رضویہ، ج۲۰، ص۳۱۸)

بریلوی حضرات اب بتلائیں کہ تمہارے گروجی احمد رضاخان بریلوی تمہیں کس مقام پر لے آئیں ۔اب تو مہمانوں کی ضیافت پر اور میت کے سوم یعنی تیسرے دن اور میت کے چالیسویں میں اور ششماہی اور سالانہ ختم شریف میں اور شادیوں کے موقعہ پر مرغی کا انتا مہنگا گوشت خریدنے سے تمہاری جان چھوٹ گئی۔

اگر آپ کہیں کہ حضرت آپ ذرا صبر سے کام لیں ہمارے ’’آلہ حضرت ‘‘ نے اس کو اپنی طرف سے حلال نہیں کیا بلکہ فقہاء احناف کے حوالے دئے ہیں تو یہی بات ہم کہتے ہیں کہ ہم بھی کوے کی ایک قسم کی حلت پر فقہاء احناف کے حوالے بطور دلیل رکھتے ہیں اس وقت آپ حضرات کو یہ اصول یاد کیوں نہیں آتے۔۔۔؟؟؟۔

’’الو‘‘ حلال ہے احمد رضاخان صاحب کا فتوی:

اہلسنت والجماعت پر اعتراض کرنے والوں ذرا آنکھیں کھول کر دیکھو کہ آپ کے خان صاحب نے تو ’’الو‘‘ کے حلال ہونے کابھی ایک قول نقل کیا ہے۔ فتوی ملاحظہ ہو:

بعض نے کہا کہ شقراق نہ کھایا جائے اور بوم (الو) کھایا جائے ۔۔۔و عن الشافعی ؒ قول انہ حلال اما م شافعی کا ایک قول ہے کہ یہ (الو) حلال ہے۔

(فتاوی رضویہ ،ج۲۰، ص۳۱۳ ،۱۳۴)

اگرچہ خان صاحب نے الو کھانے کے قول کی تضعیف کی ہے مگر کل کو اگر کوئی بریلوی اس فتوے کو دیکھ کر امام شافعی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے فتوے پر عمل کرتے ہوئے الو کھانے لگ جائے تو کیا بریلوی حضرات اس شخص پر بھی اسی قسم کے سوقیانہ جملے کسیں گے جو وہ علمائے دیوبند پر بولتے ہیں اور کیا امام شافعی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے خلاف بھی کبھی ان لوگوں کی دراز زبانیں کھلیں گی ۔۔یا یہ گالیاں صرف حضرات دیوبند کیلئے رہ گئی ہیں؟؟؟۔۔

ہاں ہاں کبھی ان کے خلاف ایک لفظ نہ بولیں گے اس لئے کہ علمائے دیوبند کے خلاف بکواس کرنے پر اوپر سے مرغ مسلم ملتا ہے اور ان حضرات کے خلاف بولنے پر جوتے۔

اے چشم اشکبار ذرا دیکھ تو سہی یہ گھر جو بہہ رہا ہے کہیں تیرا ہی نہ ہو

زاغ معروفہ اور فقہاء احناف

قارئین کرام حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی صاحب رحمۃ اللہ علیہ نے جو فتوی دیا اور فقہاء حنفیہ کی تصریحات کے عین مطابق ہے اور ان کی فقاہت کا منہ بولتا ثبوت ہے ۔اس سلسلے میں حضرات سلف رحمہم اللہ کے اقوال پیش کرنے سے پہلے یہ بتانا ضروری سمجھتا ہوں کہ *کو ے کی تین قسمیں ہیں:*

(۱) وہ کوا جس کی خورا ک صرف اور صرف نجاست ہو یہ بالاتفاق حرام ہے۔

(۲) وہ کوا جس کی خوراک صرف پاک چیزیں ہوں جوصرف دانہ وغیرہ کھاتا ہے عموما دیہات وغیرہ میں ہوتا ہے یہ بالاتفاق حلال ہے۔

(۳) وہ کوا جو کبھی غلاظت کھاتا ہے کبھی پاک چیزیں اور اس کی خوراک دونوں قسم کی چیزیں ہیں۔تو یہ کوا امام ابو یوسف علیہ الرحمۃ کے نزدیک مکروہ اور امام اعظم امام ابوحنفیہ رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک حلال ہے ۔اور فتوی بھی حضرت امام ابو حنیفہ رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے قول پر ہے۔ اور یہی کوا ہمارے علاقے میں پایا جاتا ہے اور اسی کو فتاوی رشیدیہ میں حلال کہا گیا ہے۔

چنانچہ امام محمد بن محمد سرخسی الحنفی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ اپنی مشہور کتاب مبسوط میں کوے کی اقسام اور ان کے احکام کے بارے میں بحث کرتے ہوئے تحریر فرماتے ہیں:

فان کان الغراب بحیث یخلط فیاکل الجیف تارۃ والحب تارۃ فقد روی عن ابی یوسف ؒ انہ یکرہ لانہ اجتمع فیہ الموجب للحل والموجب للحرمۃ وعن ابی حنیفۃ ؒ انہ لا باس باکلہ وھو الصحیح علی قیاس الدجاجۃ فانہ لاباس باکلھا۔

(المبسوط، ج۱۱، ص۲۴۸، بیروت)

اگر کوا وہ جو کبھی گندگی کھاتا ہے اور کبھی دانے تو حضرت امام ابویوسف ؒ سے روایت ہے کہ وہ مکروہ ہے ۔کیونکہ اس میں حلت و حرمت دونوں موجب جمع ہوچکے ہیں۔ا ور حضرت امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ سے روایت ہے کہ اس کے کھانے میں کوئی حرج نہیں ۔اور یہی صحیح ہے۔ مرغی پر قیاس کرتے ہوئے کیونکہ اس کے کھانے میں بھی کوئی مضائقہ نہیں۔

اب بریلوی حضرات جواب دیں کہ امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ کو تم لوگ بھی اپنا پیشوا مانتے ہو مندرجہ بالا عبارت کو بار بار پڑھیں اور غور فرمائیں کہ امام سرخسی ؒ امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ سے کیا نقل کرگئے ہیں اور کس طرح اس کو صحیح قرار دے چکے ہیں ۔اور یہ بھی بتادیں کہ کوے کی مذکورہ قسم پر حلت کا فتوی صرف ہمارے پیشوا حضرت گنگوہی ؒ نے ہی دیا ہے یا امام اعظم ؒ سے بھی اس کاکچھ ثبوت ملتا ہے۔۔۔؟؟؟
جادو وہ جو سر چڑھ کر بولے

اسی طرح امام علاؤ الدین ابو بکر کاسانی حنفی رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کوے کی حلت و حرمت پر بحث کرتے ہوئے فرماتے ہیں کہ:

فحصل من قول ابی حنیفۃ ان ما یخلط من الطیور لا یکرہ اکلہ کاالدجاج و قال ابو یوسف ؒ یکرہ لان غالب اکلہ الجیف ۔

(البدائع الصنائع ، ج۶، ص۱۹۷)

امام ابو حنیفہ کے قول سے معلوم ہوا کہ جو پرندے حلال و حرام دونوں طرح کی غذا کھاتے ہیں وہ مکروہ نہیں ہیں جیسے مرغی او ر امام ابویوسف ؒ فرماتے ہیں کہ مکروہ ہیں کیونکہ ان کی غالب غذا مردار ہے۔

اس عبارت سے معلوم ہوگیا کہ امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک اگر کسی جانور میں مردار و نجاست کا غلبہ ہو تو وہ بھی حرام ہے یہی وجہ ہے کہ وہ عام پھرنے والی مرغی کو بھی حرام کہتے ہیں اور امام ابو حنیفہ ؒ کے نزدیک اس قسم کا پرندہ حلال ہے ۔حیرت ہے کہ بریلوی حضرات دیوبند دشمنی میں کوے کی حرمت پر تو امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کی تقلید کرتے ہیں مگر مرغ مسلم ٹھونستے وقت امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے فتوے کو بالکل پست پشت ڈال دیتے ہیں۔

در مختار میں ہے کہ:

حل (غراب الذرع)الذی یاکل الحب (والارنب والعقعق) ھو غراب یجمع بین اکل جیف و حب والاصح حلہ ۔

(درمختار مع فتاوی شامی، ص۳۷۳، ج۹)

اور کھیتی کا کوا جو دانا کھاتا ہے حلال ہے اور خرگوش اور عقعق وہ کوا ہے جو گندگی اور دانا دونوں کھاتا ہے صحیح قول کے مطابق اس کا کھانا حلال ہے۔

اسی طرح فقہ حنفی کی مشہور و معروف کتاب فتاوی عالمگیری میں ہے کہ:

والغراب الابقع مستخبث طبعا فاما الغراب الذرعی الذی یلتقط الحب مباح طیب و ان کان الغراب بحیث یخلط فیاکل الجیف تارۃ والحب اخری فقد روی عن ابی یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ انہ یکرہ و عن ابی حنیفۃ انہ لا باس باکلہ وھو الصحیح علی قیاس الدجاجۃ۔

(فتاوی عالمگیری، ج۵، ص۳۵۸)

اور غراب ابقع جو صرف مردار کھاتا ہے طبعا گندہ ہے اور غراب زرعی جو صرف دانہ چگتا ہے مباح اور پاکیزہ ہے۔اور اگر کوا ایسا ہو جو مردار اور دانہ دونوں کھالیتا ہو تو اس کے بارے میں امام ابو یوسف ؒ سے مروی ہے کہ مکروہ ہے اور امام ابو حنیفہ رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک اس کے کھانے میں کوئی حرج نہیں یہی صحیح قول ہے جیسا کہ مرغی دونوں چیزیں کھانے کا باوجود حلال ہے۔

ان حوالوں سے بھی صاف طور پر معلوم ہوا کہ وہ کوا یا کوئی بھی پرندہ جو غلاظت اور پاک اشیاء دونو ں کھائے وہ صحیح تر قول کے مطابق ہے حلال ہے اور اسی بنیاد پر فتاوی رشیدیہ میں حلت کا فتوی دیا گیا۔ غرض اس قسم کے کوے کی حلت میں کسی قسم کا کوئی شبہ نہیں مگر چونکہ متروک الاستعمال ہے اس لئے نہ کسی نے اس کو کھانے کا خیال کیا نہ استفتاء کی ضرورت پیش آئی بلکہ عوام کا خیال یہی رہا ہے کہ حرام کوا یہی ہے۔لہٰذا سہارنپور کے کسی باشندے نے شیخ المشائخ مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی ؒ سے استفتاء کیا اور مولانا ممدوح نے معمولی طور پر جواب دے دیا۔اتنی سی معمولی بات پر نام نہاد مولویوں نے اپنا کمال علم یہ ظاہر فرمایا کہ وعظ و تقریر میں وہ وہ گالیاں دی کہ الامان والحفیظ حالانکہ ان جاہلوں نے ذرا یہ نہ سوچا کہ ان گالیوں کی زد میں صرف حضرت مولانا رشید احمد گنگوہی ؒ ہی نہیں آرہے ہیں۔۔بلکہ یہ اعلام امت بھی اس کا نشانہ بن رہے ہیں۔غرض فقہ حنفی کی ہر مستند کتاب میں یہ مسئلہ مذکور ہے طوالت کے خوف سے ہم انہی حوالہ جات پر بس کرتے ہیں اس لئے کہ ماننے والے کیلئے ایک حوالہ بھی کافی ہے اور نہ ماننے والے کیلئے دفتر کے دفتر بھی ناکافی۔

پس ہم نے ثابت کردیا کہ امام اعظم رحمۃ اللہ علیہ زاغ معروفہ کو حلال مانتے ہیں

پس یہ کس قدر حیرت کی بات ہے کہ علمائے دیوبند کی ضد میں ان لوگوں نے نہ صرف امام اعظم رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کی تقلید کو چھوڑدیا بلکہ اپنے دین کے بانی جن کے نام پر ان کے پیٹ کے دھندے چل رہے ہیں کہ تقلید کو بھی خیر باد کہہ دیا۔

پھر یہ بھی دیکھیں کہ ہم نے ماقبل میں ثابت کردیا کہ اما م ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے نزدیک مرغی کھانا مکروہ ہے یہ لوگ کوے کی حرمت پر تو ان کے قول پر فتوی دیتے ہیں مگر نہ معلوم مرغی کے حرام ہونے پر یہ لوگ امام ابو یوسف کے مذہب پر کب فتوی دیں گے۔۔؟؟؟

مرجائیں گے مگر مرغی کھانا نہ چھوڑیں گے اگرچہ حرام کی ہی کیوں نہ ہو ۔۔

پس بریلوی حضرات کو بھی غور کرنا چاہئے کہ اگر وہ کوے کے مسئلہ میں امام ابو یوسف رحمۃ اللہ علیہ کے مذہب پر فتوی دیں گے تو رد عمل میں مرغی کی حرمت پر بھی فتوی دینا ہوگا۔ اور اس صورت میں مولوی احمد رضاخان کے وصایا شریف میں درج ایک درجن مرغن غذاؤں سے بھی ہاتھ دھونا پڑے گا۔۔ توکیا اس کیلئے تیار ہو۔۔۔؟؟؟

Muslims and having Dogs – Reponse to a Modernist Arguments

An article appeared in the Huffington Post ‘What’s up with Muslims and dogs’ written by Ingrid Mattson. She attempts to prove that prohibition of dogs is a cultural issue and has nothing to do with Deen. Ingrid Mattson’s profile states that she is a professor of Islamic studies. Below is the article from Huffington Post. 

We had many requests to respond to the article. 

Advocate Mufti Emran Vawda has adequately responded to the article rebutting her erroneous claims and expounding the reality of dogs from the Shariah perspective with academic references.

It is very unfortunate that today the claim as professor of Islamic studies has become a title without any merit. This becomes very clear from the texts cited by Advocate Mufti Emran Vawda.  Anyone having little knowledge of Ahaadith would have known these Ahaadith referred to in the response. The article makes an enjoyable academic read. 

_ Mufti Ebrahim Desai 

What’s Up With Muslims and Dogs?

By Ingrid Mattson

I’m not a big follower of reality television, but was happy to hear about TLC’s new reality show “All-American Muslim.” We know that personal contact is the best way to break down stereotypes, but with Muslims less than 2% of the U.S. population, many Americans will never get to know a Muslim. Meeting us through reality television might not be ideal, but it’s better than nothing.

After watching “All-American Muslim” for a few weeks, I now believe that the show is good for our community beyond the way it might lessen prejudice against Muslims. The additional benefit is that the show has engaged our community in discussing some of the many challenges we face making distinctions between critical religious values and flexible cultural practices. In the fourth episode, the issue of Muslims having dogs in the home came up, and this is worth further discussion.

In this episode, newly-wed Arab-American Shadia tells Jeff, her Irish-American convert husband, that she does not want his dog to move with them to their new home. Shadia has allergies, and her asthma is exacerbated by the dog’s hair. This is an understandable and common dilemma. But Shadia bolsters her position with statements about the impermissibility for a Muslim to have dogs in the home. Her father will not pray in the house if the dog is there, she says, because dog hair is impure and a prayer space needs to be pure. Later, Shadia backs off from the religious argument, admitting that the main reason she doesn’t want a dog in the house is “I wasn’t raised with dogs; I’m not used to them.” I appreciated this moment of honesty. The use of a religious norm as a trump card in an argument we want to win is a temptation we all face.

So what is the Islamic position about dogs? In fact, there are a variety of opinions according to different legal schools. The majority consider the saliva of dogs to be impure, while the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs, only considering the saliva of the latter to be impure. The question for Muslims observant of other schools of law is, what are the implications of such an impurity?

These Muslims should remember that there are many other impurities present in our homes, mostly in the form of human waste, blood, and other bodily fluids. It is fairly common for such impurities to come in contact with our clothes, and we simply wash them off or change our clothes for prayer. When you have children at home, it sometimes seems you can never get away from human waste. But we manage it, often by designating a special space and clothing kept clean for prayer.

Some Muslims object to having a dog in the home because of a prophetic report that angels do not enter a home with dogs in it. If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic, it still requires an analysis of context to determine its meaning and legal application. Ordinary people are not recipients of divine revelation through angelic messengers, so it is possible that this statement, although in general form, might suggest a rule for the Prophet’s home, not all homes. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact the Qur’an states that angels are always present, protecting us and recording our good and bad actions.

Whatever the implications of this report, there is no doubt that the Qur’an is positive about dogs. The Qur’an allows the use of hunting dogs, which is one of the reasons the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs – since we can eat game that has been in a retriever’s mouth. But most compelling is the Qur’anic description of a dog who kept company with righteous youths escaping religious persecution. The party finds shelter in a cave where God places them in a deep sleep; the Qur’an (18:18) says:

You would have thought them awake, but they were asleep And [God] turned them on their right sides then on their left sides And their dog stretched his forelegs across the threshold

This tender description of the dog guarding the cave makes it clear that the animal is good company for believers. Legal scholars might argue about the proper location of the dog – that he should stay on the threshold of the home, not inside – but home designs vary across cultures. In warm climates, an outdoor courtyard is a perfectly humane place for a dog – its physical and social needs can be met in the yard. This is not the case in cold climates, where people stay indoors most of the day for months at a time.

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in under-developed countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them. It is one of the reasons why I try to introduce my students and friends to my very sweet, very large dog Ziggy.

Ziggy came into our home to be like the dog in the cave: to keep company to my child who lies in exile from the world because of a debilitating illness. He has been nothing but a blessing – guarding the house while we sleep, forcing me to exercise daily, and showing us, as he happily follows our tiny cat around the yard, that if cats and dogs can get along so well, then we people have no excuse.

There is another reason why I love having my dog around. Ziggy came from Tennessee. He was rescued by an animal control officer who uses her own resources to save dogs who would otherwise be destroyed in a few days. Tina saves as many dogs as she can by bringing them home and putting them up for adoption on the internet. When I called Tina to speak about adopting Ziggy, she had 65 dogs she had rescued out in her yard. After being disheartened by some terrible things that have come out of Tennessee lately – mosque burnings and anti-Shari`ah legislation among them – I love looking at Ziggy and thinking about the woman with the thick southern accent and big heart who saved his life.  (End of the Article)

Response:

Muslims and Dogs: Is it really just a cultural thing?

Post by: Emraan Vawda[1]

A boil that erupts on the foot does not necessarily mean that one has to rush of to the podiatrist. It could be indicative of a serious imbalance in the blood, which is likely to affect the whole body. When I received a copy of an article entitled “What’s Up With Muslims and Dogs?”[2] by Ingrid Mattson, I could not help discern the underlying hidden malady that incidentally manifested itself through the topic of Muslims keeping dogs in the home. The brief column is a good example of the common ailment of apologetics coupled with pseudo-scholastics.

The unique feature of traditional Islamic learning is the continuous chain of authorization. A genuine Islamic scholar is tutored for a considerable period under the feet of a master until such time that he/she receives Ijaazah (authorization). The teacher himself or herself must have been similarly authorized. The uninterrupted and verifiable chain of reliable transmitters eventually links up directly with the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). It is this unparalleled feature that sets traditional Ulama apart from self styled scholars of Islam. Therefore the following maxim has been repeatedly echoed over the past fourteen centuries:

Had there been no safeguard such as continuous transmission, anyone could have said anything they wished.

