Category Archives: Answering Hindu Cult

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.

  

Islamic Ruling about Yoga

Question: Is it permissible for us as Muslims to practice yoga, as it is originally a kind of Hindu worship?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly: 

There are differences of opinion among contemporary scholars on the ruling on practising yoga. Some of them are of the view that it is not allowed at all, others are of the view that it is permissible without any reservations. Yet others differentiated between some of its practices and others; they allowed those that are in accordance with shari‘ah and forbade those that are contrary to it. 

None of them denied – as far as we know – that the origin of this practice stems from idolatrous Hindu beliefs then Buddhism. Hence those who allow it in all cases took away from it anything that has to do with beliefs and spiritual matters, and passed the ruling on it on the basis that it is regarded as physical exercise. Those who forbade it did so because of its religious origins and the resemblance to those idol worshippers, and because of the harm it causes to the body, and other reasons. As for those who differentiate between one type and another, their opinion is not acceptable because it is not possible to eliminate the bad and because people are not able to distinguish between what is permissible and what is forbidden in it. 

So it is both spiritual and physical exercise which was originally aimed at reaching oblivion and entering into a state of connection with God!

In the book al-Yoga wa’l-Tanaffus (yoga and breathing) by Muhammad ‘Abd al-Fattaah Faheem (p. 19), it says: 

“Yoga in the sacred Indian language means union and contact with God, i.e., union between the body, the mind and God which helps man attain knowledge and wisdom and develops his thought by developing his knowledge of life; it protects him from sectarianism, religious fanaticism, narrowmindedness and shortsightedness when searching; it makes him live a life of contentment both physically and spiritually.” 

In al-Mu‘jam al-Falsafi by Jameel Sulayba (2/590) it says:

“Yoga is a Sanskrit word which means union; it is used to refer to a kind of spiritual exercise that is practised by the wise men of India for the purpose of union with the universal spirit. Yoga is not a school of philosophical thought; rather it is an artistic way of doing some exercises that release the soul from physical and mental gravity and take it step-by-step towards reality. The Yogi is the wise man who practices this way.” End quote.

Both quotes taken from Mazaahirat al-Tashabbuh bi’l-Kuffaar fi’l-‘Asr al-Hadeeth wa Atharuha ‘ala al-Muslimeen.

In the definition of Yoga we see that it means union, i.e., union of man with the spirit, which is the universal spirit, by which they mean God. Hence the aim of this practice is to be a way of combining all other religions. Dr Ahmad Shalabi – who is a specialist in the religions of India – says:

“The union of Buddha with the Hindu gods is nothing but a return to belief in ‘Jnana Yoga’ i.e., the ‘path of knowledge’ which sees truth in all religions and philosophies. But this truth is only a particle of the greater, complete truth. This school of thought does not object to any religion or philosophy; it thinks that any religion or philosophy is not everything and is not the whole truth. The one who believes in this way of thinking does not belong to any religion or school of thought, because he regards the followers of all different religions as his brothers, no matter how they differ. So Jnana Yoga is a way that encompasses all beliefs and refuses to be restricted by any of them. We should highlight the fact that propagating and promoting this way of thinking is aimed at fighting Islam indirectly. I have seen these attempts in several countries. Islam is the force that defeated both Christian and Buddhist missionaries, so if they can manage to divert people in one way or another – even in the name of Jnana Yoga that encompasses all beliefs and does not restrict itself to any one of them – that is a great victory for them. After they have managed to divert the Muslim from Islam at the end of this smart trick, then it is possible to make him doubt and then pull him into another sphere. So let the Muslim beware of Yoga and its trickery and those who promote it.” [Adyaan al-Hind al-Kubra , p. 174]

We think that forbidding it altogether is the correct approach. We have studied the words of many concerning this practice, and we have decided to sum up the comments on it from a book that deals specifically with the ruling on this practice, by a writer whom we trust with regard to his methodology and beliefs; he is a doctor who knows what he is saying when he criticises it even from a health point of view. This writer is Dr Faaris ‘Alwaan and his book is called al-Yoga fi Mizaan al-Naqd al-‘Ilmi , which was published in Cairo. Everything that we will quote below is from this book, but it should be noted that we cannot quote everything that it says in the book. Hence we will limit it to a definition of this practice and the discussion of the Islamic ruling on it; whoever wants to know more may refer to the book.

Secondly:

What is Yoga?

Yoga means union; one of its prominent teachers says that it is union of man with the spirit.
Yoga involves various exercises and rituals, but the most important and most famous of them is an exercise called Surya Namaskar [known in English as the “Sun Salutation”], which means in Sanskrit: “prostration to the sun on eight parts of the body”. And they defined these parts as the two feet, the two knees, the two hands, the chest and the forehead.

It is preferable for the one who practices yoga to be naked, especially the chest, back and thighs; to face the sun when it is rising and when it is setting if he wants Yoga that is sound and beneficial; and to fix his gaze and focus his attention on the disc of the sun, and be attached to it completely, which includes his body, his faculties, his mind and his heart. If he is in a built-up area and cannot see the sun, he is allowed to draw the disc of the sun in front of him on the wall. One of them said: If the one who is practising yoga is a believer in a religion and is concerned about committing an act of disbelief, there is nothing wrong with him drawing any image in front of him and focusing on it completely!

Yoga also includes pondering one’s body deeply and thinking of and examining every part of the body, starting with the toes and going up to the head when waking up and before getting up from one’s bed, and doing the opposite, from the head down to the toes just before sleeping, and it is not allowed to forget or be distracted from this important task!

Whoever wants to benefit from yoga should also be vegetarian.

And he has to repeat specific words out loud whilst doing these exercises. These words are called mantras, the most famous of which are the beeja mantras, which are hram, hreem, hraim, hraum, hara. Some syllables are also repeated in yoga, such as Aum (or Om).