The column is a stark example of personal confusion passed off as Islamic academics, supposedly representing the correct position of the religious texts.

The writer attempts to transpose the prohibition of keeping dogs in the home from the religious source to a social misunderstanding. It is after all, she argues, just a cultural thing, and has been ignorantly attributed to the Islamic religious texts. In an attempt to urge the reader to “back off from the religious argument”, she endeavours to re-interpret the texts. Herein lies the fundamental flaw of her reasoning. No matter how one interprets the religious texts, it is nonetheless an interpretation of religion, which cannot be relabelled as culture. It remains religious, whether or not we agree with such an interpretation.

In order to bolster her theory, she raises the question of the status of dog’s saliva. However, the topic under question was whether the prohibition of keeping dogs in the home is based on Islam or culture. The impurity or otherwise of dog’s saliva is merely one factor that could influence the real question. There are other reasons why Islam has prohibited the keeping of dogs in the home, as will be elucidated below. Zooming in on the matter to saliva conveniently obscures the topic’s broader religious angle.

The writer narrows the topic to the dog’s saliva. What she does not tell us is that there are different views within the Maliki school, one being that the saliva is impure. Even if we accept the view within the Maliki school that the saliva is not impure, how do we explain the fact that according to all the Ulama (scholars) within the Maliki school the keeping of dogs as pets is reprehensible. According to the majority of schools, all the dog’s body fluids, including sweat, are impure. Two of the four juristic schools view the hair that falls of the dog as impure as well. Muslims’ concern about the purity of their body, clothes and immediate environment can hardly be termed as something cultural. It is precisely a religious issue. This belies the writer’s vociferation that Muslims need to back off from the religious argument.

Very strangely, the impurity issue is sort to be downplayed by the ridiculous proposition that those with children at home have impurity all over the place, and they still manage to live with it. I don’t know whether this is a cultural thing or not. Maybe in the ‘All American Muslim’ culture homes with children have impurities spread all over the place. Where I come from, certainly this is the furthest from the truth. The same goes for the majority of Muslims in the world. Yes, with young children there is the occasional mishap which is attended to. Otherwise, the purity within the Muslim is always maintained.

The writer is then compelled to address the reality that the issue of keeping dogs within the home transcends beyond the issue of impurity. It has a spiritual dimension. The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has said:

Whoever keeps a dog; other than the dog for guarding the crops, hunting, or guarding the livestock; looses one Qiraat of reward every day. [Bukhari and Muslim]

In another Hadith (Prophetic saying) Qiraat is described as the reward equivalent to Mount Uhud, a huge mountain outside of Madinah Munawwarah.

Yet another Hadith states:

The angels do not enter the home wherein there are pictures or dogs.

In an attempt to diminish the significance of the Hadith, the writer begins with “If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic…”. She suggests that it is a question of personal preference for Muslims to choose certain reports and reject others. In fact the very thread and theme of her article is premised on the approach that she first has her ad hominem view on dogs, and then goes cherry picking to the religious texts to suit her own personal conclusions. Anything that comes in the way is re-interpreted or explained away to suit her objectives. This narration appears in the following books of Hadith compilation: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmithi, Abu Dawood, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Hibban, Baihaqi, Haakim, Tabrani, Ahmad, etc. It has been accepted as authentic by the authorities in the field of Hadith, and therefore there is no “if” that applies here.

The ludicrousness intensifies when the writer suggests that since we cannot receive revelation, this Hadith does not apply to us. The following quotation from Allamah Dimyari succinctly addresses this point:

The angels that do not enter the homes that have a dog or picture within them are those angels that distribute mercies and blessings; and who seek forgiveness on behalf of the Muslims. As far as the recording angels and those instructed to remove the souls at the time of death, they enter all homes. The recording angels do not leave a person under any condition, since they are ordered to write down and preserve all a person’s actions. [Hayaatul Hayawaan al Kubra]

Some angels are also deputed to inspire good thoughts into the hearts of Muslims.

If the only function of angels was to convey revelation, then the Hadith would be, in the estimation of the writer, absurd. It would imply that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is discouraging his followers from the impossible, which is non-sensical. It is preferred that we dismiss the writer as non compos mentis than rather even remotely attributing absurdity to the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

The writer then resorts to the oldest trick used by modernists, the fallacious not-found-in-the-Qur’aan argument. She postulates that since there is no negative mention of dogs in the Qur’aan, therefore it is not a religious issue but a cultural one. Like one cannot expect the Constitution of a State to include every law and rule, similarly the Qur’aan does not contain every fine detail. It lays out the principles. In numerous verses we are instructed to follow the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and that is our second source of the detailed laws.

If we had to follow the not-found-in-the-Qur’aan argument, we would not be able to carry out our most basic religious duties. Where in the Qur’aan does it say that we have to perform the mid-day prayer, at what time, and how many raka’at (units of prayer)? The Qur’aan does not tell us how much Zakaat (compulsory charity) should be discharged. The list can go on infinitely. What the Qur’aan instructs us to do is to follow the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). For Muslims, therein is our guidance, and it is here that we locate our attitude towards keeping dogs in the home, not in our culture.

The writer then resorts to utter drivel in order to dramatise her cultural thing hypothesis. She says:

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in underdeveloped countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them.

After acknowledging that there are Prophetic reports on the topic, she still wishes to locate the source in culture and not religion. As Muslim communities urbanised, they had a few run-ins with dogs, which resulted in fear and negativity. This then germinated into “confused religious reasoning”. The poor lady is the one who is really confused.

She accepts that there are valid concerns around the purity related to dogs. Muslims are overtly concerned about issues of purity as it is a pre-requisite of prayer. She then shifts the entire scenario and implies that it was solely a case of human experience. As if, so to say, there was no religious position on dogs. There existed a pure vacuum. In this vacuum, Muslims of the past had some negative experiences with dogs. The poor souls were in search for some basis on which to shun dogs. They therefore invented a religious dimension in order to give some force to their own negative human experiences. In other words, the religious dimension is a fabrication of the mind, it is a myth and an invention to pacify human fears. The implication is that the Prophetic reports are something invented by Muslims to give credence to their inner negativity. Concerns around purity are fictions introduced by the jurists. They do not really exist. Those who attribute a religious dimension to the topic do so since they are confused.

The absurdity of her hypothesis is self manifest and does not require an in-depth analysis.

As alluded to above, the discussion goes deeper than the mere issue of dogs. The ruptures generated by this type of article penetrate far beyond the surface, and have the potential of damaging a Muslim’s faith. Those brought up in Muslim homes have learnt Islam through observation. Islamic norms and practices were imbibed through experiencing practical Islam. A relatively small fraction of Islamic awareness is attributable to formal Islamic education. Such Muslim have accepted and placed faith in the generally accepted norms and practices of the religious communities in which they were brought up. The overwhelming majority of Muslims would have learnt through experience that Muslims do not, for religious reasons, keep dogs at home. They had hitherto absolute confidence in the general attitude of their religious communities.

Somebody now comes along and claims that the entire Muslim communities were wrong, were all relying on “confused religious reasoning” and were in error in giving it a religious connotation. In reality it was a cultural thing. Muslims were for over a millennium confused and without guidance. In this enlightened age we are able to trace the real source of their attitudes. It is only now in the 15th Hijri century that we are truly guided and realised the colossal error. With a few more debates of this nature on relatively minor issues, the confidence this Muslim has in his experience of Islam through observation is shattered. His whole community has been proven wrong, and his entire Islamic experience has now been rendered spurious. The issue may be minor – the keeping of dogs – but the implications are catastrophic. My entire Muslim community, including the learned, were ignorant and mislead. We had all along taken such norms and practices for granted. From now on, nothing can be taken for granted. Everything is up for debate, even the most accepted of norms. We need to rethink the whole of Islam as we know it. It is this shattering of confidence and faith that is the most destructive consequence of this exercise aimed at reinventing Islam.

This is not to say that all communal experience must be taken to correctly represent Islam. There are certain cultural practices that have been confused with Islam. However, in this discussion we are dealing with a norm that is universal. Wherever one goes one would experience practicing Muslims abstaining from keeping dogs in the home. The writer now wishes to reverse a fourteen century old position in order to suit her whims.

It is a reality that some Muslims drink liquor, commit adultery, sodomise or abandon the compulsory prayers. As long as they accept these misdeeds to be their own personal weakness, there is hope of repentance and reformation. Salvation is dependent on acknowledgement of our weaknesses. To some degree or the other we all sin. What is frightening is the recent trend of justifying our sins and weaknesses. Islam is being re-interpreted to suit our own fancies. Guilt is pacified by the re-invention of Islam. Herein lies our self destruction. May Allah Ta’ala save one and all.

References

[1] An Islamic scholar and Mufti (juriconsult) from Durban, South Africa.

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-mattson/whats-up-with-muslims-and_b_1144819.html

KUFR SAUDI REGIME ARRESTS IMAAM OF THE HARAM

By Mujlisul Ulama

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“The noblest Jihad is to proclaim the Truth  to a tyrannical ruler.”

On the basis of this command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  Sheikh Saleh Talib, an Imaam of Baitullah Shareef, and  the Qaadhi of Makkah Mukarramah, in his Khutbah criticized intermingling of sexes and the rising tide of immorality in Saudi Arabia.  For proclaiming this Haqq, he was promptly arrested and is being detained by the kuffaar  regime.

The desperate attempts of the current kuffaar rulers to  extinguish the Deen and to totally westernize and kufrize the Holy Land of Arabia signal the doom of the Saudi Najdi regime. Gagging and imprisoning the Ulama-e-Haqq  –  those  Ulama who proclaim the Haqq and condemn the  bootlicking of the rulers, will not avail. Trump  and Israel whom  the Najdi kaafir king is wooing and bootlicking will not be able to save him when the Wrath of Allah Azza Wa Jal strikes.

It is also imperative for Muslims to understand that the kaafir king is in reality the reflection of the vast majority of the Saudi population. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:“Your deeds are your rulers.” Allah Ta’ala has saddled  the Holy Land of Arabia with a kaafir king because its people are kuffaar masquerading as Muslims. Their performance of mock ‘salaat’ and  other  ostensible Islamic rites does not negate  their kufr status. Hadhrat Abdullah Bin Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“There will dawn on the people an age when they will assemble in their Musaajid and perform Salaat whilst not a single one among them will be a Mu’min.”

Outwardly they will be ‘Muslim’, but their hearts will be bereft of Imaan.

It is at least heartening that there are still Ulama-e-Haqq in Arabia who are proclaiming  the Haqq in obedience to  the command of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam): “Proclaim the Haqq  even though it is bitter.”

Zulm (oppression/injustice) signals the demise of the regime. The Mashaaikh say: “A power can endure with kufr, but not with zulm.” The writing is on the wall for the  Divine Destruction of the kufr  Najdi regime of Arabia. But, along with the impending destruction of the kuffaar regime, the kuffaar populace too will  suffer horrendously for  its  flagrant and gross transgression and rebellion against Allah Ta’ala.

Reporting the arrest of  Shaikh Saleh Talib, Al Jazeera News states:

SAUDI DETAINS IMAM WHO CHALLENGED MIXED GATHERINGS

Sheikh Saleh al-Talib arrested after delivering sermon on duty in Islam to speak out against evil in public, group says.

Saudi Arabia has detained a prominent imam and preacher at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, activists said, after he reportedly delivered a sermon criticising mixed public gatherings.

The social media advocacy group Prisoners of Conscience, which monitors and documents arrests of Saudi preachers and religious scholars, said on Sunday that Sheikh Saleh al-Talib was arrested after he delivered a sermon on the duty in Islam to speak out against evil in public.

Khaleej Online reported that in his sermon, Talib, who also serves as a judge in Mecca, derided the mixing of unrelated men and women at concerts and other mixed entertainment events.

While there was no direct criticism of the Saudi royal family in his speech, the kingdom has in recent months relaxed laws on female attendance at public events.

Saudi Arabia has yet to issue an official statement on the issue.

Hours after his reported arrest, both of al-Talib’s Engish and Arabic Twitter accounts were deactivated.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Yahya Assiri, a UK-based Saudi human rights activist, said the kingdom’s “authorities are looking at everyone that’s influential and has a presence on the scene”.

He added: “Even those that have kept quiet or pledged allegiance to the state, even those that have been drumming up the authorities and their initiatives, even these are not safe.”

Wave of arrests

Since Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS, became the Saudi crown prince in June 2017, dozens of imams, women’s rights activists and members of the ruling royal family have been detained.

Among those arrested are prominent Islamic preachers Salman al-Awdah, Awad al-Qarni, Farhan al-Malki, Mostafa Hassan and Safar al-Hawali.

Al-Awdah and al-Qarni, who have millions of followers on social media, were arrested last September and accused of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group Saudi Arabia blacklisted as a “terror organisation”.

Meanwhile, al-Hawali, 68, was detained after he published a 3,000-page book attacking bin Salman and the ruling family over their ties to Israel, calling it a “betrayal”.

Earlier this year, bin Salman softened the kingdom’s stance on Israel, telling the US-based Atlantic magazine that Israelis “have the right to their own land” and “there are a lot of interests we [Saudi Arabia] share with Israel.”

In March, Riyadh granted India’s national carrier permission to use its airspace to operate a direct flight between New Delhi and Tel Aviv.

SOURCE: Al Jazeera News

The Reality of the “Dele Alli Challenge” – Salute to Shaytaan Mal’oon

image

ATTENTION!

Please DO NOT take part in this challenge!. It is a sign associated with the Illuminati and a Satanic symbol “👌” which means “666”. It is also considered a sign of the Dajjal and if you do this it means you are part of the Satanic army or mission. Astaghfirullah Rabbi!

IF you have basic knowledge of the Illuminati, you will know how they are spreading and affecting the population in general. Things you don’t even know or think about have some form of it in them. One has to be mindful of what one is doing. Do some research for yourself if you do not believe me.

On the Day of Judgement, we all will be accountable for things we did knowingly were a sin or unknowingly sinned. Wallahu ‘Alam!

NOTE: It is my job to inform you. It is up to you whether you take it or leave it. I only say May ALLAH TA’ALA guide you to the straight path! Ameen!

Those who want proof go learn about Illuminati symbols yourself, We also have some articles on it:

1. How the World has been Hijacked and Controlled by the Zionists Free Masonic Scum

2. The Hidden evil plan for the New World Order [The Secret World]

3. The Mystery Beneath Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dajjalic “New World Order”

And if you don’t even know about Dajjal, he will be the one eyed man who will emerge towards the end of time. But, even scholars say that minor or smaller dajjals present even in the time we are in. This is a form of it.

Learn and increase your own knowledge about Islam by studying about Dajjal for yourself!

Please get yourself and others benefited from this post spread awareness for good cause.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “The one who guides to something good has a reward similar to that one doing it.” [Muslim]

اقامت کا غلط طریقہ چلا ہوا ہے

[مقرر: حضرت اقدس مولانا مفتی سعید احمد صاحب پالن پوری دامت برکاتھم ،شیخ الحدیث و صدر المدرسین دارالعلوم دیوبند]

ناقل: عادل سعیدی پالن پوری

ایک بات یہ بھی عرض کرنی ہے کہ ہمارے یہاں اقامت کا طریقہ غلط چلا ہوا ہے، جب نماز شروع ہونے کا وقت آئے گا، تو سب سے پہلے امام صاحب مصلے پر آئیں گے، لوگ کھڑے ہوجائیں گے، جب صفیں سیدھی ہوجائیں گی، تب تکبیر شروع ہوگی، یہ جو سلسلہ چلا ہوا ہے، یہ غلط ہے، بریلویوں کے یہاں اس کا الٹا ہے، تکبیر کہنے والا کھڑا ہوکر تکبیر شروع کرے گا، باقی سب بیٹھے رہیں گے، جب وہ حی علی الصلاۃ کہے گا، تب لوگ کھڑے ہونگے، اور اب امام صاحب اٹھ کر مصلے پر آئیں گے، ان کے یہاں حی علی الصلاۃ سے پہلے کوئی کھڑا ہوجائے تو اس کو بہت برا سمجھتے ہیں، بریلویوں کا یہ طریقہ بھی غلط ہے، اور ہمارا طریقہ بھی غلط ہے۔

کھڑا کب ہونا چاھئے؟

عربی میں تکبیر کو اقامہ کہتے ہیں، اور اقامہ کے معنیٰ ہیں: کھڑا ہونا، میں نے آپ سے کہا: اٹھ بھائی! یہ کھڑا کرنا ہے، اب اٹھ بھائی کہنے کے بجائے اللہ تعالیٰ کا ذکر رکھ دیا گیا، وہ ذکر سنتے ہی لوگ سمجھ جاتے ہیں کہ یہ ہمیں نماز کےلئے کھڑا کررہا ہے، تو اقامہ کے معنیٰ ہیں کھڑا کرنا، اب میرے بھائیو! سوچو! جب تک اقامہ  (کھڑا کرنا) نہیں پایا گیا، لوگ کیوں کھڑے ہوگئے؟ کس نے ان کو کھڑا کیا؟ شریعت نے کھڑا کرنے کےلئے تکبیر رکھی ہے، یہ کھڑا کرنا (اقامہ) تو ابھی نہیں پایا گیا، پھر آپ کیوں کھڑے ہوگئے؟ ہم تو یوں ہیں، اور بریلوی غلط یوں ہیں کہ جب اقامہ(کھڑا کرنا) شروع ہوچکا، تو اب کیوں بیٹھے ہو؟ تکبیر کا اقامہ نام ہی دلیل ہے کہ ہمارا طریقہ بھی غلط ہے، اور بریلویوں کا طریقہ بھی غلط ہے، صحیح طریقہ یہ ہے کہ جب نماز کا وقت ہو، سب سے پہلے تکبیر کہنے والا کھڑا ہو، اور تکبیر شروع کرے، اقامہ شروع ہوا تو اب لوگ کھڑے ہونا شروع ہونگے، پھر جب اقامہ پورا ہوجائے تو امام صاحب صفوں کو دیکھیں گے، اور کسی کو کوئی ہدایت دینی ہو تو دیں گے، اور جب صفیں سیدھی ہوجائیں تو نماز شروع کردیں، صفیں درست کرنے کا صحیح طریقہ یہ ہے۔

صفیں درست کرنے کا صحیح وقت کب ہے؟

صفیں درست کرنے کا صحیح وقت تکبیر ختم ہوجانے کے بعد، اور نماز شروع کرنے سے پہلے ہے، لیکن اس ملک میں ایک نیا اور عجیب و غریب طریقہ ہے، جب تکبیر شروع ہوتی ہے، تو امام صاحب مصلے پر آکر نمازیوں کی طرف منھ کرکے کھڑے ہوجاتے ہیں، جب تک تکبیر ہوتی رہے گی، امام صاحب نمازیوں کی طرف منھ کرکے کھڑے رہیں گے، تکبیر پوری ہونے کے بعد گھوم کر نماز شروع کریں گے، اللہ جانے امریکہ میں یہ طریقہ کہاں سے آیا، میں دنیا کے کئی ملکوں میں جاچکا ہوں، ہم نے یہ طریقہ یہاں کے علاوہ کہیں نہیں دیکھا۔

اور دیکھو میرے بھائیو! دین وہ ہے، جو دنیا کے تمام مسلمانوں میں ہے؛ کیونکہ دین کا مدار قرآن و حدیث پر ہے، اور قرآن و حدیث ساری دنیا میں ایک ہی ہے، لٰہذا ساری دنیا میں جو طریقہ چل رہا ہے، وہی دین ہے، اور اگر کسی علاقہ میں ایک طریقہ ہے، جس کو دوسرے علاقہ والے نہیں جانتے، تو یہ طریقہ دین میں سے نہیں ہے، بعد میں بڑھا ہے، اگر قرآن و حدیث میں یہ طریقہ ہوتا، تو ساری دنیا میں ہوتا، میں پینتالیس سال سے حدیث پڑھا رہا ہوں، میں نے آج تک کسی حدیث میں یہ طریقہ نہیں دیکھا، حضور اکرم ﷺ تکبیر شروع ہونے کے بعد نماز شروع ہونے تک لوگوں کی طرف متوجہ ہوکر کھڑے رہتے ہوں، ایسا ہم نے کسی حدیث میں نہیں پڑھا۔

ننگے سر نماز پڑھنا سنت نہیں

اسی طرح ایک دوسرا مسئلہ ہے، کچھ لوگوں کا خیال ہے کہ ننگے سر نماز پڑھنا سنت ہے، مگر ہم نے آج تک کوئی حدیث نہیں پڑھی، جس میں یہ ہو کہ نبی پاک ﷺ کے پاس ٹوپی یا عمامہ موجود تھا، اور آپ نے ایک فرض نماز ننگے سر پڑھی ہو، پوری زندگی میں ایک دفعہ بھی ایسا کیا ہو، ایسی کوئی حدیث ہم نے نہیں پڑھی، اور قیامت کی صبح تک مہلت ہے، لاؤ ایسی کوئی حدیث، چاھے ضعیف ہی کیوں نہ ہو، ان بھائیوں سے جب پوچھا جاتا ہے تو فوراﹰ کہتے ہیں: ٹوپی کے بغیر کیا نماز نہیں ہوتی؟ ایک مرتبہ نہیں، سو مرتبہ ہوتی ہے، اور ٹوپی کے بغیر ہی نہیں، کرتے کے بغیر بھی نماز ہوتی ہے، نماز میں مرد کےلئے ناف سے لے کر گھٹنے تک ہی بدن ڈھکنا ضروری ہے، گھٹنے سے نیچے کا حصہ اور ناف سے اوپر کا حصہ اگر سارا کھلا ہو تو بھی نماز ہوجائےگی۔

غرض ننگے سر نماز ہوتی ہے، یا نہیں؟ یہ مسئلہ نہیں ہے، مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ نماز کے وقت اللہ تعالیٰ کا کیا حکم ہے؟ اللہ تعالیٰ حکم ہے: یٰا بَنِیْ آدَمَ خُذُوْا زِیْنَتَکُم عِنْدَ کلِّ مَسْجِدٍ، ائے آدم کی اولاد! جب تم نماز پڑھو، شاندار لباس پہن کر نماز پڑھو، اور اسلامی تہذیب میں ننگے سر ہونا شاندار لباس نہیں، یہ تو فیشن ہے، غیروں کا طریقہ ہے، اسلامی طریقہ نہیں ہے۔

غرض بعض چیزیں بغیر دلیل اور بغیر حدیث کے چلتی ہیں،

امام صاحب کا لوگوں کی طرف متوجہ ہوکر کھڑا ہونا بھی انہی چیزوں میں سے ہے، جس کی کوئی دلیل اور جس کے بارے میں کوئی حدیث نہیں، مگر امریکہ میں یہ سنت بنا ہوا ہے۔

اقامت میں حضور اکرم ﷺ کا طریقہ:

میں عرض یہ کر رہا تھا کہ اقامت میں ہمارا طریقہ بھی غلط ہے، اور بریلویوں کا طریقہ بھی، نبی پاک ﷺ کا طریقہ بخاری شریف میں آیا ہے، حضور اکرم ﷺ نے فرمایا: اِذَا اُقِیمَتِ الصلاۃ فلاتقوموا حتیٰ ترونی، جب نماز کھڑی کی جائے، یعنی تکبیر شروع ہو تو تم کھڑے مت ہوؤ، یہاں تک کہ مجھے دیکھ لو، اذان کے وقت نبی پاک ﷺ اپنے کمرے میں ہوتے تھے، پھر جب وقت ہوتا تھا، تو تکبیر شروع ہوجاتی تھی، حضور اکرم ﷺ تکبیر سن کر گھر سے نکلتے تھے، کبھی ایسا بھی ہوتا تھا کہ تکبیر شروع ہوگئی، اور گھر میں آپ ﷺ کی نیت بندھی ہوئی ہے، اس لئے نماز پوری کرکے حضور اکرم ﷺ آئیں گے، ایسی صورت میں صحابہ تکبیر پوری ہونے کے بعد کھڑے کھڑے حضور ﷺ کا انتظار کرتے تھے، اس لئے حضور ﷺ نے ان کو ہدایت دی کہ تکبیر شروع ہونے پر مت کھڑے ہوؤ، جب مجھے کمرے سے آتا ہوا دیکھو، تب کھڑے ہوؤ، چنانچہ مسئلہ یہی ہے کہ مسجد میں تکبیر شروع ہوئی، اور امام صاحب مسجد میں نہیں ہیں، وہ مسجد سے متصل اپنے کمرہ میں ہیں، اور بالیقین ہیں، کس حالت میں ہیں، یہ معلوم نہیں، تو ایسی صورت میں تکبیر شروع ہونے پر بھی لوگ کھڑے نہیں ہونگے، جب امام صاحب کمرے سے نکلتے نظر آئیں گے، تب لوگ کھڑے ہونگے، معلوم ہوا کہ حضور اکرم ﷺ مصلے پر کھڑے ہوکر لوگوں کی طرف متوجہ ہوجاتے، تب تکبیر شروع ہوتی ایسا نہیں تھا، آپ ؑ تو گھر میں ہوتے، اور تکبیر شروع ہوجاتی تھی۔

گھڑی دیکھ کر کھڑا نہیں ہونا چاھئے:

یہ تکبیر شروع ہونے سے پہلے صف بندی کا رواج کیوں پڑا؟

اب نماز ٹن کی ہوتی ہے، گھڑی میں ٹن ٹن ہوا، اور لوگ کھڑے ہوگئے، حالانکہ نماز کے سلسلہ میں امام کا اختیار ہے، جب امام مناسب سمجھے گا، مؤذن کو اشارہ کرے گا، اور وہ کھڑے ہوکر تکبیر شروع کرے گا، کبھی ایسا ہوتا ہے کہ نماز کا وقت ہوجاتا ہے، مگر اسی وقت بہت سارے آدمی آجاتے ہیں، اور وضو کرنے لگتے ہیں، تو ایسی صورت میں امام نماز شروع کرنے میں دو منٹ تاخیر کرے گا، تاکہ ان نئے آنے والوں کو بھی نماز مل جائے، ایسے ہنگامی حالات میں لوگوں کا لحاظ کرنا امام کی ذمہ داری ہے، بخاری شریف میں حضرت انس رضی اللہ عنہ کی روایت ہے کہ نبی پاک ﷺ عشاء کی نماز معین وقت پر شروع نہیں کرتے تھے، بلکہ اِذا کثر الناس عجل، و اِذا قلوا أخر، اگر لوگ زیادہ آجاتے تو آپ نماز جلدی پڑھادیتے، لوگ تھوڑے ہوتے تو آپ نماز میں تاخیر کرتے، بہرحال حالات پر نظر رکھنا امام کی ذمہ داری ہے، اور اس کا لحاظ کرکے جب امام اشارہ کرے، تب تکبیر شروع ہوگی، اور اس وقت لوگ کھڑے ہوں گے، مگر اب تو لوگوں نے گھڑی کو دیکھ کر ٹن کی نماز کردی ہے، بیچارے امام کا کوئی اختیار نہیں رہا، یہ جو ہم نے امام کو اپنا نوکر بنالیا ہے، میرے بھائیو یہ ٹھیک نہیں ہے، امام کو سردار بناؤگے تو تمہاری نمازوں میں برکت ہوگی، امام کو نوکر سمجھوگے، تو تمہاری نمازیں بغیر دانے کی مونگ پھلی ہونگی، آپ نے کہیں یہ سنا ہوگا کہ کسی عالم کے پیچھے نماز پڑھنا ایسا ہے، جیساکہ کسی نبی کے پیچھے نماز پڑھنا، چونکہ دل میں نبی کا ایک احترام ہوتا ہے، تو اس احترام کے بعد نبی کے پیچھے جو نماز پڑھی جائے گی، اس میں خوبی پیدا ہوگی، اسی طرح عالم کا احترام اگر دل میں ہے، تو اس کے پیچھے نماز پڑھنے میں خوبی پیدا ہوگی، اور اگر عالم کا کوئی احترام نہیں ہے، تو پھر نماز میں کوئی خوبی پیدا نہیں ہوگی۔

یہ مسئلہ میں اس لئے سمجھا رہا ہوں کہ اقامت میں امام اپنے اختیار سے، اور حالات کا لحاظ کرکے تکبیر شروع کرنے کا اشارہ کرے گا، گھڑی دیکھ کر لوگوں کو کھڑا ہونا نہیں چاھئے، اللہ تعالیٰ ان باتوں پر عمل کرنے کی ہم سب کو توفیق نصیب فرمائیں
آمین ثم آمین یارب العالمین۔

وَ آخِرُ دَعْوَانا أنِ الحَمْدُ للہ رَبِّ العَالَمِیْن۔

IS NON -VEGETARIAN FOOD PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED FOR A HUMAN BEING??   

The Question of consuming meat and non-vegetarian foods has been object of much criticism since past several centuries. Even today though quite a large number of Hindus along with Muslims and Christians consume meat, there are large numbers of people who prefer to be strictly vegetarian throughout their life. For some it is a religious injunction to abstain from non-vegetarian food. Whereas some make it a political issue saying “Garv se kaho hum shakahari hain!” (i.e. say proudly we are vegetarian). Those who insist on being pure vegetarian, feel that it is ruthless to kill the animals for feeding ourselves.

The topic of this article is “Is Non – Vegetarian food permitted or prohibited for a human being?” It is not “Is Vegetarian food better than Non-Vegetarian food?”  

If I prove that mango is a better fruit than the apple, it does not mean that apple is prohibited for a human being. 

Let us first understand the meanings of certain terms

DEFINITION OF ‘VEGETARIAN’

(a) The word ‘Vegetarian’ does not come from the word vegetable but from the Greek word “Vegetas” which means ‘Full of the Breath of Life’. It also means ‘whole, sound, fresh, lively’. On the basis of this root word alone, many food from animals’ flesh can also be included.

(b) Definition according to the Oxford Dictionary: The common understanding of the word ‘Vegetarian’ is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a person who abstains from animal food.

CLASSIFICATION OF VEGETARIANS

Depending upon the type of food included in the diet, vegetarian diets can be classified broadly into three categories:

(a) Pure Vegetarian or 100 % Vegetarian: This diet does not include animal flesh or animal products.

They may be further classified into two types:

I. Fructarian: This diet is confined to fruits, nuts and certain vegetables, where harvesting allows the parent plant to flourish.

II. Vegan: This diet excludes the consumption of all foods of animal origin.

(b) Vegetarian diets which include certain animal products: Most of the vegetarians in the world including in India falls in this category. This maybe further classified into:-

I. Lacto-Vegetarian: This diet includes milk and dairy foods, but no animal flesh or egg.

II. Ovo-Vegetarian: Diets that include eggs but no milk, dairy food, or animal flesh.

Ill. Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarian:  Diets that include milk, dairy foods, and egg but no animal flesh.

(c) Vegetarians who have certain animal flesh:

I. pesco-Vegetarian: Diet which includes milk, dairy products, egg and fish but no other animal flesh.

II. Semi-Vegetarian: (also known as Demi-vegetarian / Quasi-Vegetarian): Diet includes milk, dairy products, eggs, fish and chicken but no other animal flesh.

Definition Of Non-Vegetarian:

Non-Vegetarian is a person who has food of animal origin. It does not mean a person who does not have vegetable or fruit.

Definition Of Omnivorous

A more appropriate and scientific terminology would be omnivorous, which means a person who has many kinds of food, especially of plant and animal origin.

Dr. William T. Jarvis’ Classification of a Vegetarian:

Dr. William T. Jarvis is the advisor to the American council on Science and Health (ACSH). He is a professor of public health and preventive medicine at Loma Linda University, and the Founder and President of National Council Against Health Fraud. He is also the Co-editor of “The Health Robbers: A Close look at Quackery in America.”

Dr. William T. Jarvis categorises vegetarians into two categories based on their behavioral standpoint:-

Pragmatic vegetarians and Ideological Vegetarians.

(a) Pragmatic Vegetarian

A pragmatic vegetarian is one whose dietary behavior stems from objective health consideration. He is rational rather than an emotional in his approach.

(b) Ideological Vegetarianism

An Ideological Vegetarian is one whose dietary behavior is a matter of principle based on an ideology. He is more emotional than rational.

According to Dr. William T. Jarvis: 
“One can spot ideological vegetarian by the exaggeration of the benefits of the vegetarianism, their lack of skepticism, and their failure to recognize (or their glossing over of) the potential risks even of extreme vegetarian diets. Ideologic Vegetarian makes a pretense of being scientific, but they approach the subject of vegetarianism more like lawyers than scientists. Promoters of vegetarianism gather data selectively and gear their arguments toward discrediting information that is contrary to their dogma. This approach to defending a position is suitable for a debate, but it cannot engender scientific understanding.”

 
Dr. William T. Jarvis further states, “Vegetarianism is riddled with delusional thinking from which even scientists and medical professionals are not immune”.

Reasons for Choice of Diet

A Human being chooses a particular type of diet due to considerations. Various reasons and considerations:

i.  Religious

ii.  Geographical Location

iii.  Personal choice e.g. taste, look, etc.

iv.  Humane Considerations

v.  Anatomical and physiological considerations

vi.  Behavioural considerations

vii. Ecological and Economical considerations

viii. Nutritional Value

RELIGIOUS

1. MAJORITY OF THE VEGETARIANS CHOOSE TO BE VEGETARIANS DUE TO RELIGION BELIEFS     

(a)  Most of the human beings, if not throughout the world then at least in India choose their food habit based on their religion.

(b) At the outset I want to make it amply clear, that while I will prove undoubtedly that Non-Vegetarian food is permitted for a human being, I have no intention of hurting any person’s religious sentiment. While I go about logically and scientifically proving that Non-Vegetarian food is permitted for a human being, if someone’s sentiments are hurt because he is an ideological vegetarian, I sincerely apologize for the same.

2.  FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT ISLAM SAYS ON THIS ISSUE?

(a) EATING NON-VEG IS NOT COMPULSORY IN ISLAM

It is not compulsory in Islam for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian diet. A person can be a very good Muslim by being a pure vegetarian, but when Almighty God in the Glorious Qur’ān gives permission for human beings to have non-vegetarian food, then why should he not have’?

(b) ALL MAJOR RELIGIONS PERMIT NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD:

Most of the major religions of the world permit human beings to have non-vegetarian food.

HINDU SCRIPTURES ALLOW NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD

Some Hindus think that it is against their religion to have non-vegetarian food. But the fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. The scripture mentions sages and saints having meat. Hindu scriptures clearly mention that there is nothing wrong in having meat.

It is mentioned in Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus! In chapter 5 verse 30 “THE EATER WHO EATS THE FLESH OF THOSE TO BE EATEN DOES NOTHING BAD! EVEN IF HE DOES IT DAY AFTER DAY; FOR GOD HIMSELF CREATED SOME TO BE EATEN AND SOME TO BE EATER”

Again next verse of Manu Smruti that is; chapter 5 verse 31 says “EATING MEAT IS RIGHT FOR THE SACRIFICE, THIS IS TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS A RULE OF THE GODS”

Further in Manu Smruti chapter 5 verse 39 and 40 says

“GOD HIMSELF CREATED SACRIFICIAL ANIMALS FOR SACRIFICE… THEREFORE KILLING IN A SACRIFICE IS NOT KILLING.”

Manu Smruti even narrates the supremacy of killing animals in sacrifice it is mentioned in chapter 5 verse 42

“A TWICE BORN (A BRAHMIN) WHO KNOWS THE TRUE MEANING OF VEDAS AND INJURES SACRIFICIAL ANIMALS FOR CORRECT PURPOSES CAUSE BOTH HIMSELF AND THE ANIMAL TO GO TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EXISTENCE”.

Among the Hindu scriptures Vedas are considered as most ancient and most sacred. We find mentioning of non-vegetarian food in Vedas too it is mentioned in Rig-Veda book 10 Hymn 27 verse 2

“THEN WILL I, WHEN I LEAD MY FRIENDS TO BATTLE AGAINST THE RADIANT PERSONS OF GODLESS, PREPARE FOR THEE AT HOME A VIGOROUS BULLOCK, AND POUR FOR THEE THE FIFTEEN FOLD STRONG JUICES” 

Hindi translation of this verse is very interesting it says

image

Again in Rig-Veda book 10 Hymn 28 verse 3 it says

“O INDRA, BULLS THEY DRESS FOR THEE, AND OF THESE (MEAT) THOU EATEST WHEN MAGHAVAN, WITH FOOD THOU ART INVITED”.

In Rig-Veda Book 10 Hymn 86 verse 13 says

“INDRA WILL EAT THY BULLS, THY DEAR OBLATION THAT EFFECTETH MUCH. SUPREME IS INDRA OVER ALL”

These verses indicates that Indra, a god of Vedic age, used to eat meat.Also another god of Vedic age, Agni, is referred to as “flesh-eater’ in Vedas. For example, in Rig-Veda bock 10 Hymn 16 verse 10 it is said

“I CHOOSE AS GOD FOR FATHER-WORSHIP AGNI,FLESH EATER, WHO HATH PAST WITHIN YOUR DWELLINGS”.

In Rig-Veda Vivah sukta book 10 Hymn 85 verse 13, it mentions that during marriage ceremony the guests were fed with the meat. it says

“IN MAGHA DAYS ARE OXEN SLAIN, IN ARJUNIS THEY WED THE BRIDE”

Atherva-Veda book 9 Hymn 4 verses 37-38-39 gives expression that cow’s milk and cow’s meat are most tasty among all other foods. It says

“THE MAN SHOULD NOT EAT BEFORE THE GUEST WHO IS BRAHMIN VERSED IN HOLY LORE WHEN THE GUEST HATH EATEN HE SHOULD EAT. NOW THE SWEETEST PORTION, THE PRODUCE OF COW, MILK OR FLESH, THAT VERILY HE SHOULD NOT EAT (before the guest)”

If you read Mahabharata Shanti Parva chapter 29, a story of greatness of a king called Rantideva is described It is said that he was very rich and generous, and used to feed thousands of guests. The paragraph reads as follows

“ALL THE VESSELS AND THE PLATES, IN RANTIDEVA’S PALACE, FOR HOLDING FOOD AND OTHER ARTICLES, ALL THE JUGS AND OTHER POTS, THE PAN AND PLATES AND CUPS, WERE OF GOLD. ON THOSE NIGHTS DURING WHICH THE GUESTS USED TO LIVE IN RANTIDEVA’S ABODE, TWENTY THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED KINE {COWS} HAD TO BE SLAUGHTERED. YET EVEN ON SUCH OCCASIONS, THE COOKS, DECKED IN EAR-RINGS, USED TO PROCLAIM (AMONGST THOSE THAT SAT FOR SUPPER) “THERE IS ABUNDANT OF SOUP, TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU WISH, BUT OF FLESH WE HAVE NOT AS MUCH TODAY AS ON FORMER OCCASIONS”

This shows that even after slaughtering 20,100 cows, meat used to fall short on some occasions.