In addition to that, it is essential to repeat the twelve names of the sun, because this is a major and important part of Yoga.

Names of the sun include:

Rafanama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O one whom everyone praises.”

Suryanama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O guide of all.”

Bahaanafinama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O bestower of beauty.”

Safeetarnama, which means, “I bow my head to you, O bestower of life” etc.

And they claim that this repetition is very beneficial.

One of those who practices yoga says that he wakes up at 3.30 a.m. and continues practising yoga and offering its special prayers until 6:15 a.m. And in the evening he does the same thing from 6 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.

Thus he spends three and a quarter hours every day practising yoga, and he says that some of them spend more time than that, claiming that the more time they spend on it the more beneficial it is. [Al-Yoga fi Mizaan al-Naqd al-‘Ilmi , p. 13-18]

Thirdly:

The Islamic ruling on practising yoga

To sum up, it is not permissible for the Muslim to practice yoga at all, whether he does it on the basis of belief or imitating others, or because he is seeking a particular so-called benefit. That is due to a number of reasons which we may conclude from what is mentioned above, and which we will sum up as follows:

1. Because Yoga is contrary to Tawheed and involves associating other deities with Allah, may He be exalted, and because it involves prostrating to the sun and repeating its names.

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Say (O Muhammad): I am commanded only to worship Allaah (Alone) and not to join partners with Him” [al-Ra‘d 13:36]

“If you join others in worship with Allâh, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers”
[al-Zumar 39:65].

2. Because it involves imitation of idol worshippers and resembling them, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever imitates a people is one of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Tabaraani from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

3. Because some of its practices are harmful to most people and lead to serious health consequences for them. Some of its practices involve sitting in a very strange and shameful way, and sitting in a lazy way, oblivious to what is going on around one. This is also harmful from a health and psychological point of view. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” Narrated by Ahmad and Ibn Maajah from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him).

4. Because it is a waste of time doing something that does not bring anything but harm and loss in this world, and calamity and despair in the Hereafter. The trustworthy Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “A person’s feet will not move on, on the Day of Resurrection, until he has been asked about four things: his life and how he spent it, his knowledge and what he did with it, his wealth and from where he acquired it and on what he spent it, and his body and how he used it.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi from Abu Barzah.

5. Because it is a clear call to imitate animals and detracts from human dignity, such as: adopting nakedness, resting on all fours in most of the exercises (Surya Namaskar or sun salutation) and the special posture in the third and eighth exercises.

6. Because many of those who tried to practice what is called scientific yoga or behavioural therapy fell into the pit of drugs and addiction, and this remedy has been proven to be ineffective and of no benefit.

7. Because it is based on lies and charlatanry; its promoters rely on deceit and twisting the facts in spreading it. Thus it attracted the attention of a large number of those who are simple-natured and many of those who are weak in faith.

8. Because a few of those who practice yoga or some other esoteric or deviant trends may perform extraordinary feats, people are deceived by it. But in most cases they are only using devils among the jinn as in the case of magic and so on, and this is haraam according to Islam.

9. Most of the advice given by the promoters of yoga is harmful to the individual, including the following:

(a) Nakedness and what it causes of cultural, sexual, psychological and physical diseases.

(b) Exposing the skin to the sun. We have seen the harm that this causes, especially when there is lengthy exposure to the sun.

(c) Fixing the gaze on the disc of the sun, which causes severe damage to the eyes.

(d) Encouraging a vegetarian diet for which Allah has not revealed any authority. [Al-Yoga fi Mizan al-Naqd al-‘Ilmi, p. 84-86]

And Allah knows best.

From islamqa.

Refuting Polytheism – the multiple god Theory.

One of the many common questions that were asked was “If God does exist what reasons do we have to believe He is one?” This question is important as it addresses a fundamental concept in Islamic theology, the concept of oneness. The oneness of God, in Arabic Tawhid, is a central theme in the Qur’an and a message of all of the Prophets, the Qur’an eloquently describes the nature of God and His oneness in the 112th chapter,

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

The Quran reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the worshippers of man-made objects, it asks:

“Do you worship what you have carved yourself?” [37:95]

Which means instead of Allah do you worship idols which you yourselves carve and fashion with your own hands.

Islam also rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power or race. The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created because if he is of the same nature as they are, he will be temporal and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him. If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing outside him causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self-sufficient. And if the does not depend on anything for the continuance of his own existence, then this existence can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: “He is the First and the Last.”

Now, Logic necessitates that if there were more than one God who created the universe it would be in chaos and there would not be the level of order we find in the cosmos. Had there been more than one God or partners in Godhead, there would have been serious differences, conflicts and wars among the different sovereigns and rulers. However one may point out that a car is made by more than one creator, one person fitted the wheels, and someone else installed the engine and another person the computer system. So from this example there can be more than one creator with the created thing still able to exhibit order and stability.

Now, In order to respond to this contention what has to be understood is that the best explanation for the origins of the universe is the concept of God and not ‘designer’ or ‘creator’. There may be a possibility of multiple designers or creators, as highlighted by the car example, but there cannot be more than one God. This is because God by definition is the being that has an unlimited imposing will, if there were two or more Gods that would mean that they would have a competition of wills and that would result in chaos and disorder. However one may argue that they can agree to have the same will or each have their own domain, but that would mean that their wills are now limited and passive, which would mean they are not Gods anymore by definition!

This is explained well by Ibn Abi Al-Izz in his commentary of ‘Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah’:

“The most common argument they advance is known as the argument of exclusion. This argument runs like this. If there were two creators and they disagreed about something, such as one wanted to move X, whereas the other did not want it to moved, or one wanted to make Y a living being, whereas the other wanted to make it lifeless, then, logically speaking, there are only three possibilities. First, the wills of the two are both carried out; second, only the will of one of them is carried out; third, the will of neither of them is carried. The first case is not possible because it requires the existence of contraries. The third possibility is also ruled out because it would imply that a body is neither moving nor not moving and this is impossible. This would also imply that both of them are incapable or carrying out their wills, which would disqualify them from being God. Finally, if the will of one is realised and not that of the other, he alone will deserve to be God and the one whose will is not realised cannot be considered God.”