Many more quotations can be given where non-vegetarian food is given preference compared to vegetarian food. For example,

Mahabharata Anushashan Parva chapter 88 narrates the discussion between

Dharmaraj Yudhishthira and Pitamah Bhishma about what food one should offer to Piths (ancestors) during the Shraddha (ceremony of dead) to keep them satisfied. Paragraph reads as follows

“Yudhishthira said, “O thou of great puissance, tell me what that object is which, if dedicated to the pitris (dead ancestors), become inexhaustible! What Havi, again, (if offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if presented) becomes eternal?”

“Bhisma said, Listen to me, O Yudhishthira, what those Havis are which persons conversant with the rituals of the Shraddha (the ceremony of dead) regard as suitable in view of Shraddha and what the fruits are that attach to each. With sesame seeds and rice and barley and Masha and water and roots and fruits, if given at Shraddhas, the pitris, 0 king, remain gratified for the period of a month. With FISHES offered at Shraddha, the pitris remain gratified for a period of two months. With the MUFLON they remain gratified for three months and with the HARE for four months, with the FLESH OF THE GOAT FOR FIVE MONTHS, with the BACON (MEAT OF PIG) for six months, and with the FLESH OF BIRDS for seven. With venison obtained from those DEER that are called Prishata, they remain gratified for eight months, and with that obtained form the Ruru for nine months, and with the meat of GAVAYA for ten months. With the meat of the BUFFALO their gratification lasts for eleven months. With BEEF presented at the Shraddha, their gratification, it is said, lasts for a full year. Payesa mixed with ghee is as much acceptable to the pitris as BEEF. With the MEAT OF VADHRINASA (A LARGE BULL) the gratification of pitris lasts for twelve yearsThe FLESH OF RHINOCEROS, offered to the pitris on anniversaries of the lunar days on which they died, becomes inexhaustible. The potherb called Kalaska, the petals of Kanchana flower, and MEAT OF (RED) GOAT also, thus offered, prove inexhaustible.

So but natural if you want to keep your ancestors satisfied forever, you should serve them the meat of red goat.

Same message is repeated in MANU SMRUTI CHAPTER 3 VERSES 266 TO 272.

In Shraddha (ceremony of dead) even Brahmin priests are expected to eat meat. Manu Smruti instructs Hindus to serve non-vegetarian food to priests i.e. Brahmins. It says in CHAPTER 3 VERSES 226 AND 227

“Purified and with a concentrated mind, he should put down on the ground before (THOSE PRIESTS) seasoned foods like soups and vegetables and also milk, yogurt, clarified butter, honey and various foods that are eaten and enjoyed, roots and fruits, TASTY MEATS, and fragrant water.

HINDU SCRIPTURES NOT ONLY ALLOW NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD BUT AT FEW PLACES IT MAKES IT COMPULSORY FOR HINDUS TO EAT NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD. IF ANYONE REFUSES NON VEGETARIAN FOOD, HE WILL HAVE TO FACE CONSEQUENCES ACCORDING HINDU SCRIPTURES,

IN VISHNU DHARMOTTAR PURAN BOOK 1 CHAPTER 140 VERSES 49 & 50 SAYS

“THOSE WHO DO NOT EAT MEAT SERVED IN THE CEREMONY OF DEAD (SHRADDHA), WILL GO TO HELL (NARAK)”.

And Manu Smruti mentions still stronger punishment. In Manu Smruti Chapter 5 verse 35 it says

image

But WHEN A MAN WHO IS PROPERLY ENGAGED IN A RITUAL DOES NOT EAT MEAT, AFTER HIS DEATH HE WILL BECOME A SACRIFICIAL ANIMAL DURING TWENTY-ONE REBIRTHS”

“THE COW IN HINDUISM: MYTH AND REALITY”

With the supporting illustrations Extracted from various Hindu scriptures. In that article we tried our best to bring out what the Hindu scriptures ordain about beef eating. Relying on the facts we reached the conclusion that the Hindu religious books permitted the beef eating. Not only this, the beef was, if we believe in the Hindu scriptures, an inseparable part of Hindu religious rites from the birth to the death and event of the ‘Shraddha karma’.

If we go, back to the fifty years of India’s independence we come to know that there has been a long chain of agitations against cow slaughtering. A number of resolutions were passed against the slaughtering of cows and all-round efforts are being made to prove that in India the cow has always been venerable and not to be slaughtered. Therefore. Cow slaughtering is a heinous crime

But like facts are juxtaposite. There are a number of illustrations in ancient Sanskrit literature which prove that the cow was not only sacrificed in the yagyas but its beef was also served to the guests and Vedic scholars as a mark of their respect. Possibly this was why, the greatest propagator of Hinduism Swami Vivekananda said thus:

“YOU, WILL BE SURPRISED TO KNOW THAT ACCORDING TO ANCIENT HINDU RITES AND RITUALS, A MAN CANNOT BE A GOOD HINDU WHO DOES NOT EAT BEEF,’ (THE COMPLETE WORKS OF SWAMI VIVEKANAND, VOL-3, PAGE 536)

ON PAGE 174 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED BOOK THE SWAMI SAYS, “THERE WAS A TIME IN INDIA WHEN A BRAHMIN COULD NOT BE A BRAHMIN IF HE DID NOT EAT BEEF.”

There are a number of illustrations in the ancient Sanskrit literature, which suggest that the cow used to be sacrificed in the yagyas and its beef served to important guests and the Vedic scholars. In the Vedas, there is a detailed description of ‘Gomedh Yagya’, in which cow was sacrificed. Describing this yagya, an ancient and famous Sanskrit encyclopedia “shabdakalpdrum” says thus:

“YAJ VISHESHAH ATRA ESTRIGOPASHUH MANTRESHU  ESTRILINGPATHET TASYA LAKSHANAM – SATPASHLATWA – NAY SHAFATWA- BHAG SHRINGATWA – KANATWA – CHHINNKARNTWA- DIDASHRAHITYAM. TASYA PRAYOGAH SARVO APEE CHHAGPASHUAWAT. YAJMAMSYA SWARGAH FALAM GOSCHA GOLOKO PRAPTEE.”

“This is the special yagya. In this yagya, the cow is sacrificed. In this ‘mantra’ the word ‘go’ is used for cow, and not for ox or calf because the verse suggests the feminine gender the cow, worthy for sacrifice in this yagya, should have seven or nine hoofs. Its horns must be intact. It should be neither one-eyed, nor ear-cropt It should be treated like a goat. The performer of ‘Gomedh Yagya’ attains heaven and the cow scarified in this yagya goes to “Golok.”

This description of ‘Gomedh Yagya’ in ‘shabdakalpdrum’ leaves no room for the opposition of cow-slaughtering I want to remind the people behind the movement against cow-slaughtering that ‘shabdakalpdrum’ Sanskrit encyclopedia is published by Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit Vidyapith, New Delhi and National Sanskrit Research Centre, New Delhi with the co­operation of Human Resources & Development Ministry, Government of India. Therefore, I request the people, who have called my article as confusing to go into the details of the facts and then decide the truthfulness of my contention on the issue. In the life of the followers of a religion, religious injunctions play very important role. If the Vedas and other Hindu religious books sanctify the beef eating. Where is the room for its opposition? Does the opposition of beef eating not show clumsiness? They must accept the truth they should go into the depth why the cow was made to be esteemed as mother, while the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures sanctify its sacrifice and beef eating. In fact, they must oppose that conspiracy, which made the Cow venerable. But unfortunately, it did not happen,

How the COW, HORSEGOAT and  OTHER ANIMALS should he sacrificed in a yagya is described in detail in the ETERIYA BRAHMIN:

“UDEECHINA ASYA PADO NIDHTTAT SURYA CHAKSHURGAMYATATT WATAM PRAMMANV VASRIJTAT ANTRIKSHAMASAM DISHAH SHROTRAM PRITHIVIM SHARIRMITYESHWAIWAIN TALOOKESHWADDHATI.

EKDHAASYA TWACHAMACHCHH YATTATAM PURANABHYA APISHASOMU WAPAMUTIKHADATA DANTREVOSHMANAM WARYDHADITI PASHUSHVEV TAT PRANANAM DADHOTI.

SHAYENMASYA VAKSHAH KRINUTAAT PRASANSHA BAHUSHALA DOSHNI KASHYEWANSACHICHHDRE SHRONI KAWSHORUSTEKPARUNADASHTHIWNA KSHARVINSHATIRUSYAWADD KRAYAFU ANUSTHYO CHAYAWYATAD GAATRAM GAATRAMASYA NUNE KRINUTADETYAMGAANYEWATYA TAD GAATRANI PREENAATI… UWADHYAGOHAN PARTHIWAM KHANTAD… ASNA RAKSHA SAMSRIJATADITYAH

-ETERIYA BRAHMIN  2/6/6

That is, ”Turn its feet towards north. Offer its eyes to the sun, its breath to the air, its life (pran) to the space, its hearing power to the directions and its body to the earth. In this way, the priest enjoins the animal to the ‘parlok’ (heaven)”

“Flay its whole hide in one piece. Pierce the membrane of its intestines before cutting its navel. In this way, the priest infuses breath into the animals”

“Now cut a piece from its chest in the shape of an eagle, two pieces from its arms in the shape of an axe, two pieces from its legs in the shape of paddy-ears, the intact part of its back, two pieces from its thighs in the shape of a shield, two pieces from its two knees in the shape of leaves and its 26 ribs. Its every part should be kept safe. Dig a pit to hide its dung. Offer its blood to the ghosts.”

The ETERIYA BRAHMIN further describes the procedure of distribution or its parts. Thus says the ETERIYA BRAHMIN:

“Now emerges the question of distribution of various parts of the sacrificed animal it should be distributed in the following way. Both the bones of its jaw should be given to the ‘PRASTOTA’  priest. The eagle shaped piece of its chest should be given to UDGATA’, its throat and palate to ‘PRATIHARTA’, the right part of its back to ‘HOTRI’, the left part to ‘Brahma’, its right thigh to ‘MAITRAVIRUN’ and its left thigh to ‘BRAHMANACHCHHANSI’, the adjoining part of its right shoulder to ‘ADHVARYU’ and the adjol fling part of its left shoulder should be given to the co-pronouncers (UPGATA) of the ‘mantras’. Its left shoulder should be given to ‘PRATIPRASTHATA’. The lower part of its right arm should be given to ‘NESHTA’ and the lower part of its left arm should be given to ‘POTA’.

“Similarly, the upper part of its right thigh should be given to ‘ACHCHHAVAK’ and the upper part of its left thigh to ‘AGNIDHAR’. The upper part of its right arm should he given to a member and its back-bone and womb should he given to the performer of the YAGYA. Its right leg should be given to the ‘GRIHPATI’ (the head or the family) and its left leg to the wife of that ‘GRIHPATI’. The upper lip should be given equally to the ‘GRIHPATI’ and his wife. They give the tail of the animal to the wife of the GRIHPATI’, while it should be given to a BRAHMIN.

“In the same way, its peck should be given to ‘GRAVASTUT’ and the half part of its fleshy back should be given to ‘UNNETA’. The half part of its fleshy neck and some part of its left ear should he given to its slaughterer If the slaughterer of the animal is not a BRAHMIN, he should give it to a BRAHMIN. Its head should be given to ‘SUBRAHMANYAM’.

“The parts of the sacrificed animal total thirty-six. Every piece symbolises a foot of the verses pronounced in the yagya. Thus, the performer of the yagya, dividing the sacrificed animal into 36 pieces, enjoys the pleasures of this world and goes to the heaven.

“The people, who distribute the sacrificed animal in the above-mentioned manner, go to the heaven. But those, who do not follow this procedure, earn sins”

Thus, the above-quoted illustration suggests that for a Hindu, desiring for the heaven, sacrifice of an animal was a part of his religious rites. And a due procedure was also laid down for such sacrifices. Only the people, who used to follow the above-mentioned procedure of sacrifice could think of attaining the heaven. Thus, it is quite clear that the sacrifice of animals was a part of religious rites of the Hindus Now if a Hindu rejects it, he repudiates his own religious scriptures.

The Rigveda also sanctifies the sacrifice of the cow. Thus says the Rigveda:

UKSHNO HI ME PANCHDASH SAKOM PACHANTI WINSHATIM,

UTTAHMADIM PEEV EDUBHA KUKSHEE PRINNANTI ME VISHWASMADINDRA UTTAR

 -The Rigveda 10/86/14

That is, “INSPIRED BY INDRANI (THE WIFE OF INDRA), THE PERFORMERS OF THE YAGYAS SACRIFICE 15 OR 20 OXEN AND COOK THEIR MEAT FOR ME. EATING THESE ANIMALS I AM GETTING FAT.

According to Hindu mythology, Indra is known as the king of gods. And the reason of his fatness is beef eating, as described by Indra himself. If the beef-eating was justified for Indra, how can it be unjustified for his followers?

Similarly, a mantra of the Rigveda clarifies that in ancient India cow-slaughtering was a common phenomenon. The Rigveda describes it in a simile:

MITROKRUWOO YACHCHHSEN NO GAWAH PRITHIVYA APRIGMUYA SHAYANTI      
-The Rigveda 10/89/14

‘That is, “O INDRA! MAY ALL THE DEMONS CUT BY YOUR WEAPON ON THE EARTH AS THE COWS ARE CUT AT THE PLACE OF SLAUGHTERING.”

Analysing the ‘VIVAH SUKTA’ (10/85) OF THE RIGVEDA, DR. V.M. APTE WRITES ON PAGE 387 OF ‘THE VEDIC AGE’, A BOOK PUBLISHED UNDER THE AEGIS OF BHARATIYA YIDYA BHAWAN: “According to the ancient tradition of marriage the groom, along with the marriage party, used to go to the house of the bride (10/17/1), where the bride used to eat food with the marriage party. On that occasion the guests were served with the beef of the cows, slaughtered for the purpose (RIGVEDA 10/85/13).”

VEDIC INDEX, VOL.2, PAGE 145 says, “On the occasion of marriage ceremony the cows were slaughtered for feast.” This fact is also accepted in the ‘VEDIC DICTIONARY’ (PAGE-374) OF BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY AND THE RIGVEDA [10/85/13]

As a part of religious rites, beef was also used at the time of funeral of human body. The Rigveda clearly supports this fact;

AGNERVARMAR PARIN GOBHIRVYAYSWA SAM PRONUSHWA PEEWSA MEDSA CHA       

-The Rigveda, 10/16/7

‘THAT IS, “O DEAD, HAVE THE SHIELD OF FIRE-FLAME WITH ‘GODHARMA’. MAY YOU BE COVERED WITH MEAT”

In this context thus says the ‘VEDIC DICTIONARY’ OF BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY; “POSSIBLY, THE COW-SLAUGHTERING WAS NECESSARY AT THE FUNERAL (DAH SANSKAR) OF HUMANS. HERE IS THE DESCRIPTION OF COVERING THE DEAD BODY WITH BEEF.”

MUKANDILAL WRITES IN HIS BOOK ‘COW SLAUGHTER – HORNS OF A DILEMMA’, PAGE 18: “In ancient India, cow-slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. Bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Yedi’ (alter). Possibly, the hide of that ox was used for the occasion, which was slaughtered for feeding. Similarly, at the time of coronation, the king was used to sit on the hide of a red ox.”

The cooked meat of an ox was offered to Indra to make him pleased, so that he could bless the offerer with grains. Thus says the Rigveda:

ADREENATE MANDEN INDRA TUYANTSUNWANTI SOMAN PEEVSITWAMESHAM, PACHANTI TE VASHBHAN ATSI TESHAM PREEKSHEN YANDHWAN HUYA MANAH.

-THE RIGVEDA 10/28/3

That is, “O Indra! The people, wishing for grains, perform ‘havan’ for you. At that time they prepare juice of ‘soma’ that you drink. They also cook meat of ox, that you eat.” 

The RIGVEDA (7/19/8) mentions a king, named ‘DIVODAS’. An attributive ‘ATITHIGVA’ is used with his name. The meaning of this attributive is ‘SLAUGHTERER OF COW FOR THE GUESTS” (VEDIC DICTIONARY, PAGE 374).

There is also a description in the Yajurveda, which says that the fat of cows was offered by the people to satisfy their dead ancestors and in return their wishes were fulfilled. Thus says the Yajurveda:

WAH VAPAM JATTVEDAH PITRITHYO YTRAINANVETATHNIHITANPARAKE MEDASAH KILYA UPP TANSTRAWANTU SATYA ESHAMASHISHAH SANNAINTAN SWAHA

 -YAJURVED 6 35/20

THAT IS, “O JATDEVA, TAKE THIS PARTICULAR HIDE OF COW. YOU KNOW THE ANCESTORS MAY THE RIVERS OF FAT OF THAT PARTICULAR HIDE FLOW TOWARDS THE ANCESTORS AND THE DESIRES OF THOSE, WHO DONATE FOR THEIR ANCESTORS, BE FULFILLED.

The SHATPATH BRAHMIN (3/4/1/2) mentions that a big ox (Mahoksh) should be killed for the guest The TAITIRIYA BRAHMIN (2/7/11/1) describes about a performer of yagya, named AGASTA, who sacrificed one hundred oxen. This fact is also mentioned in the PANCHVINSH BRAHMIN (21/14/5) To settle the dispute among the priests, as mentioned in the SHATPATH BRAHMIN (3/1/2/21), over whose meat should be eaten  of cow or ox, YAGYAVALKYA clarifies thus:

ASHNMUYEW AHAM ANSALAM CHEDDA BHAWTITI.

-YAGYAVALKYA SMIRITI [3/1/2/21]

That is, “EAT THE MEAT WHICH IS MORE SOFT.”

However, some people differ on the meaning of the word ‘Gomedh’. They say that its meaning is not ‘the slaughtering of cows’, but on the contrary, it means ‘breeding of cows’. But their argument holds no water because there is a detailed description of cutting the parts of the cow and its distribution among the priests. And this description is made in the Brahmins, the highly authentic religious books of Hinduism. In support of their arguments these people quote the ‘mantras’ of the Vedas where the COW is mentioned with the adjective ‘Aghanya’ (not to be slaughtered) But their opinion cannot be accepted because in the ‘mantras’ of the Vedas, quoted by these people, only a particular kind of cow is prohibited to be killed, not all kinds of cows. As for example;

DUHAIMIMISHIBHYAM PAGO AGHNYAYAM SA WARDHANTA MAHTE SAUBHAGAM.

-THE RIGVEDA III 64/27

That is, “THIS COW GIVES MILK FOR BOTH THE ASHWINIKUMARS. MAY THIS COW ENHANCE OUR FORTUNE. THUS, THIS IS NOT TO BE SLAUGHTERED.” Here the word ‘Imam’ indicates a particular kind of cow. The ‘VEDIC DICTIONARY’ of Banaras Hindu University says that the cows were killed, no matter they were called ‘Aghanya’. A renowned scholar of scriptures, DR. PANDURANG VAMAN KANE says, “THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. VAJSANEYI SAMHITA SANCTIFLES THE BEEF-EATING BECAUSE OF ITS PURITY.” (DHARMASHASTRA VICHAR MARATHI, PAGE 180).