Now lets take a look at few Qur’anic verses:

Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him]. (23:91)

Had there been more than one God or partners in Godhead, there would have been serious differences, conflicts and wars among the different sovereigns and rulers. Allah declares Himself to be above having any child or partner in dominion, control and worship. [No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him. (If there had been many gods), then each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others.] meaning, if it were decreed that there should be a plurality of deities, each of them would have exclusive control over whatever he had created, so there would never be any order in the universe. But what we see is that the universe is ordered and cohesive, with the upper and lower realms connected to one another in the most perfect fashion. You can see no fault in the creation of the Most Gracious. Moreover, if there were a number of gods, each of them would try to subdue the other with enmity, and one would prevail over the other. This has been mentioned by the scholars of `Ilm-ul-Kalam, who discussed it using the evidence of mutual resistance or counteraction. This idea states that if there were two or more creators, one would want to make a body move while the other would want to keep it immobile, and if neither of them could achieve what they wanted, then both would be incapable, but the One Whose existence is essential i.e., Allah cannot be incapable. It is impossible for the will of both to be fulfilled because of the conflict. This dilemma only arises when a plurality of gods is suggested, so it is impossible for there to be such a plurality, because if the will of one is fulfilled and not the other, the one who prevails will be the one whose existence is essential (i.e., God) and the one who is prevailed over will be merely possible (i.e., he is not divine), because it is not befitting for the one to be defeated whose existence is essential. {Tafsir ibn Kathir}

In another verse of Qur’an we read:

Say, [O Muhammad], “If there had been with Him [other] gods, as they say, then they [each] would have sought to the Owner of the Throne a way.” (17:42)

That is, “They would have themselves tried their best to become masters of the Throne”. This is because if there had been more than one partners in Godhead, it would produce one of the two results:

(1) If they were all independent gods, it was not conceivable that they would agree and co-operate with one another in the management of the boundless universe and there could never have been unanimity, uniformity and balanced proportion in its functioning. There would have been conflict at every step and everyone would have tried to dominate others in order to become its sole master. or,

(2) if one of them had been the supreme god and the others his obedient servants whom he had delegated some of his powers, then, according to the maxim “power corrupts”, they would never have been content with remaining obedient servants of the supreme god and would have conspired to become the supreme god themselves.

Whereas the fact is that in this universe not even a grain of wheat or a blade of grass can grow unless and until everything in the earth and the heavens cooperate with one another for its production. Therefore, only an utterly ignorant and block headed person can conceive that there are more than one independent or semi-independent rulers, who carry on the management of this universe. Anyone who has tried to understand the nature and functioning of the universe will most surely arrive at the conclusion that there is One and only One Sovereign ruling over this universe, and there is absolutely no likelihood of any one else to be a co-partner in this at any stage.

In another Qur’anic verse we read that:

Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe. (21:22)

This concise sentence contains two arguments:

(1) The obviously simple argument is that no institution, no household, not to speak of the vast universe containing multitudes of countless distant stars, can function smoothly and properly, if it has two masters.

(2) The deeper argument is that the system of the whole universe, including that of the earth, is functioning according to a universal law. It could not work so even for a moment, if there had been no proper proportion, balance, harmony and coordination between the different powers and countless things. This is a clear proof that there is a universal and all-powerful law and system which binds and forces these powers and things to co-operate and coordinate between themselves with a perfect proportion and harmony and this could not have happened if there had been different independent rulers. The existence of such a system is itself a clear proof that there must be One All-Powerful Manager and Administrator governing and ruling the whole universe. That is, “The Sovereign of the whole universe.”

So,that’s it Folks!! There can not be more than one God.There is only one God i.e., ALLAH ALMIGHTY!!

Lā ilāha illā-llāh, Muḥammadur Rasūlu-llāh [ لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله ]

Refutation of the Belief of Reincarnation

[Allama’  Muhammad Idris Saheb Kandhlavi  (Rahmatullahi  Alayh)]

Just  like  the  Philosophers  and  the  atheists,  the  Brahmans  and  Hindu  also  refute  the  concept  of  resurrection.  However,  the Brahmans  and  Hindus  have  another  strange  belief.  They  say  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as Qiyaamah,  but  they  aver  that  after  death  the souls  change into  different forms.  They  say  that  the  souls  of  good people are  transformed  into  good bodies  and the souls  of evil  characters  are  transformed  into  bad  bodies,  like  dogs,  cats,  scorpions,  etc.,  etc.  This changing  of  bodies  by  the  souls  is  known  as  reincarnation.
Ahle-Islaam  say  that  this  belief  of  reincarnation  is  spurious  and  illogical.  The  reason  being  that  it  is  necessary  for  reward  or  punishment  that  the soul  be  made  aware  of  the  transgression  that  it  had  committed.  When  a  soul  knows  the  transgression  it  had  made  then  it  can in  future  abstain  therefrom  or  at  least  others  will  be  forewarned  thereof.  By  reincarnation,  the  soul  is  none  the  wiser  regarding  its  sin.  It  is  common  knowledge  that  if  a  person  lived  in  a  certain  village  for  many  years,  then  after  moving  to  another  village,  he  will  have  memories  of  his  previous  village,  in  that  he will  relate  to  others  regarding it.  So  now  the  Pundit  (Hindu  priest),  who  according to  his  own philosophy  has  lived  a  previous  (good!)  life  is  now  in  the  form  of  his  present  body,  but  he  cannot  relate  any  part  of  his  past  life  He  says  nothing,  nor  does  his  queen.  It  is  very  possible  that  in  the  previous  life  his  present  wife  was  his  mother,  sister  or  even  daughter! 

Or  maybe  Mahatma  or  Pundit  saheb  was  in  the  previous  life  the  father  of  this  girl  (present  wife)  and  now  he  comes  as  the  husband!  A  person  does  not  even  forget  a  dream  as  much  as  the  Pundit  saheb  forgot  of  his  70  odd  years  of  (previous)  life.  It  is  obvious  that  he  was  not  here in  a  previous  life.  This  sojourn of  his  life  is  the  first  on  earth  and  after  death  he  will  be  cremated  only  to  be  brought  in  to  the  second  stage  of   existence  (Barzakh),  and then  before  Allaah  Ta’ala. 

Even the  philosophers  regard  the   concept  of  reincarnation  as  being  stupid  and  illogical.

A Response to Sakshi Maharaj’s Suggestion of ‘Muslim Cremation’

image

A Brother has posed a brilliant response to the Indian Pandit’s moronic suggestion of “Muslim Cremation”, here is what he has to say:

SAKSHI MAHARAJ NE KAHA: MUSALMAN KO BHI MARNE KE BAAD JALAYA KARO KYUN KI 20 crore MUSALMANO KE LIYE HINDUSTAN MEIN ZAMEEN NAHI…

(Translation: Sakshi Maharaj said, “Muslims too should cremate their dead because India doesn’t have land for 20 crore Muslims i.e. for burials…”)
.
My Counter-Question is:
.
100 CRORE Hindu bhaiyon ko Bhi Dafnaya karo. kyu Ki Zameen toh Bohat badi hai lekin Lakkdi nahi hai hindustan mai… Naxalwaadi lakkdi lene nahi denge..

(Translation: Even 100 Crore Hindus too should bury their dead, because land might be vast but wooden logs are less in India…. The Naxalwaadis won’t provide the logs for Cremation)

STOP DEFORESTATION ..
SAVE TREES
SAVE PLANT
SAVE WOOD..
..
.
..
SAVE OXYGEN
.
..
..
NO TO BURN AFTER DEATH…

BUT SAKSHI..YOU CANNOT SAY “SAVE THE LAND BENEATH THE EARTH”.
.
AND LET ME TELL YOU ONE THING

“FROM THE BEGINNING OF MANKIND, THE PROCESS OF BURYING OR BURNING ALWAYS EXISTED BUT NOBODY SAID THERE IS NO LAND OR THERE IS NO WOOD”.
.
IF YOU BELIEVE ON RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES THEN YOU MUST BELIEVE IN GOD TOO AND GOD IS THE ONE WHO BLESSES HIS MERCY TO LAND AND WOOD AND NOBODY CAN MEASURE THAT “”HOW LAND IS SPREADED INSIDE AND WHERE THE BODY GOES AND WHERE FROM THE WOOD COMES?””
.
IT IS ALL FROM GOD… WE HAVE LAND OF 2 KANALS OF GRAVEYARD AND FROM PAST 300 YEARS BODIES ARE BEING BURIED”..CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW MANY BODIES ?? AND WE HAVE STILL THE SAME LAND AND STILL AFTER DIGGING THE LAND THERE APPEARS NO BODY”
.
NOW LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF MERCY OF GOD
.
“THERE IS WELL IN MAKKAH SAUDI ARABIA CALLED ZAM-ZAM WELL AND ITS WATER IS CALLED AS ZAM-ZAM , well’s dimension is 18ft x 12ft x 5ft of
water depth.. AND THE PEOPLE OF MAKKAH TAKES WATER FROM IT AND DRINKS AND EVERY YEAR 100 CRORE PILGRIMS TAKES ITS WATER TO THEIR HOME COUNTRIES 10 LITRE EACH ”
AND THEIR JOURNEY TO MAKKAH IS OF 25 DAYS ONLY EXCEPT THE 5 DAYS OF HAJJ…
.
NOW TELL ME WHERE DOES THIS WATER COMES FROM IN THE DESERT LAND ???
.
GROW UP.

The Origins of Idolatry

[Majlisul Ulama]

“And they (the leaders of the mushrikoon) said (to their  followers): ‘Don’t ever abandon (worshipping) your gods, and don’t ever abandon (worshipping) Wadd, nor Suwaa’,  nor Yagooth, Ya’ooq and Nasr.” [Surah Nooh, Aayat 23]

These  five, viz., Wadd, Suwaa’,  Yagooth, Ya’ooq and Nasr, were  the first idols made on earth. These were the names of  righteous men – Auliya  – who  lived from the time of Nabi  Aadam (alayhis salaam) until the  age of Nabi Nooh (alayhissalaam).
They were renowned for their  worship and piety, and the people followed their teachings which they had inherited from Nabi Aadam (alayhissalaam) and  Nabi Sheeth (alayhissalaam), the  eldest son of Hadhrat Aadam  (alayhissalaam) who had become  the Nabi after Hadhrat Aadam  (alayhissalaam). 

While these Auliya were alive, all  the people were following the  one true path of the Deen. There  was no shirk, kufr or any other  religion or ideology. The people  had profound love for these  Auliya and they followed their  teachings. After they died, their  followers were grief-stricken.  There was much crying and mourning.

Shaitaan appeared in human form to the people and  presented his plot to deceive  them from Siraatul Mustaqeem  (the Straight Path). He took  advantage of their love and yearning for these Auliya, and he  prepared perfect pictures which  closely resembled these Auliya.  He convinced the people to keep  the pictures solely to refresh  their memories of their noble    Guides and to derive greater  inspiration. This would enhance  the quality of their ibaadat.

The simple folk readily fell into  this satanic trap. Initially the  pictures were not worshipped.  They were only kept and viewed  to create greater enthusiasm for    worshipping Allah Ta’ala in the  way in which these Auliya had  taught them. When the next  generation arrived, Shaitaan 
convinced the people that their predecessors used to actually worship these pictures. The arguments and interpretations of  shaitaan convinced the people  that their predecessors had actually worshipped these  pictures of the Auliya. Thus they   resorted to actually worshipping the pictures. This was the origin of idolatry.