The beef-eating was common in the Vedic age. That is why Swami Vivekanand called It the ‘Golden Era’ of Indian history.

Swami Nikhilanand the biographer of Swami Vivekanand, writes thus: “SWAMI VIVEKANAND TOLD THE CONSERVATIVE BRAHMINS VERY ENTHUSIASTICALLY THAT IN THE VEDIC PERIOD BEEF-EATING WAS IN COMMON USE. ON BEING ASKED ABOUT THE ‘GOLDEN ERA’ OF INDIAN HISTORY, THE SWAMI NAMED THE VEDIC PERIOD WHEN ONLY FIVE BRAHMINS WERE SUFFICE TO EAT A COW.” (FOR REFERENCE SEE ‘VIVEKANAND: A BIOGRAPHY’, PAGE 96.)

Not only this, the UPANISHADS too mention the beef-eating. Thus says the BRIHDARANYAKOPANISHAD (6/4/18):

ATHA YA ECHCHHATEPUTRO ME PANDITO VEGEETAH SAMTINGAM SHUSHRUSHITAM VACHAM BHASHITA JAYETI. SARVANVEDANNUBABREET SARVAMAYURIYADITI MANSAUDANAM PACHYEETWA SARPEESHMANT AMSHANIYYATUMISHAWARO JANYEETWA ANKSHEN WARSHVEN WA. –    BRIHDARNYAKOPANISHAD [6/4/18]

That is, “A man, who wishes his son, yet to born, to be a great orator, a great scholar of the Vedas and of 100 years of age. should eat along with his wife the meat of an ox or bull mixed with ghee and ‘bhat’ (rice).”

Some people tried to change the meaning of the word ‘AUKSHA’  and ‘AARSHABH‘, used for ox or bull. Some scholars attribute these words to medicinal herbs. In fact, their efforts are not only against the opinions of ancient commentators, but are also a laughing stock.

ADI SHANKARACHARYA, THE GREATEST PROPAGATOR OF HINDUISM, SAYS THUS IN HIS COMMENTARY OF BRIHDARANYAKOPANISHAD:

MANSMISHRIOMODANAM MANSAUODNAM. TANMAMSANIYAM -ARTHMAHAUKSHEN WA MANSEN UKSHA SEWANSAMARTHA PUNGWASTDIYAM MANSAM. RISHBHASTETATOAPYADHIKVYAST -DEEY MA SHA BHAM MANSAM.  -ADI SANKRACHARYA’S COMMENTRY ON BRIHDARANYAKOPANISHAD [6/4/18]

That is, ‘Odan’ (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘MANSODAN’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘UKSHA’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an OX, which is capable to produce semen. Therefore, I suggest the Hindu brothers, who want to know truth about beef-eating as against the true spirit of Hinduism, to study the commentary of ADI SANKRACHARYA on BRIHDARANYAKOPANISHAD

THE APASTAMB GRIHSUTRA (13/5/15-17) SAYS, “WHEN A BRAHMIN SCHOLAR OF VEDAS, A STUDENT OR A TEACHER VISITS THE HOUSE OF A MAN, THE LATTER SHOULD WELCOME HIM WITH ‘MADHUPARK’ HE SHOULD OFFER A COW TO HIM, IF HE PERMITS, HE SHOULD KILL IT WITH PRONOUNCING MANTRAS AND GIVE IT TO THE GUEST.”

SOME INDIAN SCHOLARS OPINE THAT IN THE ‘MADHUPARK’ HONEY, CURD, ETC. ARE OFFERED, NOT THE BEEF. BUT THEIR ARGUMENT IS AGAINST THE GRIHSUTRAS. IN THIS CONTEXT THE MANAV GRIHSUTRA (1/9/21) CLARIFIES, “MADHUPARK CANNOT BE WITHOUT MEAT. THIS IS BEING SAID BY THE VEDAS.”

THERE IS A DESCRIPTION IN THE ‘UTTAR RAM CHARITAM’ OF RENOWNED SANSKRIT SCHOLAR AND ANCIENT WRITER BHAVBHUTI, which runs thus. When Vashishtha visited the ashram of Valmiki, he was served with the meat of she-calf. On this ‘Saudhatin’, a disciple of Valmiki, became very angry. he said to his fellow disciple Bhandayan that Vashishtha’ is as if a tiger or a wolf for he had eaten the poor she-calf. Hearing this, thus answered Bhandayan:

SAMANSO MADHUPARKA ETYAMANAYAM BAHUMANYA MANAH SHROTRIYABHYAGATAYA WATSARIN MAHOKSHAM MAHAJAM WA NIRWAPANTI GRIHMEDHIN, TAM HI DHARMSUTRAKARAH SAMAMNANTI

-UTTAR RAM CHARITAM; PART IV, CHAPTER VISHAKAMBHAK

That is, “MADHUPARK SHOULD COMPRISE MEAT HONOURING THE VEDIC INSTRUCTIONS, THE HOUSEHOLDERS OFFER A SHE-CALF OR A BIG OX OR A BIG GOAT TO THE GUESTS.”

THERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT FOR MANY YEARS TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF ‘MAHOKSHAM’ AND ‘MAHAJAM’, USED IN THE SMRITIS, TO MEDICINAL HERBS. TO SOME EXTENT, THEY SUCCEEDED IN THEIR ENDEAVOUR. BUT THEY COULD NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF ABOVE-MENTIONED WORDS IN ALL THE BOOKS OF SANSKRIT LITERATURE. THAT IS WHY, IN THE UTTAR RAM CHARITARN OF BHAVBHUTI THE WORDS VATSARI’, ‘MAHOKSHA’ AND ‘MAHAJ’ ARE NOT USED FOR MEDICINAL HERBS, BUT FOR SHE-CALF, BIG OX AND BIG GOAT RESPECTIVELY.

The beef was also served on the occasion of ‘SHRADDHA KARMA’. Thus says the APASTANIB DHARMSUTRA;

SANTASARAM GAVYEN PREETI, BHUYAMSAMTTO MAHISHEN ETTEN GRAMYARKHYANAM PASHUNAM MANSAM MEDHYAM VYAKHYATTAM. KHARGOPASTREN KHARGAMANSENANTYAM KALAM. TATHA SHERTBALERM ARTSYASYES MANSEN WAGHREENSASYA CHA – APASTARRIB DHARNTASUTRA  [2/7/16/25, 2/7/17/3]

That is, “The ancestors are appeased for one year. If the beef is served in their ‘Shraddha’, and they are appeased for more years if the meat of the buffalo is served in their ‘Shraddha.’ The same is applicable to the meat of hare, goat. etc. If the Brahmins, seated on the hide of rhino, are served with the meat of rhino, the ancestors are appeased for ever The same thing is applicable to the meat of the fish, named ‘Shatbali’.”

The Mahabharat too accepts the opinion of Apastamb Dharm­sutra. Thus says Anushasan Parva of the Mahabharat:

GAVAYEN DATTARN SHRADHE TU SANWATASARMIHOCHCHAYATT. 
-MAHABHARAT, ANUSHASAN PARVA 88/5

That is, ‘The ancestors are appeased for one year on being served with beef on the occasion of their ‘Shraddha’.”

The Puranas and the Smritis describe a man ‘RIKGAMAN’, if he refuses to eat the meat served in the ‘Shraddha’. THE MEANING OF THE WORD ‘RIKGAMAN’ IS TO BECOME ANIMAL FOR 21 BIRTHS. THUS IS ACCEPTED BY MANU:

NIYUKTASTU YATHANYAYAM YO MANSAM NATTI MANWAH. SA PRETYA PASHUTAM YATI SAMBHAWANEKVEENSHATEM.

-MANUSMRITI 5/35

That is, “One, who does not eat meat served in the ‘shraddha and ‘Madhupark’ becomes animal after his death for consecutive 21 births.”

Further says Manu in the Manusmriti:

KRATAU SHRADHE NEYOKTO WA ANSHANAN PAJIRAH DWEEZ

 -MANASMRITI 5/55

That is, “A BRAHMIN, WHO DOES NOT EAT MEAT SERVED IN THE ‘SHRADDHA’ AND A ‘YAGYA’ DENIGRATES FROM HIS POSITION.”

THE SIMILAR OPINION IS EXPRESSED BY THE KURMA PURAN (2/17/40).

THE VISHNU DHARMOTLAR PURAN (1/140/49-50) SAYS THAT A MAN, WHO DOES NOT EAT THE MEAT SERVED IN THE ‘SHRADDHA’, GOES TO HELL. THE SAME IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE HISTORY OF DHARMASHASTRA (VOL-3, PAGE-1244).

According to the Mahabharat any empire could be destroyed by the yagya performed with beef. There. is a tale in the Mahabharat which runs thus:

Yadrichchhaya mrita dristwa, gaastada nrisattam.

Ettan pushun nay kshipram Brarnhbandho yadichchhsi.

Sa tutkritya mritanam vat, mansani rnunisattam.

Juhay dhrirastrasya rastram narpateb pura

Awakeerne sarswattyastirthe prajalya pawkam

Bako dalbhayo Maharaj, niyam param esthirah.

Sa tairav juhawasya rastram mansaimarhalappa

Tansmistu vidhiwat satre, sampravrite sudarune.

Akshuyut tato rastram. Dhritrastrasya parlheev. 

Mahabharat, shalya Parva [41/8/14]

That is, “Take these dead cows, if you like,” said King Dhritrashtra to Dalmya. Dalmya performed a yagya at ‘AVAKIRN’, a place on the bank or river Saraswati. In the ‘havan’ he offered the beef of those dead cows. After completion of that yagya in the prescribed manner, the empire of Dhritrashtra began to get destabilized.”

At another place. the Mahabharat mentions thus.

Chhinnasthunam vrisham dristwa, velapam cha gwambhrisham. Gograhe yazawatasya. prekshmanah so partheevah.Swasti gobhyoastu loke tato nirvachanam kritam-Mahabharat Shanti Parva [265/1-3]

That is, “King Vicharakshu became very upset having seen the condition of cows, who were wailing over the killing of oxen for the yagya. Showing sympathy the king said, ‘May the cows live long,”

King Rantidev, if we believe the Mahabharat, achieved fame because he used to give beef in charity. Thus says the Mahabharat.

Rajo mahanase purve Rantideosay vai dweejah. Dwai sahastre tu vadhayate pashunamanvaham tada.Ahanyahni vadhayate dwe sahastre gawam tadha, Somansam dadro hyanannam rantidewasya nityashah.Nripasya dweejosattam. -Mahabharat Van Parva 208/209/8-10

That is, “For the kitchen of king Rantidev two thousand animals were slaughtered. Two thousand cows were slaughtered daily” As he used to give grains along with meat in charity, he achieved unparallel fame. After the study of this illustration even a layman can understand that even the Mahabharat sanctifies the charity of beef. Thus, the eating of beef, according to the Mahabharat, is a praiseworthy deed, and not condemnable as is being done today.

As regards the above-quoted illustration of the Mahabharat, some people have fallen prey to misconception. They go round to say that the illustration in question is a part or later additions to the Mahabharat. But to dispel their misconception, I would like to remind them that the above-verse is found in the 208TH CHAPTER OF CHITRASHALA edition and also in the 199TH CHAPTER OF BHANDARKAR ORIENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE EDITION. The authenticity of this verse is also accepted IN “THE HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE’, PUBLISHED BY BHARATIYA VIDYA BHAWAN, BOMBAY. And it is noteworthy that the editor of this book is THE RENOWNED HISTORIAN R.C. MAJUMDAR Thus says in the BOOK (VOL.2, PAGE 578): “THIS IS SAID IN THE MAHABHARAT THAT KING RANTIDEV USED TO KILL TWO THOUSAND OTHER ANIMALS IN ADDITION TO TWO THOUSAND COWS DAILY IN ORDER TO GIVE THEIR MEAT IN CHARITY.”

There is also a description of King Rantidev at another place in the Mahabharat, which says thus.

MAHANADI CHARMARASHERUTAKALEDAT SANSRIJE YATTAH.

TATASHCHARMANVALITEETYEVAM VEKHYATA SA MAHANADI,

 -MAHABHARAT, SHANTI PARVA 29/123

That is. “A RIVER OF BLOOD BEGAN TO FLOW OUT OF THE HIDES PEELED OFF THE COWS, WHICH WERE KILLED BY KING RANTIDEV. THAT RIVER CAME TO BE KNOWN AS ‘CHARMANVATI’ (CHAMBAL).”

This illustration of King Rantidev was also accepted by the great poet. Kalidas. In his ‘Meghdutam’ he says thus:

VYALAMHETHAH SURBHITNYA ALAMBHJAM MANYISHAYAN

 SHROTOMRITYAM BHOOVEE PARINTTRAM RANTIDEOSYA KRILEEM.

-MEGHDUTAM 45, 48, 49

That is, “O MEGH (CLOUD), SALUTE THE FAME OF KING RANTIDEV, FLOWING IN THE FORM OF A RIVER OF BLOOD OF THE COWS WHICH WERE KILLED BY HIM.”

Thus, we see that the slaughtering of cows commanded social as well as religious acceptance Also, it was esteemed as a status symbol in the society. Mallinath, the 14th century commentator on Meghdutam, also validates the episode of King Rantidev. He says thus.

PURA KILRAJO RANTIDEOSYA GAWALAMBHE SHWEKTRA SAMBHRITTAD RAKATNISHYANDACHCHARMARASHEH KACHCHINANDI SASYANDI SA CHARAMANVATITYAKHYAT ETTI.

Mallinath’s commentary on Meghdoottam­

That is, “In ancient time King Rantidev slaughtered the cows as a result, the blood began to flow like a river Because of its origin from the hides, that river came to be known as ‘Charmanvati.”

At one place the Mahabharat clarifies this episode as follows: Sankrite Rantideosya yam ratrimavssan grihe.

ALABHYATE SHATAM GAWAM SAHASIRANI CHA VINSHATIH.

-Mahabharat; Shanti Parva 29/179

That is, “ONE DAY A LARGE NUMBER OF GUESTS CAME TO THE PALACE OF KING RANTIDEV THEREFORE, HE LET TWENTY THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED COWS SLAUGHTERED”

In the light of above-mentioned episode of cow slaughtering by King Rantidev, it is clear now that the cows were slaughtered to feast the guests. In this context, this is also noteworthy to mention that in those days’ only two kinds of guests used to visit the king. They were either the Brahmins or the kshatriyas. Therefore, there is no room to doubt the religious and social sanctity accorded to beef eating. Before we discussed how the Brahmins had inclination to beef eating and in order to get the beef easily they made a number of provisions. But the circumstances began to change. The beef became the favourite food of the kshatriyas too. As a result, the kshatriyas broke the monopoly of the Brahmins over beef eating. Thereafter the right of Beef-eating was accorded only to the two caste the Brahminsand the kshatriyas.

This suggests that the guests of Rantidev, for whom he let twenty thousand and one hundred cows killed were either the Brahmins or the kshatriyas. In the light of such luminous facts I find it ridiculous to see a movement against cow slaughtering run by the very Brahmins who tried their best to reserve the right of Beef-eating only for themselves.

As the Beef-eating was prevalent among the Hindus, so was it the part of Buddhist life. The Buddhist literature bears the witness of this fact.

There is a tale in the TITIR JATAK (PAGE 438), which runs thus; ‘A jain became the Buddhist monk. He was pursuing his studies in an ‘Ashram’ along with five hundred students. That monk killed a cow, her calf and a ‘Goh’ and ate them. The cow and her calf lived in the same ‘Ashram’ and so did the ‘Goh’ in a burrow near the ‘Ashram.”

There is also a tale in the NADJUTTHA JATAK (PAGE-144), which runs thus: “There was a Brahmin, who was the great scholar of the Vedas. He made a hut in a forest. He resolved to establish ‘AGNI’ (fire) there and offer the meat of an ox in ‘AHUTI’. There came some hunters. In the absence of the Brahmin, who had gone to a village to bring the salt, they killed his ox and ate. The poor fellow, as the Brahmin was, his wish was not fulfilled. The offering of the meat of an ox to the Agni was not a new thing. In the society, where meat was cheaper than grains and fruits and the majority of people used to eat it, there was no value of the lives of the ox, the cow or the boar.”

The Buddhist literature also suggests that only a Brahmin did the slaughtering of cows and oxen. A WRITER OF ‘INDIAN CULTURE DURING THE JATAK ERA ALSO ACCEPTS THIS FACT.’ He says thus (PAGE 216); “IN THE JATAK TALES ONLY THE BRAHMIN IS DESCRIBED AS THE SLAUGHTERER OF COWS OR OXEN NO KSHATRIYAS USED TO KILL THE COW OR OX FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORSHIP OR FOOD NEITHER THE VAISHYAS NOR THE SHUDRAS USED TO KILL COWS ONLY THE BRAHMIN WAS THE SLAUGHTERER OF COWS DURING THE ERA OF JATAKS.”

Now this is quite clear that all the above-mentioned illustrations have been extracted from the Hindu scriptures – THE VEDAS, THE BRAHMINS, UPANISHADS, GRIHSUTRAS, DHARMASHASTRAS, ETC. and all of them Support the fact that in Hinduism beef-eating commands the religious sanctity. NOW EMERGES A PERTINENT QUESTION IF HE HINDU SCRIPTURES SANCTIFY THE BEEF EATING, ON WHAT GROUND ARE SOME PEOPLE STIRRING AN AGITATION AGAINST COW-SLAUGHTERING AND BEEF-EATING? On the one hand, these agitators accept the importance of ancient Hindu scriptures on the other hand; they are rejecting the directions or these very scriptures regarding the beef eating. This proves that they have no respect for their religious books. They make the analysis of their scriptures only keeping in mind (their self-interests.

As regards the beef eating, they are explaining there holy books among the Hindus on the lines very much suited to their self-interests. This analysis is not presenting the true spirit of the religious books amongst the Hindus. As a result, the Hindus are falling prey to the misconceptions about their religious dogmas. And the movement against cow slaughtering is the result of such misconceptions. Before stirring an agitation against cow slaughtering, the so-called religious leaders should study their scriptures, which clearly sanctify the beef eating. I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND ON WHAT GROUND THEY CLAIM THAT THERE IS NOT PROVISION OF BEEF EATING IN THE HINDU RELIGIOUS BOOKS.

Now a days an effort is being made in India to establish the society based on the principle of Manu, however, no clear-cut picture or its implementation is drawn out. The so-called protectors of Hinduism are going round to say that the slaughtering of cow is a sin. But these followers of Manu’s principle forget that the cow slaughtering does not find place in the list of sins described by MANU IN THE 54TH VERSE OF MANU SMRITI’S 11TH CHAPTER. This means Manu did not consider cow slaughtering as a sin. A QUESTION AGAIN HOUNDS ME IF MANU DID NOT RECOGNISE COW SLAUGHTERING AS A SIN, ON WHAT GROUND DO HIS FOLLOWERS CLAIM IT AS A SIN? THIS IS THE QUESTION THE HINDUS SHOULD ASK THEIR SO-CALLED RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

Also in the religious books, which were written after the Manusmriti, the beef eating is accorded with religious sanctity. The Vishnu Puran, which is the work of POST-MANUSMRITI ERA, also clarifies that beef commanded an important place in the performance of religious rites Thus says the Vishnu Puran:

HAVEESHYAMATSYAMANSAIASTU SHASHASYA NAKULASYA CHA.