The pictures ultimately led to the  making of stone idols. Shaitaan  again arrived and convinced the  people that a better way of  worshipping these Auliya was to  erect their likenesses in stone.  Thus, came into origin the  worship of stone images.

According to one tafseer, Wadd  was actually the title of Nabi  Sheeth (alayhissalaam). This  word means ‘love’. It was the  profound love which people had  for him that he was given this title.

Nabi Nooh (alayhissalaam) according to the Qur’aan Majeed  lived for 950 years. This was not  the average age of the people.    Allah Ta’ala had granted him this  long age. During his lifespan  several generations came and  departed from the world. Allah  Ta’ala had granted him this long  age. During his lifespan several  generations came and departed  from the world. Despite his tableegh, every successive  generation obstinately clung to  the worship of these five idols.

The Mushrikeen of Makkah had  adopted these five idols for their  worship. The tribe of Kalb had  taken to the worship of the idol  named Wadd. The tribe of Huzail  worshipped the idol Suwaa’.  The tribes of Muraad and Banu  Ghateef had adopted for their  worship the idol Yagooth while  Ya-ooq was the idol of the tribe Hamdaan. Nasr was worshipped  by the Zil Qalaa’, an offshoot of  the tribe of Humayr.

More corrupt beliefs developed  with the passage of time. Wadd  was believed to be the god of  male virility and became the god  of love. Suwaa’ was made the  god of beauty, hence the idol  was erected in the form of a  woman. Yagooth was their god  of strength and power. This idol  was therefore moulded in the  forms of a lion and a bull. The  god of speed was Ya-ooq which  was made in the form of a horse  (perhaps a horse with wings).  Nasr was believed to be the god  of powerful vision hence the  form of this idol was an eagle.  Today in India, these idols are  also worshipped generally  symbolizing the same issues. 

The original idols did not have  these forms nor were these  beliefs attached to them. These  doctrines of shirk were later  accretions which developed    among the Arab mushrikeen after  the idols were retrieved.

During the Great Deluge of Athaab (Divine Punishment)   which destroyed the people in Nabi Nooh’s time, these idols were buried under the earth, and  the Arabs of Makkah had discovered them. After unearthing them, they were set up by the  different tribes as their special deities.

After steadfastly with the greatest toleration and  perseverance engaging in  tableegh for more than nine  centuries, Allah Ta’ala informed  Hadhrat Nooh (alayhissalaam): “Never will your people accept Imaan accept those who have already believed.”, Hadhrat Nooh  (alayhissalaam) supplicated to  Allah Ta’ala invoking curses on  his mushrik nation since all hope of their reformation had now  receded into oblivion. Thus he  supplicated: 

“O My Rabb! Do not leave on earth even a single house of the kaafireen. Verily, if You should leave them, they will only mislead  your servants and give birth to  only immoral unbelievers.”     [Surah Nooh, Verses 26 and 27]

Then came the mighty and tumultuous Athaab of the Great Flood which utterly wiped out the mushrikeen. Islam’s  uncompromising stance against all forms of picture-making of animate objects and its severe prohibition are therefore readily  comprehensible. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:  “The worst-punished people on  the Day of Qiyaamah will be the picture-makers.”

The story of the origin of idolatry  also illustrates the deception of  Iblees. He approaches sincere  and pious men to swerve from  Siraatul Mustaqeem with  ‘pious’  and ‘logical’ arguments. May  Allah Ta’ala save us from such  talbees of Iblees.

Refuting P.N Oak’s False Contentions on the Ka’bah

[By Majlisul Ulama of South Africa]

Some  “researcher”  known  as  P.N.  Oak  has  come  up  with  some ludicrous,  puerile  and  absurd  comments  regarding  Islam.  His  theory postulating  the  “impact  of  the  Vedic  religion  on  Islam”  is  laughable. Those  acquainted  with  history  will  smile  at  the  silliness  of  the assertions made by Oak.

Among  the  fallacious  claims  made  by  Oak  is  that  The  Holy  Ka’bah  in Makkah  was  “originally  a  Shiva  temple“.  But,  for  this  astounding  and absurd  claim  he  fails  to  present  any  evidence.  He  permits  his imagination to  play  havoc  with  him,  hence  he  bases  his  claim  on  “a  gold dish”  supposedly  located  in  the  Ka’bah.  Oak  alleges  that  some inscription  on  the  gold  dish  supposedly  found  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah  refers to  “Vikram’s  enlightened  rule“.  Assuming  that  such  a  dish  was  in  fact located  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah,  how  on  earth  can  such  a  chance  finding override  and  abrogate  the  volumes  of  historical  facts  surrounding  the Holy  Ka’bah?    If  a  copy  of  the  Holy  Qur’aan  is  found  in  some  Hindu temple  or  in  a  Christian  shrine  or  in  the  Pope’s  headquarters,  does  it follow  that  these  places  were  some  Muslim  Shrines  in  some  remote point  in  time  and  that  it  will  be  correct  to  conclude  from  such  a  finding that  Islam  has  made  an  impact  on  the  respective  religions..?  No  person of  intelligence  can  uphold  such  a  ludicrous  and  unreasonable conclusion.  The  finding  of  some  dish,  parchment,  plate,  garment  or  any other  object  is  not  an  intelligent  basis  for  upturning  and  negating  facts which  have  been  testified  for  accuracy  by  authorities,  from  generation to  generation.  If  every  simple  find  such  as  a  dish,  constitutes  a  valid basis  for  revising  historical  facts,  then  we  dare  say  that  the  entire history  of the  world  will have  to  be  re-written.

If  Oak’s  “key”  to  his  “research”  is  a  mere  dish  supposedly  located  in  the Holy  Ka’bah,  every  man  of  some  intelligence  can  understand  the  fallacy of  his  entire  research-conclusions.  It  staggers  the  imagination  to  be informed  that  a  man,  supposedly  a  research  scholar,  is  prepared  to dismiss  the  wealth  and  volume  of  historical  facts  on  the  basis  of  a  dish which  has  been  claimed  to  have  been  found  in  the  Ka’bah.  If  the  same or  a  similar  dish  singing  the  praises  of  Vikram  had  to  be  found  in
Buckingham  Palace  will  it  be  sensible  to  aver  that  this  Palace  was  a Hindu  shrine  once  upon  a  time..?

We  have  no  knowledge  of  any  “golden  dish”  with  Hindu  praises  having been  found  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah.  Let  Mr.  Oak  furnish  factual  proof regarding this  “dish”.

Mr.  Oak  should  also  be  apprised  of  some  historical  facts  pertaining  to the  Ka’bah.  Prior  to  the  advent  of  Prophethood  of  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  the  Ka’bah  was  filled  with  hundreds  of  idols  —  the gods  of  the  pagans  who  had  abandoned  the  true  religion  of  their forefather,  Nabi  lbraaheem  (Prophet  Abraham  alayhissalaam) [for more details read this: How Idols found place in the Ka’aba during Pre-Islamic Era??]. The pagan  Arabs  in  fact  had  a  god  (an  idol)  for  each  different  day  of  the year.  It  will  not  be  at  all  surprising  if  Mr.  Oak’s  research  could  have suggested  that  the  cult  of  idol  worship  which  existed  among  pre-Islam Arabs  was  the  impact  of the  Vedic  religion.  Since  the  Hindu  or  the  Vedic religion  is  an  idolatrous  cult  with  a  multitude  of  gods,  the  idolatry  of the  pagan  Arabs  in  the  pre-Islamic  era  can  understandably  and reasonably  be  attributed  to  the  Vedic  religion.  The  idols  of  the  pagan Arabs  and  the  idols  of  the  Vedic  religion  are  birds  of  a  feather,  but,  to suggest  that  the  Vedic  idolatrous  religion  had  any  impact  on  Islam  and its  rigidly  monotheistic  teachings  and  beliefs  is  preposterous  and absurd  in  the  extreme.

Again  assuming  that  some  Hindu  golden  dish  was  located  in  the  Holy Ka’bah,  common  sense  would  have  concluded  that  the  “dish”  was  a relic  of  the  idolatrous  pagans  who  had  filled  the  Holy  Ka’bah  with  360 idols.  The  idolatrous  pagans  of  the  pre-Islam  era,  having  imported  their cult  of  idolatry  from  the  Hindu  east,  had  similar  rites  of  idol-worship.  Offerings  of  a  variety  of  kinds  were  made  to  propitiate  the  idols.  It  will, therefore,  not  at  all  be  surprising  if  the  supposed  golden  dish  was among  the  offerings  which  the  pagans  had  made  to  the  idols  which  had been  installed  in  the  Holy  Ka’bah  by  the  pagan  Arabs  heavily  influenced by  the  idolatry  of  the  east  —  the  idolatry  of  the  Vedic  religion  being  the most  profound.

In  terms  of  the  “golden  dish”  theory  as  propounded  by  Oak,  Vedic missionaries  had  arrived  in  Arabia  to  preach  their  religion.  This  is  the claim  supposedly  made  in  the  inscriptions  on  the  “dish”. If  this  is  indeed so,  then  it  accounts  for  the  paganism  and  the  idolatry  of  the  Arabs before  the  advent  of  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The  Arabs, being  the  followers  of  Nabi  lbraaheem  (Prophet  Abraham  alayhissalaam)  were  rigidly  and  uncompromisingly  believers  in  THE  ONE  GOD.  The  spread  of  idolatry  among  them  is  therefore  surprising.    However, the  “dish”  theory  of  Oak  throws  light  on  the  origin  of  idol-worship among  the  pre-Islam  Arabs.  A  “golden  dish”  located  in  the  Ka’bah,  with Vedic  inscriptions  is  testimony  for  the  origin  of  the  idols  which  had once  occupied  the  Holy  Ka’bah  Mosque  in  the  days  before  Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  When  the  Holy  Ka’bah  had  housed  even  the  idols of  the  pagan  Arabs  sedated  by  Hindu  idolatry,  then  the  location  of  a mere  “dish”  with  Vedic  inscriptions  should  come  as  no  surprise.

Mr.  Oak  presents  a  number  of  fallacious  points  for  his  conclusion  that the  Vedic  religion  had  an  impact  on  Islam.  The  article  in  the  LEADER states:

In  his  research Mr.  Oak  furnishes other  proof reinforcing  the  belief that Arabs  were  once  followers  of  the  Indian  Vedic  way  of  life.

That  the  pre-Islam  Arabs  were  pagans  and  idolaters  is  an  undeniable and  a  well-established  historical  fact  which  ten-year  old  kids  in  a primary  school  are  aware  of.  If  the  Arab  idolatrous  cult  was  the influence  or  even  the  product  of  “the  Indian  Vedic  way  of  life”,  there  is nothing  surprising  about  it.  But,  the  cult  of  the  pre-Islam  Arabs  should not  be  confused  with  the  uncompromising  religion  of  monotheism  of Islam  delivered  to  mankind  by The Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  No one  will  deny  the  idolatry  of  the  pagan  pre-Islam  Arabs.  If  some  theory or  research  establishes  that  the  360  idols  installed  by  the  Arabs  in  the Ka’bah  prior  to  the  advent  of  Islam  were  the  influence  or  the  impact  of the  Vedic  religion,  we  shall  not  contest  such  a  claim  since  reason  can accept  that  a  religion  grounded  and  advanced  in  idolatry  can  spawn  a  cult  of  lesser  idolatry,  the  lesser  idolatry  in  this  instance  being  the idolatry  of the  pagan  Arabs. One  of his  points  is  the  Hajj.