 SAUKARCHCHHAGLAINEYA RORAGURAYEN CHA

 BHAGRAVAISHCHA TATHA MANSVRIDHYA’ PITAMAHA.

 PRAYANTE TRIPTIM MANSAIASTU NITYAM YADHINSAMISHAIH.

 -VISHNU PURAN [3/16/1-2.]

That is, “HAVI AND THE MEAT OF FISH, HARE, MONGOOSE, BOAR, GOAT, DEER (KASTURIYA MRIG), ANTELOPE AND COW SATISFY THE DEAD ANCESTORS ONE MONTH MORE RESPECTIVELY THE MEAT OF RHINO MAKES THEM SATISFIED ETERNALLY.”

Thus is said in THE BRAMHAVAIVART PURAN:

PANCHKOTI GAWAM MANSAM SAPUPAM SWANNMEV CHA.

 ETESHAM CHA NADI RASHI BHUNJAYATE BRAMHINANMUNE.

 -BRANHAVAIVART PURAN [1/61/98-99]

That is, “THE BRAHMINS HAD EATEN THE BEEF OF FIVE CRORES OF COWS AND ‘MALPUA’ (A KIND OF SWEET PUNS).” IN THIS KHAND, THERE IS ALSO THE DESCRIPTION OF A KING NAMED SUYAGYA. THE KING USED TO SERVE THE BRAHMINS DAILY WITH THE WELL-COOKED MEAT,

SNPAKWANI CHA MANSANI BRAMHINEBHASHCHA PARVATI.

 -BRANTHAVAIVART PURAN [1/50/12]

Further says this Puran:

GAWAM LAKSHAM CHHODANAM CHA HARINAANAN DWELAKSHAM.

CHATURLAKSHNAM SASHANAM CHA KURMANAM CHA TATHA KURU.

DASHLAKSHAM CHHAGALANAM BHETANE TACHCHTURGUNAM.

ETSHAM PAKWAM MANSANT BHOJNARTH CHA KARYA

 -BRAMHAVAIVART PURAN [1/105/61-63]

That is, “COOK THE MEAT OR ONE LAKH COWS, TWO LAKH DEERS, FOUR LAKH HARES, FOUR LAKH TORTOISES, TEN LAKH GOATS AND SHEEPS FOUR TIMES THE NUMBER OF GOATS”. Rukmi gave this order; the brother of Rukmi, on the occasion of the latter’s marriage.

The Bramhavaivart Puran also describes the ‘yagya’ performed by Adi Mann:

BRAMHNAANAM IRJKOTTNSHCHA HHOJYAMAS NETYASHA.

PAN CHGAWAM MANSAT SPUKWAIDHRTL SANSKRITAI:

CHAVATSHCHOSHOT  LENHYAPEYAIMISHTDRAVAI SUDURLABHE,

Bramhavaivart Puran 1/54/48 

That is, “MANU USED TO FEAST THREE CRORES OF BRAHMINS IN THE YAGYA’. THEY (BRAHMINS) WERE SERVED WITH THE BEEF OF FIVE LAKH COWS, WHICH WAS COOKED IN THE GHEE….”

Thus, THE ABOVE-QUOTED ILLUSTRATIONS ARE SUFFICE TO PROVE THAT THE BEEF WAS A LOVELY FOOD IN ANCIENT INDIA BUT TO MY GREAT SURPRISE, TODAY AN EFFORT IS BEING MADE TO REJECT THESE FACTS. EVERY MOVEMENT HAS ITS BACKGROUND AND A SOUND LOGIC. THE MOVEMENT, WHICH IS STARTED ON FALSE NOTIONS, COMMANDS NEITHER THE RESPECT NOR THE SUPPORT.

But the Hindus are easily enjoined to any religious movement, notwithstanding any logic behind it, And the reason thereof is not far to seek. Actually, this is the permanent feature of Hinduism to have such false notions, rites and superstitions. The movement against cow slaughtering is also the outcome of one of such false notions, but the people associated with this movement use to say that all these Illustrations are untrue. NOW I ASK THESE SO-CALLED HINDU RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHETHER THE VEDAS ARE UNTRUE, ARE THE SMRITIS BOGUS? ARE THE PURANS AND THE MAHABBARAT SETS OF FALSE ILLUSTRATIONS? IF YES, WILL THEY LIKE TO TELL WHICH IS THEIR RELIGIOUS BOOK? IF THEY DO NOT FALSIFY THEIR RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES, MENTIONED ABOVE, THEN WHY ARE THEY RIDICULING THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS BOOKS? I WANT TO SEEK THE ANSWER OF THIS QUESTION FROM THE SO-CALLED PROTECTORS OF HINDUISM. WILL THEY?

(c) THE GLORIOUS QUR’ĀN PERMITS EATING OF NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD. 

According to the Glorious Qur’ān:

1. Surah Ma’idah Chapter 5 Verse 1 (5:1)

“O you who believe! Fulfill (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals with the exceptions named: but animals of the chase are forbidden while you are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim grab: for Allah does command according to His Will and Plan.”

2. Surah Nahl Chapter 16 Verse 5 (16:5)

“And cattle He has created for you (men): from them you derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) you eat.”

3. Surah Mu’minoon Chapter 23 verse 21(23:21)

“And in cattle (too) you have an instructive example: from within their bodies we produce (milk) for you to drink; there are, in them, (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you; and of their (meat) you eat;”

The above Qur’ānic verses make it crystal clear that Muslims may have non-vegetarian food.

(D) QUR’ĀNIC VERSES MISINTERPRETED

Some ideological vegetarians try to prove from the Qur’ān that eating non-vegetarian food is prohibited and they quote:

Surah Hajj chapter 22 verse 37(22:37)

“It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allāāh, it is your piety that reaches him: He has thus made them subject to you, that you may glorify Allāāh for his guidance to you: and proclaim the good news to all who do right” 

This verse of the Glorious Qur’ān clearly states that unlike some other religions who believe that Almighty God requires meat and blood, in Islam when we sacrifice an animal neither the blood nor the meat reaches God but it is our piety, intentions, and righteousness while sacrificing that is taken into consideration.

That is the reason when a sacrifice of an animal is made during Eedul-Duha (Bakri-Eed) 1/3rd portion of the animal has to be given in charity to the poor people1/3rd has to be distributed amongst relatives and friends. A maximum of 1/3rd portion may be kept for the personal household consumption.

No portion of the animal’s flesh or blood is kept separately for Almighty God, because he does not require it.

Allah says in Surah A’naam Chapter 6 Verse 14 “Say: ‘shall I take for my protector any other than AIlah – the Maker of the heavens and the earth? And He it is that feeds but is not fed’. Say: ‘Not But I am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah (In Islam) and be not of the company of those who join gods with Allah’.     

“And He it is that feeds and not fed.”

ii. Another Verse quoted from the Glorious Qur’ān to misguide that slaughtering animals even for food is prohibited in IslaAm is:

Surah AI-Baqarah Chapter 2 Verse 205 (2:205). “When he turns his back, His aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loves not mischief.”

The Arabic word in this verse is “NasI” which has been translated by some translators as cattle. ‘Nasl’ actually means progeny. But irrespective of whether the translation chosen is cattle or progeny, if you read the verse in context with the previous verse it speaks about men whose main aim is to spread mischief in the world and such men do it by destroying crops and cattle or progeny and Allah loves not those who do mischief. This verse clearly indicate that if you destroy crops, cattle or progeny with an intention of spreading mischief in the land then Allah does not like it. It does not mention or mean that if you slaughter cattle for food Allah does not like an act.

I have quoted several verses of the Glorious Qur’ān that state that we can have all lawful animals for food.

(ii) GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION

1. GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT

Geographical location and surrounding environment influences the food habits of human beings.

(a) People living in the coastal regions of India e.g. Kokanis eat more fish.

(b) South-Indians are basically rice eaters.

2. DESERT AREAS:

In vast desert areas there are very few plants like dates and figs. Hence people’s staple diet is food obtained from animal sources.

3. ESKIMOS IN ARCTIC AND ANTARCTICA

Eskimos living in Artic regions where edible vegetation is scarce survive on non- vegetarian food mainly consisting of seafood.

(iii) PERSONAL CHOICE

1. Preference of food habits due to taste. smell. colour. etc.

Many people prefer certain foods due to their own personal choice. They may either find it tasty, find it to have a good aroma, or may like its colour. For e.g. mutton, chicken, fish, rice, wheat, mango, apple, etc.

2. Avoid food due to taste. smell. colour etc

Many people avoid certain foods due to their personal dislikes. They may either dislike its taste, aroma, colour, etc. e.g. fish, beef, brinjal, karela.

3. Personal choice: Some vegetarians find it repugnant to eat animal food but the same people readily drink their own urine. On the other hand most of the non-vegetarians will find it repugnant to drink their own urine. So it is a matter of personal choice for many people.

4. No objection on personal choice: If any human being does not have non-vegetarian food because he does not like its taste, smell or colour, we have no objection since it is not compulsory for a human being to have non-vegetarian food. Similarly if someone has non-vegetarian food because he likes to do so due to his personal choice, others should not object to his having non-vegetarian food.

Personal choice in matters of diet should not be interfered with, as long as it is not harmful for the person, the society and the environment in the longer run.

(iv) HUMANE OR ETHICAL REASONS

1. HUMANE REASONS: Some ideological vegetarians put forth so called ‘humane’ reasons for the prohibition of the eating of animal flesh. They argue that we should be kind and compassionate to the living creatures and should not inflict pain nor kill them. There are various societies that have emerged to protect ‘animal rights’. As long as these are logical and scientific, one could agree with them.

2.  ALL LIFE IS SACRED: According to ideological vegetarians all life is sacred. This belief can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, rats to spread plague, pests like white ants to destroy your home furniture or vipers to run loose in one’s premises.

According to Islam we cannot harm any living creature unnecessarily. If it is required for our own safety, security and sustenance, we are permitted to interfere in their life cycle. We are even allowed to slaughter lawful, permitted living creatures for food.

3. EVEN PLANTS HAVE LIFE:  Some people have adopted vegetarianism because they are totally against killing of living creatures. This ideology may have carried weight in the past. Today it is a known universal fact that even plants have life. Thus, even being a pure vegetarian does not fulfill the logic of not killing living creatures.

4.  EVEN PLANTS CAN FEEL PAIN
After it became a universal fact that even plants have life, the reasoning of pure vegetarians changed and they began to argue that plants cannot feel pain. Therefore according to them killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel pain.. But the cry of the plant can not be heard by a human being. The human ear can only hear sounds of the frequency between 20 cycles per second to 20,000 cycles per second (cps). Anything below or above this range cannot be heard by human beings. A dog can hear up to 40,000 cps, thus there are silent dog whistle that have frequency of more than 20,000 cps and less than 40,000 ops, These whistles are only heard by dogs and not by human beings. The dog recognizes the master’s whistle and comes to the master.

There was a research done by a farmer, who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant to the audible range of human being so that he could hear the cry of the plant. Thus, he was able to realize immediately when the plant cried for water. Latest researches show that not only the plants can cry but they can even feel happy and sad. They to have emotions.

Just because we are unable to hear cry of plants or realize the pain and torture inflected on plants as compared to animals, it does not justify our killing plants for food, but not animals.

5. KILLING A LIVING CREATURE WITH TWO SENSES LESS. IS NOT A LESSER CRIME: once an ideological vegetarian argued his case by saying that plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore he stated that killing a plant is a lesser crime than killing an animal. Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has two senses less as compared to other human beings. He becomes an adult and later someone murders him. Would you ask the judge to give the murderer a lesser punishment simply because your brother had two senses less?

On the contrary you would say that he has killed a “Masoom” an innocent person and insist that the judge should give the murderer a greater punishment for his cruelty.

(6)  KILLING A HUMAN BEING AND NON-HUMAN BEING: As far as human beings are concerned, living creatures can be classified into two categories: human beings and non-human beings. In the context of killing creatures other than humans, The Glorious Qur’ān Surah Ma’idah Chapter 5 Verse 32 (5:32) States:

“On that account we ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone slew a person -unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our Messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

In Islam killing any living creature. (Who is a non-human being). Unnecessarily or for Sport or for fun is prohibited, but if it is required for security, safety and sustenance, it is permitted. Thus killing any lawful living creature for food is permitted.

7. KILLING ONE ANIMAL IS BETTER THAN KILLING HUNDRED PLANTS

Even if I agree that among the non-human living creatures, plant is a lesser species as compared to the animal, by taking life of one average animal we can feed a hundred human beings at one time. But if we have to feed the same hundred human being with pure vegetarian food, more than a hundred plant lives will have to be taken. It is preferable to kill one animal than to kill hundred plants. Similarly a person who kills hundred handicapped human being is a greater criminal and sinner as compared to a person who kills one healthy human being.

8. WORLD FOUNDATION ON REVERENCE FOR ALL LIFE: There is an ideological, vegetarian society by the name of ‘World Foundation On Reverence For All Life. They forgot to mention in brackets ‘but plant life’. All life in English means all life, including plant and vegetation life, then how come they permit and support killing plant life for food?

9. MILK IS NON-VEG: One of main articles written in the first world convention held by this ‘World Foundation On Reverence For All Life’ is “101-reasons why I am a vegetarian” contributed by Viva Vegie society of New York, which I believe is a pure vegetarian society or a vegan society. According to them, milk being an animal product constitute non vegetarian food. I agree with them that milk produced from an animal is non-vegetarian food. Then why is it that most of the so-called vegetarians have milk?

10. ANIMALS FEEL PAIN WHILE MILKING: Ideological vegetarians, most of whom have milk, harp about ethical reasons and say pain should not be inflicted on animals. The same people fail to realize that when a cattle is artificially milked, it is very painful. Breast-feeding women who sometimes have to voluntarily extract their own breast milk due to some reasons it causes excruciating pain can very well realize this.

The first time when the cattle is milked, she resists due to pain but later she gets conditioned and may not resist.

11. WHY NOT DRINK THE MILK OF AN ELEPHANT?: I want to ask a simple question to Lacto Vegetarians: why don’t you drink the milk of elephants, which is also nutritious? The answer is very easy – it is because an elephant will not allow you to milk her due to the pain it causes her In short you are inflicting pain on the cattle and in the same breath speaking against cruelty to animals. How absurd.

12. ROBBING THE MILK MEANT FOR THE CALF: If you do not agree to the concept that cattle and certain animals have also been created as food for human beings, then how can you drink the milk of cattle which milk is meant for its offspring? Are you not robbing the milk of the calf and depriving it of its nourishment? If a cattle is not created for food for the human being then you are in plain English robbing the milk of the calf. Just because you are more powerful than the cattle, are you not applying the law of the jungle? Why this hypocrisy of the highest order?: 

13. TAKING STUDENTS TO SLAUGHTER HOUSES TO WITNESS BLOODSHED IS LIKE TAKING GIRLS TO WATCH A DIFFICULT CHILDBIRTH: In America students are converted to vegetarianism by taking them to slaughterhouses to witness blood shed. It is somewhat similar to discourage girls from marrying and having children by making them to watch a difficult childbirth. Both the practices are unethical forms of mind control.

14.  IF PLANTS AND CROPS CAN BE GROWN FOR FOOD THEN WHY CAN’T ANIMALS BE RAISED FOR FOOD?

The ideological vegetarians promote their view by the negative images of exploiting animals and of killing them for meat. If plants and crops can be grown and cultivated for selfish reasons, then why can’t animals be raised for food? In fact children should be introduced at an early age to the concept that animals are raised to produce food.

(v) ANATOMICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. HUMANS HAVE OMNIVOROUS SET OF TEETH: If you observe, the set of teeth that herbivorous animals (who only eat vegetation) like cow, goat, sheep, etc. have set of flat teeth that is suited for a herbivorous diet. On the other hand, the set of teeth that the carnivorous animals like lion, tiger. leopard etc. who only eat flesh of other animals have is of pointed type suited for a carnivorous diet. The set of teeth that human beings have consist of (molars) flat teeth as welt as (canine) pointed teeth. We have molars as well as canine teeth. The flat molars are used for chewing and are more required for a vegetarian diet, while the pointed canine teeth is more useful for eating and biting meat. If our creator, Almighty God, wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He provide us with pointed canine teeth? It is logical that He expects us to have both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

If you ask any dentist, he will confirm that human beings have omnivorous set of teeth meant for eating both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

2. POINTED TEETH IN HUMAN BEINGS ARE LIKE DOG’S AND NOT LIKE MONKEY’S

Some ideological vegetarians argue that the shame teeth in man’s mouth are not like the teeth of dog but are like the teeth of apes and monkeys who are vegetarian. However let us remind them that the shame pointed teeth of the human beings are called ‘canine’ teeth. Canine is derived from the Latin world ‘caninus’ which means dog. Canine literally means of a dog or belonging to the family of canidae including dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.

Even if we were to agree that pointed teeth of humans are like teeth of apes and monkeys, Let us point out also that all apes and monkey are not vegetarian-many species even eat meat.

3. HUMAN BEINGS CAN DIGEST BOTH VEGETARIAN AS WELL AS NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD: The  digestive system of the herbivorous animals can only digest. vegetarian food, The digestive system of the carnivorous animal can only digest meat, and not vegetarian food. But the digestive system of human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetarian food then why did he give us a digestive system, which can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food?

4. ARGUMENTS FAVOURING THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN ALSO DIGEST NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD:

(a) Human beings cannot digest raw meat like carnivorous animals

Normally human beings do not have raw meat but they cook their meat to soften it for easy digestion.

(b) Human being cannot digest certain raw vegetables and pulses

Similarly human beings cannot digest certain raw vegetarian food unless cooked like rice, wheat, moong, drumstick, etc which can easily be digested raw by herbivorous animals.

Just because human beings normally do not digest raw meat, does not make meat eating prohibited for us. Similarly, should several raw vegetarian foods that cannot be digested raw by human beings be prohibited?

(c) Eskimo literally means eaters of raw flesh

There are certain human beings like Eskimos who live in the arctic region, and eat raw flesh. Eskimos literally means eaters of raw flesh.

(d) Human digestive juice doesn’t contain cellulose enzyme like the herbivorous animals

The digestive juice of the human being does not contain cellulase enzyme like the herbivorous animals. Most vegetables contains cellulose which is not digested in the human intestine it consumed raw.

(e) Human digestive juice contains enzyme to digest non-veg.

There are certain enzymes present in the digestive juices of the human beings which are specifically used to digest non-vegetarian food e.g. trypsis, chymotrypsis, lipase, etc.

5. PRIMITIVE MAN WAS NON-VEG

The diet of the primitive man was mainly non-vegetarian. The Australian aborigines also eat non-vegetarian food.

6. HUMAN INTESTINE IS LIKE THE INTESTINE OF HERBIVOROUS ANIMALS

The human intestines are long, elastic and capable of pushing food ahead like the intestines of the herbivorous animals. It is unlike the intestine of the carnivorous animals, which are short and straight and their food transition time is lesser.

Since vegetables require longer intestine for digestion and absorption as compared to non-vegetarian food and since man is omnivorous, to digest both non-vegetarian food and vegetarian food, the human intestine has to be long.

7. LIVER AND KIDNEY OF HUMAN BEINGS IS LIKE HERBIVOROUS ANIMALS – IT IS SMALLER THAN THAT OF CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS

8. HCL CONTENT IN THE GASTRIC JUICE IN HUMAN BEING IS LESS AS COMPARED TO CARNIVOROUS ANIMAL

The HCL content in the gastric juice of human being is less as compared to carnivorous animal because HCL is needed to provide acetic media for the protein digestive enzyme, which are pepsin, trypsur, and chymotrypsin. Different animals have diflerent HCL content depending upon the amount of flesh eaten. Similarly the HGL content of the human being is appropriate to digest the amount of meat eaten and also considering the fact that the meat is cooked

9. BLOOD PH OF HUMAN BEINGS AND HERBIVOROUS ANIMALS ARE ALKALINE

Similarly the blood PH of the human being is alkaline.

10. BLOOD LIPO PROTEIN IN HUMAN BEING AND HERBIVOROUS ANIMAL IS SAME

11. SALIVA OF CARNIVORES ARE MORE ACIDIC THAN THAT OF THE HUMAN BEINGS

12.  HUMAN BEINGS LIKE HERBIVOROUS ANIMALS HAVE SKIN PORES AND WELL DEVELOPED SALIVARY GLAND.

13. PLANTS REGROW WHEN CUT BUT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH ANIMALS

Fruits ripen and fall, leaves are lopped off from the tree and new ones arise. Such a Phenomenon is neither possible nor seen in animals. Limbs when cut cannot grow again. There are certain animals, which have this function to regrow certain parts of their body for e.g. the skin of the snake and the tail of the lizard. If any part that regrows can be eaten, then will the vegetarians eat the tail of the lizard, which regrows? It is a delicacy for certain non-vegetarians. Will they apply the same logic?

(vi) BEHAVIOURAL CONSIDERATIONS

(1) NON-VEGETARIAN FOODS MAKES THE PERSON VIOLENT

(a) THE FOOD YOU EAT HAS AN EFFECT ON YOUR BEHAVIOR

Science tells us that whatever one eats has an effect on behavior. Thus, the non-vegetarians eat animal flesh and behave violent and ferocious like the animals.

(b) ONLY EATING OF THE HERBIVOROUS ANIMAL IS ALLOWED

I agree that, what a person eats has an effect on his behavior. Perhaps that is the reason why Islam Prohibits the eating of carnivorous animals like lion, tiger, leopard, etc. The consumption of the meat of such animals would probably make a person violent and ferocious. Islam only allows the eating of herbivorous animals like cow, goat, sheep, etc. that are peaceful and docile.

(c)  THE GLORIOUS QUR’ĀN SAYS PROPHET PROHIBITS WHAT IS BAD

The glorious Qur’ān says in Surah A`raaf Chapter 7 Verse 157 (7:157)

“Those who follow in the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM), whom they find mentioned on their own (Scriptures), in the law and the Gospel – for he commands them what is just and forbids them What is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him it is they who will prosper.”

And in Surah Hashr Chapter 59 Verse 7(59:7)

“What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from the people of the townships belongs to Allah, to His Messenger and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah Is strict in Punishment.”

For a Muslim, The Prophet’s (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM) statement is sufficient to convince him that Allah does not wish humans to eat some kinds of meat while allowing some other kinds.

(d) AHAADEETH OF MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROHIBITING EATING OF CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS

According to a Ahaadeeth narrated by lbn Abbaas in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim the Holy Prophet (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM) prohibited the eating of

i. Wild animals with canine teeth i.e. meat eating carnivorous animals. These are animals belonging to the cat families such as lion, tiger, cats, dogs, wolfs hyenas, etc

ii. Certain rodents like mice, rats, rabbits with claws, etc.

iii. Certain reptiles like Snakes, alligators etc.

iv. Birds preying with talons or claws, like vultures, eagles, crows, owl, etc;

(2) NON-VEGETARIANS ARE MORE SOCIAL AND LESS VIOLENT

There were a group of students, which were only fed on non-vegetarian. diet and another group of students were fed with pure vegetarian food. It was found that the group of students who were fed with non-vegetarian food were more social and less violent

(3) (A)  NOBLE PRIZE WINNERS FOR PEACE WERE NON-VEGETARIAN

The ideological vegetarian to prove their point that vegetarianism makes a person peaceful quote names like Mahatma Gandhi, failing to realize that most of the Noble-Prize winners for peace in this century were Non-vegetarians. Like Yasser Arafat, Anwar Saadat, Vitzah Rabin, Menachin Begin, Mother Teresa, etc.

(B)  HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN

Who was the person who had massacred and killed the maximum number of human beings in the world in the history of mankind? It was Adolf Hitler, who killed ‘6 million’ Jews. Who was he? He was a vegetarian. Now that the fallacy has been exposed and their counter argument proved wrong, they say that Hitler was a pure vegetarian is a myth, and he sometimes ate non-vegetarian food. I personally do not base my arguments that diet makes a person peaceful or violent by giving examples of individual personalities. There are more other important and relevant factors that make a person peaceful or violent than merely diet.

(4) NON-VEGETARIANS ARE MORE INTELLIGENT

(A) Ideological vegetarians claim that vegetarian diet makes a person more intelligent. In fact animal behavioural scientists have noted that to survive, meat eating predators must outsmart their vegetarian prey. However, all such theories and research break down because of the difficulty of defining intelligence.

(B) Most of The Noble Prize Winners Were Non-Veg. Ideological vegetarians, to prove their point that vegetarian diet enlightens the mind and makes a person intelligent, give a list of names of philosophers and scientists who were supposedly vegetarian like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Aristotle, Mahavir, etc. failing to realize that a list of greater scientists and philosophers who were non-vegetarian can be readily given. Almost all the latest scientific developments have been made by westerners, most of whom are non-vegetarian. Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad (SALLALLAHU ALAYHI WASALLAM) were non-vegetarian. More than 90% of the Noble Prize winners are non-vegetarian.

(5) VEGETARIANISM DOESN’T MAKE A PERSON STRONG

Giving isolated unheard examples of a few vegetarians who were in the Indian army and were strong (e.g. Yadunath Singh Naik) and then quoting unauthentic research that vegetarians are more energetic and strong is one of the most unscientific ways of proving a point, which way convince an ideological vegetarian, but certainly not a logical person. Almost all the winners of the world wrestling competition are non-vegetarian. All the people who got the title of Mr. Universe for bodybuilding are non-vegetarians. Arnold Schwarzenigger, the famous body builder who won 13 World titles, 7 Mr. Olympia, 5 Mr. Universe and 1 Mr. World is a Non-vegetarian.

(6) VEGETARIANISM DOESN’T MAKE A PERSON AN ATHLETE

The crusaders of vegetarianism further give unheard examples such as one successful athlete unheard of by the name Sardar Paramjit Singh who was a vegetarian. Almost all atheletes who hold world records are non-vegetarians. Carl Lewis is a non-vegetarian.

(7) CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS HAVE STRONG SENSE OF SMELL AND GOOD NIGHT VISION UNLIKE HERBIVOROUS ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEINGS

Crusaders of vegetarianism argue that carnivorous animals have strong sense of smell and good night vision but human beings are like herbivorous animals, who do not have strong sense of smell and vision. I agree that most of the carnivorous animals have strong sense of smell and vision but the reason is because such animals hunt their own food while growing up unlike human beings. It is totally wrong to say that none of the herbivorous creatures have strong sense of smell and vision. Bees have a very strong sense of smell and vision.

(8) SOUND OF CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS IS HOARSE UNLIKE THE HERBIVOROUS ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEINGS

Ideological vegetarians give illogical comparisons to prove their point of view and argue that the sounds of carnivorous animals are very hoarse unlike those of herbivorous animals and human beings. They try to put forth a point that vegetarian diet makes the voice melodious. Which animal is known maximum for its hoarse voice? It is general knowledge that it is the donkey and the donkey is a herbivorous animal.

Who is most well known for a melodious voice in India? – Lata Mangeshkar, is she a vegetarian or a Non-Vegetarian? NON-VEGETARIAN!

Muhammad Rafi was a Non-Vegetarian.

Who wass the most famous singer is the world today? Michael Jackson; who is a Non-Vegetarian. (Though most of us may not find him melodious)

By no way am I trying to prove that a non-vegetarian diet makes a person’s voice melodious. I am only disproving the illogical arguments put forth by crusaders of vegetarianism.

9. MOST OF THE WORLD RECORD HOLDERS ARE NON-VEGETARIAN:

If you analyse the dietary history of world record holders and after conceding maximum benefit of doubt to the vegetarians, yet we will find that more than 90% of the world record holders will be non-vegetarians. There may be a few records which may be related to the diet of a person but I would be considered a fanatic non-vegetarian if I were to say that all these records were won by them because they are Non-Vegetarians.

(vii) ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION

1. TO DERIVE ONE KG MEAT PROTEIN. ANIMAL HAS TO BE FED 7 TO 8 KG VEGETABLE PROTEIN

Some argue that vegetarian diet is much more economical because to derive one kg of meat protein, the animal has to be fed 7 to 8 kg of vegetable protein.

If these statistics are correct then I ask the vegetarians to thank the Non-Vegetarians for doing a great favour to them. If we non-vegetarians would not slaughter animals for food then these animals would live for another 5 to 10 years depriving 7 to 8 vegetarians of their food for a few years. We also lessen the burden of the vegetarian by not insisting on having his food.

2. LAND NEEDED TO GRAZE AN AVERAGE ANIMAL CAN SUSTAIN 5 AVERAGE HUMAN FAMILIES

Ideological vegetarians argue that land needed to graze an average animal can sustain 5 average human families. They further add that land, which will produce one ton of beef, will produce 10 to 20 tons of highly nutritious Veg. food.

· These people fail to realise that the animals graze on land unsuitable for crop cultivation. 

· Animals eat those portions of plants that are considered inedible (corn stalks and husks) by humans.

· By eating such inedible plant parts, they provide by-products and services that ease human bodies.

· Many nomadic populations survive on lands that lack-farming potentials by feeding on animals whose nourishment is coarse vegetation that humans can’t digest.

· Excluding the forest and pastures according to reports of United Nation and FAO, 70% of the land in the world is cultivatable but only 10 % is under cultivation. This means that 60% of the land which can be used for producing food is lying waste. Thus there is no question of scarcity of land for agriculture and no fear that the animals are using scarce land meant for crop cultivation.

3. BETTER TO USE  THE MILK OF THE COW THEN TO KILL IT:

I marvel the logic of Mr. Gopinath Agarwal who says that a cow on an average gives 10 kgs of milk per day i.e. 3000 Kgs of milk per year which can satisfy the hunger of 6000 people at a time. In its complete productive years a cow can satisfy the hunger of 90,000 people at a time. If the cow is killed then its flesh can not even satisfy a 1000 people at a time. Thus, concluding that killing a goose that lays a golden egg daily is never a wise proposition. No milkman is a fool to sell a milking cow to the slaughter house and neither is a butcher a fool to purchase a milking cow because a milking cow is multiple times more expensive than an old cow which has passed its’ age of productivity.

A milking cow in Mumbai costs 20,000 to 25,000 rupees while an old non-milking cow fetches only 3000 to 5000 rupees.

A cow lives for about 20 years and does not give milk for the first 4 to 5 years and the last 4-5 years. We are smarter. We kill the goose after it stops laying the golden eggs permanently so that we can benefit from all the golden eggs as well as the flesh of the goose. “Sanp bhi mare aur lathi bhi na toote.” In other words, killing two birds with one stone.

All off-springs of cows are not females and hence can not produce milk. Gopinath says that they can be used for pulling carts, transporting freight, plowing the fields, etc.,, all of which are cruelty to the animal specially when there are better alternatives in the field of science and technology. Even if I agree with him, only a small percentage of the millions of bullocks in India can be used for this purpose. What will happen to the remaining bullocks as well as the old non-milking cows and the old bullocks which cannot be used for labour? Only 25% of the available cows, bulls, oxes are useful to the owners and the remaining are unproductive. There are only four options, either:

i. We look after them properly and feed them which costs on an average 18000 rupees a year, which I doubt whether even 0.1% of the people may be doing.

ii. Give it to Jivdaya organisation which too cannot support them and hence leaves them free. These cattle invade the fields and eat crops and vegetable which are useful to human beings, thus incurring a greater loss.

iii. Transport them and leave these unproductive animals in jungles. Doing so will also cost a fortune. in the jungle, being weak, they will be easy prey to wild animals.

iv. The last option of giving such animals to slaughter houses is best for both. The owners may fetch a few thousand rupees and the animal will not have to die of hunger or become prey to the wild animals and die a slow ruthless and torturous death. Besides being slaughtered painlessly, they can be useful for human beings after their death. Their flesh can be used as food, their hide can be used as leather (shoes, chappals, belts, purses, valets, clothing, bags, etc..) and the bones for other uses (every one knows what is its use)

4. HUNDRED TIMES MORE WATER REQUIRED FOR NON-VEG.

According to Dr. Nemichand, meat eating creates serious problems of shortage of water because one pound of wheat requires 25 gallons of water while one pound of flesh requires 25,000 gallons of water. I am not interested in knowing from where he got these statistics but according to him shortage of water is due to the animals drinking water. THIS IS THE HYPOCRISY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. On one hand the vegetarians speak about animal rights and ask one and all not to be cruel towards them and on the other hand they blame the poor animals for drinking water and causing shortage of water. In Islam, according to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) it is mentioned in:

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 3 Ahaadeeth no, 551 and Saheeh Bukhari volume 8 Ahaadeeth no.38 “THAT THERE IS A REWARD FOR GIVING WATER TO A THIRSTY DOG AND ALSO FOR SERVING ANY ANIMAL.” It’s a common fact that 2/3rd of the world is occupied by water,  drinking water for the animals need not be purified like is done for human beings. Instead of solving the problem of providing the available water, Dr. Nemichand gives the solution of eradicating animals and solving your hypothetical problems of water shortage. WE MAKE BETTER USE OF THEM BY CONSUMING THEM AS LAWFUL FOOD.

5EAT THE ANIMALS WHO DIE NATURALLY:

R. Das director of Iskon Youth says that yet if the Non- Vegetarian insists on drinking milk, then they should only eat animals who die naturally.

I admire his great love for animals that he is willing to let human beings die just to save animals. It is an established medical fact that eating meat of dead animals is detrimental to human beings. Besides causing diseases like  Anthrax bacillus. Brucellosis, parteurella multocida, hemorihagic septicunia, flesh of dead animals causes heptospirosis which can even cause death. The Glorious Qur’ān prohibits dead meat in no Less than 4 places.

In Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 173  (2:173)

In surah Ma’idah chapter 5 verse 8  (5:8)  

In Surah A’naam chapter 6 verse 145  (6: 145)   

In Surah Nahl chapter 16 verse 115  (16:115)

6. IF CATTLE IS NOT SLAUGHTERED FOR FOOD THEN YOU HAVE OVER POPULATION OF CATTLE

If cattle are not slaughtered for food, then there will be over population of cattle. I am aware that for the sake of food, cattle are multiplied artificially. If this artificial multiplication is stopped along with stopping of slaughtering of cattle for food yet they will multiply. Our creator Almighty God has created the cattle also for food. No wonder that their gestation period is very short from 3 months to 6 months and they have several off-springs in a short period as compared to human beings. With most of the people practicing family planning birth control, it is plain logic that in the cattle where the reproductive growth is multiple times and with absence of family planning, the cattle population is bound to increase multiple times as compared to human population. How will we solve the problem of over population, which will cause a phenomenal loss to the human beings if the cattle are not slaughtered for food?

7. NO HARM IN PAVING MORE MONEY FOR GOOD QUALITY FOOD

Even if the animal protein is more expensive than the vegetable protein but the animal protein is of a higher quality then what is the problem if a person is willing to pay more money to buy a better quality of food or a food of his personal choice if he can afford it?

It is similar to some one saying it is foolish of the rich people to buy one square feet of apartment space for 25,000 rupees in South Mumbai when the same one square feet of apartment is available for less than one thousand rupees in distant suburbs.

8. VEGETABLES ARE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MEAT IN WESTERN COUNTRIES

In India, vegetarian food is cheaper than non-vegetarian food but in western countries it is the opposite. vegetarian food is more expensive than the non-vegetarian food and fresh vegetables cost phenomenal amounts. This is the reason why mainly rich and affluent people as a vogue have adopted vegetarianism. With all the crusading of vegetarianism, less than 1% of Americans are pure vegetarians, according to American Council of Science and Health.

(viii) NUTRITIONAL VALUE

1. DR. GEORGE R. KERR’S STATEMENT

According to Dr. George R. Kerr who is a professor of nutrition, and international and family health at the university of Texas U.S.A., “The authors of virtually all popular diet disease books … advance hypothesis that are untested, ill tested, unfounded, unlikely or disproved.”

2. PROTEIN OF NON-VEG. IS OF HIGHER QUALITY

Protein is broken in the body into amino acid and there are 22 known types of amino acid, out of which 14 are non-essential, which are manufactured naturally in the body while 8 are essential amino acids, which cannot be manufactured naturally within the body and must be obtained from our food.

PROTEIN OF ANIMAL ORIGIN ARE BIOLOGICALLY COMPLETE PROTEIN OR HIGHER QUALITY PROTEIN SINCE THEY CONTAIN ALL THE 8 ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS REQUIRED BY THE HUMAN BODIES.

The protein from vegetable sources are biologically incomplete protein as they lack one or more of the 8 essential amino acids. However, this deficiency in protein can be controlled even by a pure vegetarian diet but care should be taken that different vegetarian food should be mixed in the correct proportion to fulfill the need of all the amino acid. Many Indians who obtain their proteins from cereals and pulses have deficiency of methionenine (the essential amino acids are leucine, iisoleucine ratine, lysine, tryptophan, threonine, methionine and phenyhalanine.)

3. ALL ESSENTIAL FATTY ACIDS PRESENT IN MEAT

Similarly there are essential fatty acids i.e. poly unsaturated fatty acids which are not synthesized in the body and have to be provided in the food. Meat contains all the essential fatty acids but no Single Veg source contains all the essential fatty acids. (Essential fatty acids are linoleic acid, linolenic acid and arachidonia acid.)

4. NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD CONTAINS HAEM-IRON

There are 2 forms of dietary iron: Haem iron which is present in animal products and Non-Haem iron which is present in foods of animal and plant origin. Haem iron is much better absorbed than the non Haem iron. Vegetarians thus have limited intake of Haem, which increases the risk of iron deficiency and anemia. This is more common iron amongst vegetarian milk fed infants and women who are either prone to loosing more amount of iron during menstruation or reduced iron intake while dieting.

Meat, poultry and fish also help the body to absorb more non Haem iron. It is beneficial for humans to consume meat and vegetables together to get the maximum iron absorption. Vitamin ‘C’ also helps in non-Haem iron absorption.

5. QUANTITY OF PROTEIN MAY BE MORE IN CERTAIN VEGETABLES BUT NOT QUALITY

Crusaders of vegetarianism circulate food value charts showing that the protein content, as well as the iron content of various vegetarian food are higher than flesh food. They attempt to prove that vegetarian food is more nutritive and provides more protein compared to Non-Vegetarian food.

Most of the people are unaware that the vegetable proteins are biologically incomplete and of an inferior quality as compared to animal proteins, which are biologically, complete. Neither are people aware of the absorption of Haem iron and non-Haem iron. Which is more valuable? Ten notes of Rs 10 each or one note of Rs. 500/-?