In  this  regard  Oak  states:

The  annual Hajj  of  the  Muslims  to  the  Ka’bah  is  of  an  earlier  pre-Islamic  congregation.

It  is  clear  that  Mr.  Oak  is  a  poor  student  of  history.  Even  our  little children  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Hajj  pilgrimage  was  in  existence prior  to  the  appearance  of  Nabi  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  The Hajj  worship  came  into  existence  among  the  Arabs  during  the  time  of Nabi  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam).  From  this  angle  it  will  be  correct to  conclude  that  the  Hajj  of  the  present-day  Muslims  “is  of  an  earlier pre-Islamic  congregation”.  By  “pre-Islamic”  will  mean  the  era  prior  to the  advent  of  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  But,  it  is  ridiculous  to infer  that  the  Islamic  Hajj  is  the  impact  of  the  Vedic  religion  merely because  it  was  in  existence  from  the  time  of  Prophet  lbraaheem (alayhissalaam).  Every practice  of  the  pre-Islam  pagan  Arabs  cannot  be  attributed  to  Vedic influence  or  the  influence  of  some  other  idolatrous  cult.  While  the actual  worship  of  Hajj  among  the  Arabs  came  into  existence  during  the time  of  Nabi  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam),  the  Arabs  who  later abandoned  the  true  religion  of  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam) introduced  many  pagan  and  idolatrous  rites  into  the  Hajj  pilgrimage presumably  under  influence  of  Vedic  idolaters  who  came  to  Arabia  to preach  the  idolatry  of  the  Vedic  religion.  But,  such  idolatrous  influences introduced  by  the  pre-Islam  pagans  cannot  be  cited  as  a  basis  for  the preposterous  claim  that  the  Hajj  itself  is  a  Vedic  rite.  There  is  absolutely no  factual  or  historical  evidence  to  substantiate  this  fallacious  claim made  by  Oak.

Another  absurd  claim  made  by  Oak  is  stated in  the  Leader  as  follows:

The  principal shrines  at Varanasi, in India  and  at  Mecca,  in  Arrastan, were  Shiva  temples. Even  to  this  day  ancient  mahadeva  emblems  can be  seen.

Such  emblems  can  be  seen  on  the  Shiva  temples  in  India.  But  the allegation  of  such  signs  of  idolatry  —  such  emblems  of  paganism  —  on the  Ka’bah  is  a  blatant  falsity.  What  is  Oak’s  proof  for  existence  of  such emblems  in  the  Ka’bah..?    Such  “emblems  of  Mahadeva”  allegedly  in  or  on  the  Ka’bah  are  the  reflections  of  Oak’s  imagination.

The  “dish”  theory  constrains  Oak  to  conjecture  the  following conclusion which  he  seems  to  believe  as  factual evidence:

According  to  the  inscriptions,  if  King  Vikram  spread  the  Vedic  religion, who else but he could  have  founded the  Ka’bah  temple?

If  king  Vikram  did  in  fact  spread  the  Vedic  religion  of  idolatry  which  gave  birth  to  the  360  idols  of  the  pagan  Arabs,  it  does  not  follow  therefrom  that  the  Holy  Ka’bah  was  a  Hindu  temple  built  by  Vikram. For  such  a  preposterous  claim  factual  proof  is  required.  The  wishful  thinking  of  Mr.  Oak  cannot  override  the  facts  of history. Even  the  pagan Arabs  were  fully  aware  of  the  origin  of  the  Ka’bah.  They  had  full knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Nabi  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  was the  founder  of  the  Ka’bah.  The  groundless  suggestion  of  a  man  in  this belated  century  is  nothing  other  than  pure  wishful  thinking  —  a  fallacy to  be  dismissed with  contempt.

In  support of his  conclusions  based on  the  “dish”  theory,  Oak  claims:

Pilgrims’ shaving  of  head  and  beard  and  donning  white cloth  are remnants  of  the  old  Vedic  practice  of  entering  temples  clean  shaven.

Oak  demonstrates  his  lack  of  knowledge  of  Islamic  practices  by  his claim  of  shaving  the  beard.  Hujjaaj  (pilgrims)  do  not  shave  their  beards. Muslim  males  are  not  permitted  to  shave  their  beards  whether  they are  at  home  or  entering  temples  or  Mosques,  be  it  the  Sacred  Mosque of  the  Ka’bah.  While  shaving  the  head  for  male  pilgrims  is  a  rite  of  the Hajj,  shaving  the  beard  is  not  permissible.  It  may  be  a  Vedic  practice  to shave  the  beard,  but definitely  not  a  Muslim  practice.
Muslim  pilgrims  do  not  shave  their  heads  in  order  to  enter  temples  or  Mosques.  If  shaving  the  head  is  a  Vedic  practice  necessary  for  entry  into  a  temple,  Mr.  Oak  should  learn  from  us  that  it  is  not  a  practice  of Islam.  Muslim  pilgrims  either  shave  or  clip  some  hairs  to  release  them from  the  restrictions  of  the  Hajj  (pilgrimage).

If  donning  white  cloth  was  a  custom  of  “old  Vedic”  religion,  it  does  not  logically  follow  therefrom  that  the  white  garments  which  Muslim pilgrims  don  are  “Remnants  of  old  Vedic  practice”.  What  are  Oak’s grounds  for  this  fictitious  theory..??  It  is  absurd  to  suggest that wherever a  white religious  garb  exists  it must be the  result of  Vedic  influence.

Among  the  points  put  forward  by  Oak  for  his  fallacy  is  the  emblem  of the  crescent  moon. Stating  this  point of  Oak,  the  Leader  says:

In  India  the  crescent  moon  is  always  painted  across  the  forehead  of  the Shiva  symbol. The  same  emblem now  adorns  the  flag  of  Islam.