6. VEGETARIAN FOOD IS DEFICIENT IN VITAMIN B 12

Vegetarian food is deficient in vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 deficiency normally is more due to defect of absorption and rarely due to dietary reason. Though dietary deficiency of vitamin B 12 is rare, it is serious and observed mainly in vegetarians.

According to the crusaders of vegetarianism their research states that two types of seaweed “Wakame” and “Kombo” have been found to contain vitamin B 12. How many vegetarians have heard the name of these two sea weeds and how many consume it in their diet?

7. DEFICIENCY OF ZINC IN VEGETARIAN FOOD

Vegetarian food is deficient in Zinc. Meat is an important source of dietary Zinc. However, certain vegetarian food like pumpkin is rich in zinc.

8. IODINE ABUNDANT IN SEAFOOD AND NEGLIGIBLE IN VEGETARIAN FOOD.

Iodine, which is important for producing thyroid hormones, is present in abundant quantity in seafood and present in poor to negligible quantity in vegetarian food.

9.  CARBOHYDRATES AND VITAMIN C NOT PRESENT IN NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD’

Carbohydrates and vitamin C are not present in non-vegetarian food but abundant in vegetarian food and fruits which are also eaten by Non-Vegetarians. THIS, FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF NON-VEGETARIAN, SINCE THEY DO NOT PLACE UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR DIETARY HABITS

10EGG IS A NUTRIENT – DENSE FOOD

Eggs have very high nutritive value

i. One large egg provides about 6 grams of proteins about half of which is in the egg white. The white of the egg is an ideal protein – the one by which all others are measured because it contains all the amino acids needed for human nutrition and offers them in the proper balance it.

ii. Eggs are a significant source of iron, riboflaven, folate and vitamin B12, D and E. Eggs are one of the very few foods that supply vitamin D. Just about the only nutrient not found in an egg is vitamin C.

iii. Eggs are easily digested, making them valuable dietary component for people who are ill or convalescing.

iv. Of the 5 grams of fat in a large egg, more that half is unsaturated that does not raise blood cholesterol level.

v. Eggs don’t provide an abundance of any one nutrient but offer substantial amount of a wide variety, thus eggs are called as nutrient-dense food. It means that they provide relatively high proportion of essential nutrients while supplying only a relatively small number of calories that is about 70 calories for a large egg.

11. VEGETARIAN BABIES ARE LESS HEALTHY

Generally speaking vegetarian babies are less healthy. During the first six months when babies are breast fed, the growth is satisfactory. During weaning between 6 and 18 months their growth can be retarded Vegetarian infants normally start on a relatively high fibre diet which suppresses digestibility causing slower growth, smaller stature and leaner body. Between 2 to 5 years they catch up with the Non-Vegetarian children.

Nutritional deficiency which pose the greatest threat to vegetarian infants are deficiency in vitamin B 12, Vitamin D, Retinol and C 20 – 22 poly unsaturated fatty acids.

12.  PREVENTION OF NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY IS POSSIBLE BUT DIFFICUIT

Pure vegetarian diet can supply the required nutritients and prevent most of the nutritional deficiency but it should be carefully planned, monitored and the quantity balanced along with the correct variety of vegetarian food. Such variety of vegetable food should also be available and the person should like all the required food.

In a non-vegetarian diet all this detailed meticulous planning is not required because most of the non-vegetarian food contain the required essential nutrients.

1. ISLAMIC METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMAL SEEMS RUTHLESS

People ask why do Muslims slaughter the animal in a ruthless manner by torturing it and slowly and painfully killing it?

Before giving a detailed explanation one small joke, once a Sikh asked a Muslim why do you slaughter the animal painfully by cutting the throat instead of the way we do by one stroke i.e. ”Jhatka” and the Muslim replied that we are brave and courageous and attack from the front-we are “marad ka baccha”, while you are cowards and attack from behind. This was just a joke.

2. ISLAMIC METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS.

“Zakkaytum” is a verb derived from the root word “zakah” (to purify). Its infinitive is Tazkiiyah, which means purification.

The Islamic mode of slaughtering on animal requires the following conditions to be made:

I. Animal slaughtered with sharp object (knife) Al Shaddad Bin Aous has quoted this tradition of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) “God calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter, sharpen your blade to relieve its pain”.

II. Cut the wind pipe, throat and vessels of neck

Zabiha is an Arabic word, which means slaughtered. The slaughtering is to be done by cutting the throat, wind pipe and the jugular vein in the neck causing the animals’ death without cutting the spinal cord.

III. Blood should be drained out:

The blood has to be drained completely before the head is removed. The purpose is to drain out most of the blood, which would serve as a good culture medium for micro organisms. The spinal cord must not be cut because the nerve fibres to the heart could be damaged during the process causing cardiac arrest, stagnating the blood in the blood vessels…

3. BLOOD IS A GOOD MEDIA OF GERMS AND BACTERIA

Blood is a good media of germs bacteria, toxins etc. therefore the Muslim way of slaughtering is more hygienic as most of the blood is drained out.

4. MEAT REMAINS FRESH FOR A LONGER TIME

Due to deficiency of blood in the meat, meat slaughtered by the Islamic way remains fresh for a longer time as compared to other methods of slaughtering

5. ANIMAL DOESN’T FEEL PAIN

The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood of the nerve of the brain. Thus, the animal does not feet the pain while dying. The animal while dying struggles; writhes shakes and kicks not due to pain but due to the flow of blood out of the body.

6. MANY DISEASES TRANSMITTED BY MEAT CAN BE PREVENTED BY ‘ZABIHA’

Thus by slaughtering the animal by the Islamic method, Zabiha and There by removing most of the blood from the animal’s body, many diseases which are acquired by eating non-vegetarian food can be prevented since the media for transmission of such diseases is blood which contains toxins, bacteria, germs, etc.

7. WHY ISLAMIC METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS IS BETTER? A SCIENTIFIC REASON

Many allegations have been made that Islamic slaughter is not humane to animals. However, Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) that *Islamic slaughter is THE humane method of slaughter* and captive bolt stunning, practiced by the Western method, causes severe pain to the animal. The results surprised many.

Experimental Details:

1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain. 

2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks. 

3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid Arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and esophagus Halal Method. 

4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt
pistol humane slaughter by the western method. 

5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded
 on all animals to record the condition of the brain
and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.

Results and Discussion: I – Halaal Method

1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not
feel any pain during or immediately after the incision. 

2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition
of deep sleep – unconsciousness. This is due to a large
quantity of blood gushing out from the body. 

3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded
zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all. 

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer. 

II – Western method by C.B.P. Stunning

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning. 

2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning. 

3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halaal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer. 

7. HYGIENIC CONDITIONS AND COOKING MEAT WELL

Most of the diseases that are transmitted through meat can be easily prevented by adopting hygienic conditions and cooking the meat very well, which destroys the ova, germs and bacteria.

8. PORK THE CAUSE OF SEVERAL DISEASES IS PROHIBITED BY ISLAM

Eating pork the flesh of swine causes many dangerous diseases. Certain ova present in pork cannot be destroyed under normal cooking conditions. Pork itself is a cause of no less than 70 different diseases including schaemic heart diseases. This is one of the several reasons why pork is prohibited in Islam. According to the Glorious Qur’ān:

Allah says in Surah Al- Baqarah Chapter no.2 verse no.173 (2:173)

“He has only forbidden you, dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name has been invoked besides that of Allah.”

In Surah Al-Ma’idah Chapter no.5 verse 3(5:3)

“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah: That which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; That which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; Unless you are able to slaughter it (in due form), that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (Forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I Perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.”

In Surah A’naam Chapter no.6 verse 145 (6:145)

“Say: I find not in the Message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine for it is an abomination or what is impious (meat) on which a name has been invoked other than Allah’s but (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits-your Lord is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.”

In Surah Nahl Chapter no.76 verse 115 (16:115)

“He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits – then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

5. EATING IN EXCESS IS PROHIBITED:

The Glorious Qur’ān mentions in Surah Taha chapter 20 verse 81 (20:81):

(Saying): “Eat of the good things We have provided for your sustenance, but commit no excess therein, lest My Wrath should justly descend on you: and those on whom descends My Wrath do perish indeed.”

Eating in excess is prohibited in Islam. This in itself is a preventive measure for several diseases.

6PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE:

By following Islamic guide-lines, most of the diseases caused by eating non-vegetarian food can be prevented.     

1. Islamic method of slaughtering the animal and letting the blood flow of its body

2. Maintaining hygienic conditions and cooking the food very well.

3. Abstaining from eating pork

4. Abstaining form eating in excess.

7. WATER SHOULD BE PURIFIED AND NOT PROHIBITED IF DISEASES CAN BE TRANSMITTED

Several diseases can be transmitted through water such as

I.   Cholera

II.  Typhoid

III. para-Typhoid

IV. Bacillary Dysentery

V.  Ameabiosis

VI. Giardiasis

VII.  Round Worm

VIII   Thread Worm

IX.    WhipWom

X.     Viral hepatitis

XI.    Polio Myelitis

XII.   And several other

The solution for preventing these diseases is not to prohibit the drinking of water but to purify the water. Similarly eating non-vegetarian food should not be prohibited but proper preventive measures should be taken.

8. NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD IS NOT THE ONLY CAUSE OF SCHAEMIC HEART DISEASES

Increased fat and cholesterol in the diet leads to its depositions on the walls of the blood vessels causing schaemic heart disease IHD. Non-vegetarian food is rich in cholesterol but is not the only cause of IHD. There are several vegetarian food such as ghee butter, cashewnut, groundnut, coconut, groundnut oil, coconut oil, which are rich in cholesterol, also cause schaemic heart diseases. The statement of Dr. Nemichand that no vegetarian food of any kind has cholesterol is a big hoax. Such deliberate statements are made by crusaders of vegetarianism to mislead the general public. Even the educated house wife is aware that ghee, coconut oil, groundnut oil are also the cause of IHD. No wonder brands such as saflola oil are advertised in the media that they are free from causes of heart diseases

9. EGG IS RICH IN CHOLESTROL BUT NOT THE ONLY THING RESPONSIBLE

Eggs are rich in cholesterol. Recent studies indicate that the chief villain in raising serum cholesterol is not the cholesterol in our diets but rather the saturated fats which are mainly found in the animal fat such as lard and butter, and in coconut oil, etc.

Research also shows that about 2/3rd of the population experiences only a small increase in blood cholesterol after consuming high levels of dietary cholesterol. In these cholesterol non-responder the liver compensates for increase in dietary cholesterol by cutting back on its own cholesterol production. As a result the total amount of cholesterol reaching the blood stream remains the same. Only if you are a cholesterol responder, you will have to restrict your egg yolk consumption. Others can easily have one or two eggs daily without any problem.

10. PORK IS THE MAJOR CAUSE AMONGST NON-VEGETARIANS FOOD FOR IHD

Pork is the major cause amongst Non-vegetarians for IHD. Pork has more of fat building material than muscle building material. These fat get deposited on the walls of the blood vessels causing atherosclerosis and thus IHD. Thanks god Eating of pork is prohibited in Islam.

The real reason for the cause of IHD is the fried egg and bacon breakfast, which is very popular in America. It is not the cholesterol in the egg but the saturated fat in bacon and the bacon grease or butter that the eggs are fried in.

11. ALCOHOL AND SMOKING IS ONE OF THE MAJOR CAUSES OF IHD

Consumption of alcohol and tobacco, including smoking, all of which are vegetarian products are the major causes of IHD.

Studies conducted amongst the Americans showed that IHD was more prevalent in non-vegetarian than vegetarians. One of the main reasons was the associate factors of the vegetarians in America. Many of whom abstain from alcohol and cigarette smoking.

Both alcohol and cigarette smoking are prohibited in Islam

12. OBESITY IS PRESENT IN BOTH VEGETARIANS AND NON-VEGETARIANS FOOD.

It is false propaganda to say that obesity is mainly caused by non-vegetarian food. The cause of obesity is over eating a diet rich in fat. Thus, obesity is found both in vegetarians and non-vegetarians. It is commonly also seen that some pure vegetarians consume a lot of butter, ghee and oil, all of which are rich in fat.

13. EXCESSIVE MEAT EATING CAUSES CANCER OF COLON

One of the causes for cancer of the colon is excessive eating of meat along with less intake of fibrous food. Fibres help in movement of food in the intestine. Cellulose present in vegetables cannot be digested in the human body due to tack of cellulose enzyme, which is present in all herbivorous animals. These undigested fibres help in the passage of food through the intestine and also prevents constipation.

The main cause of cancer of the colon is not the meat in the diet but lack of fibres to prevent cancer of colon. The diet need not be meat free but instead has to be rich in fibrous food. Another very important cause of cancer is consumption of alcohol chewing of tobacco and smoking cigarettes.

Along with the seventh day Adventists most of whom abstain from smoking and drinking alcohol, the incidence of cancer of colon was low, but the proportion was the same in vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

CONCLUSION

STATEMENT OF AMERICAN COUNCIL ON 
SCIENCE AND HEALTH

i. According to the American Council on Science and Health “it is not necessary to give up meat and become a vegetarian to enjoy the benefits of a healthy diet.

ii. Young people who become vegetarian for ethical or environmental reasons may also be placing their health at risk. Often, these young vegetarians lack the knowledge and motivation needed to plan healthful vegetarian meals.

iii. According to Worslay  “Healthy eating requires moderation and informed choice. It should not be necessary to totally eliminate a particular food group to sustain good health. Human kind has survived on an omnivorous diet since its origin and premature death is more closely linked to accidental death than to eating meat”.

2. TOPIC IS NOT WHETHER VEGETARIAN OR NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD IS HEALTHIER

The topic is not whether vegetarian or Non-vegetarian food is healthier but it is “Is Non-Vegetarian food permitted or prohibited for a human being”.

3. NO KIND OF PROHIBITION ON EATING NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD AND ALL MISCONCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED

(a) I have refuted and clarified all the misconceptions of the so-called possible reasons and arguments for the prohibition of Non-vegetarian food for a human being.

Who has a right to put a prohibition on food habits of human beings? In Islam it is Creator Almighty God. Non-Muslim may add the government for the welfare of its people or an authentic medical health organisation based on established scientific medical facts.

(b) NO MAJOR RELIGION’S PROHIBITION:

All the major religions of the world permit the consumption of lawful non-vegetarian food in general and cattle in particular. There is no prohibition from a single major religion of the world on eating non-vegetarian food.

(c) NO GOVERNMENT HAS PROHIBITED NON-VEGETARIAN.

I do not know of a single government out of the hundreds of countries in the world irrespective of their beliefs, race, caste, creed they may belong to has ever prohibited non-vegetarian food in general.

(d) NO AUTHENTIC MEDICAL HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS PROHIBITED NON-VEGETARIAN

I do not know of a single authentic medical health organisation, which has banned all non-vegetarian food in general due to, established scientific. Medical facts. I do not base my conclusions done by crusaders of vegetarianism.

There is not a single authentic medical book, which is considered as an authentic reference book for medical studies like Harrison makes a statement that all Non­ vegetarian food in general, i.e. food of animal products should be prohibited for all human beings in the world. I am not referring to books likeMeat eating 100 faults” by Dr Nemichand or “Vegetarian or Non-vegetarian”- choose yourself. written by Gopinath Agarwal, which will put to shame even a pragmatic vegetarian nor diet books which are not based on scientific facts.

4. SALIENT POINTS WHY NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD IS PERMITTED FOR HUMAN BEINGS:

Not a single major religion prohibits all non-vegetarian food in general

Now emerges a pertinent question if he Hindu scriptures sanctify the beef eating, On what ground are some people stirring an agitation against cow-slaughtering and beef-eating?

I fail to understand on what ground they claim that there is not provision of beef eating in the Hindu religious books.

If Manu did not recognise cow slaughtering as a sin, on what ground do his followers claim it as a sin? This is the question the Hindus should ask their so-called religious leaders.

What would the Eskimos living in the Arctic regions eat where edible vegetation is hardly found?

If all life is sacred then why kill plants, which also have life?

Plants can even feel pain.

Killing a non-human living creature of two senses less is not a lesser crime.

Sacrificing one animal life is better than 100 plant’s lives

Whether milk is non-vegetarian is debatable.   

Even animals feel pain while milking.

If animals are not created for food then drinking milk is robbing the milk meant for the calves.

If plants can be grown for food then why can’t animal be raised for food?

Human being have omnivorous set of teeth for eating both vegetarian food as well as non-vegetarian food.

Human beings can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

Primitive man was non-Vegetarian.

Meat protein doesn’t cause scarcity of edible vegetable protein.

Raising animals for food doesn’t cause scarcity of land for agriculture.

It is wrong to assume that if we have meat of the cattle we are deprived of its milk. We can have both meat as well as the milk of the cattle.

If cattle is not slaughtered for food then there will be over population of cattle.

Vegetables are not always cheaper than non-vegetarian food.

Even if non-vegetarian is more expensive there is no harm in paying more money for good quality food.

Protein of non-vegetarian is biologically a complete protein and of a higher quality.

All essential fatty acids are present in meat

Non-vegetarian contains more Haem iron, which is more easily absorbed.

Non-Veg food also contains vitamin B 12, Zinc and Iodine.

Egg is a nutrient dense food

Prevention of nutritional deficiency is possible in Vegetarian food but it should be planned and regulated very carefully and meticulously.

Many diseases transmitted through blood can be prevented in Non-Veg food by slaughtering the animals in the Islamic way and letting the blood flow out.

Maintaining the hygienic conditions and cooking meat well can prevent several diseases

Abstaining from pork can prevent several diseases.

Food rich in fat irrespective whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian causes IHD.

Egg is rich in cholesterol but is not solely the cause of IHD

According to ACSH it is not necessary to give up meat and become a vegetarian to enjoy the benefits of healthy life.

No government in the world has banned all non-vegetarian food in general.

No authentic medical book has prohibited all non-vegetarian food in general.

Now I ask these so-called Hindu religious leaders whether the Vedas are untrue, Are the Srnritis bogus? Are the Purans and the Mahabbarat sets of false illustrations? If yes, will they like to tell which is their religious book? If they do not falsify their religious scriptures, mentioned above, then why are they ridiculing their own religious books? I want to seek the answer of this question from the so-called protectors of Hinduism. Will they?

In the life of the followers of a religion, religious injunctions play very important role. If the Vedas and other Hindu religious books sanctify the beef eating. Where is the room for its opposition? Does the opposition of beef eating not show clumsiness? They must accept the truth they should go into the depth why the cow was made to be esteemed as mother, while the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures sanctify its sacrifice and beef eating

5. ANSWER ALL 38 POINTS TO PROVE THAT NON-VEGETARIAN IS PERMITTED

All the above 38 points prove that non-vegetarian is permitted and not prohibited for a human being.

6. Every movement has its background and a sound logic. The movement, which is started on false notions, commands neither the respect nor the support

7. I AM NOT A FANATIC OR IDEOLOGICAL NON-VEGETARIAN

I am not a fanatic or ideological non-vegetarian but a pragmatic non-vegetarian. Even if you does not reply to all the 38 points I will not compel you to become a non- vegetarian. But I would surely request you that never ever to mention again that Non-Vegetarian food is prohibited in general for human beings and secondly not to distribute and promote such unauthentic, illogical thoughts and literatures.