Mr. Oak  has  transgressed all bounds  of absurdity  in  putting  forward  this ignorant  claim.  What  is  the  “flag  of  Islam”  in  Oak’s  understanding??   From  where  did  this  ‘research  scholar’  obtain  his  information  in  this regard!  If  the  flags  of  Muslim  countries  have  the  symbol  of  the crescent,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Flag  of Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  —  the  Flag  of  Islam  —  also  displayed  the  crescent  emblem.  The crescent  emblem  is  an  innovation which  did  not exist during the  time  of the  Holy  Prophet Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  nor  during  the  time  of  his righteous  Khulafaa  (Representatives  and  Successors).  Assuming  that the  crescent  emblem  did  exist  among  the  Muslims  of  the  Prophetic  era,  then  too,  Oak  will  have  no  grounds  to  bolster  his  claim  of  Vedic  origin and  Vedic  influence.  One  cannot  venture  such  claims  without producing  facts  and  proofs  to  substantiate  one’s  claims  which  are  in conflict  with  all facts  of history.

Endeavouring  to  present  his  wishful  thinking  as  a  fact  of  history,  Oak asserts  that  the  Tawaaf  (circumambulation)  of  Ka’bah  by  pilgrims  is  the influence  of the  Vedic  religion. Thus,  the  Leader  says:

Muslim pilgrims  go around  the  Ka’bah  seven times,  a  common  practice among Hindus.   In  no other  mosque  does  circumambulation  prevail.

Circumambulation  of  the  Ka’bah  is  because  of  the  special  religious significance  which  Muslims  believe  is  exclusive  to  the  Ka’bah,  the  first Place  of  Worship  ever  to  be  constructed  on  earth.  According  to  Islamic Belief,  the  first  person  to  build  the  Ka’bah  was  Aadam  (alayhissalaam)  —  the  first  man  on  earth.  Its  superior  rank  and  the  special  divine presence  which  Muslims  believe  surrounds  the  Ka’bah  are  the  facts underlying  the  circumambulation.  If  Hindus  do  in  fact  circumambulate  some  temple  seven  times,  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  such  a  Hindu practice  gave  rise  to  the  Tawaaf  (circumambulation)  rite  of  Islam.  Mere similarities  between  opposite and  divergent  religions  cannot  be  cited  as evidence  for  one’s  claims  unsupported  by  factual proof.

Another  point of  Oak  stated by  the  Leader  is:  

Eid  in  Sanskrit  means  worship  and  Bakri  Eid, which  derives  from sacrifices of  Vedic  times  was  celebrated  with  mutton  feasting  at the time of  the  sun’s  entry  into  Aries.

If  the  term  “Eid”  means  “worship”  in  Sanskrit,  we  have  to  apprize  Oak  of  the  fact  that  in  Arabic  the  word  “Eid”  does  not  mean  “worship”.  In Arabic  “Eid”  means  ‘the  Day  of  Return’.  The  Islamic  Festivals  are  known as  such  because  of  their  ‘return’  or  ‘repeated  coming’.  The  term  itself does  not  connote  ‘worship’  in  Arabic.  Thus,  there  is  no  question  of  the Arabic  term  ‘Eid’  being  the  Sanskrit  term  contended  by  Oak.  There  is, therefore,  absolutely  no  point  for  Oak’s  “dish”  theory.  in  the  Arabic word,  “Eid”.  “Bakri  Eid”  being  the  occasion  when  Muslims  sacrifice animals  unto  Allah  Ta’ala  has  no  resemblance  with  any  Vedic  muttonfeasting  practice  dedicated  to  idols.  The  word  “Bakri”  is  not  Arabic.  It  is an  Urdu  term  meaning  ‘goat’.  Since  goats  are  generally  sacrificed  in  India  on  the  occasion  of  Eidul  Adhaa,  Indian  Muslims  have  coined  the name  “Bakri  Eid”.  The  main  animal  of  sacrifice  for  the  Arabs  has  always been  the  camel.  Eidul  Adhaa  —  the  original  and  correct  name  of  this auspicious  Day  —  is  the  name  known  to  the  Arabs.  The  sacrifice  of animals  on  this  occasion  is  in  commemoration  of  the  supreme  sacrifice of  lbraaheem  (alayhissalaam).  There  is  absolutely  no  resemblance to  any  Vedic  mutton-eating  custom  of  idolatrous  merry-making.  If  the  Vedic  custom  of  mutton-feasting  is  to  mark  the  sun’s  entry  into  ‘Aries’, the  Islamic  practice  of sacrificing animals  is  not.  Even  the  Christian  Bible speaks  of  the  sacrifice  of  animals.  If  the  Islamic  custom  of  sacrificing  animals  has  to  be  the  result  of  Vedict  impact,  then  Oak  may  also  argue that  the  biblical  practice  of  sacrificing  animals  is  likewise  the  influence of the  Vedic  religion.

Oak  then  claims:

The  Islamic word  Eidgah,  signifies  “House  of  Worship”  which  is  the exact  Sanskrit  connotation  of  the  term.

Again  Oak  exhibits  his  total  ignorance  of  Islam  and  its  practices.  In  Arabic  there  is  no  such  term  as  “Eidgah“.  This  term  was  unknown  to  the  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and  His  followers  during  the  early  history  of  Islam.  The  term  ‘gah’  means  place  in  the  Urdu  language.  It  is  not  of  Arabic  origin  nor  does  Eidgah  in  Urdu  mean  “House  of  Worship”. The  Eidgah  is  a  special  venue  set  aside  for  solely  the  prayers  which  are performed  on  the  Day  of  Eid.  Eidgah,  therefore,  means  in  Urdu  the place  where  the  special  Eid  prayers  are  performed.  Since  the  term  is not  of  Arabic  origin  nor  is  it  the  word  used  by  the  Arabs  to  describe  the place  where  the  Eid  prayers  are  conducted,  there  is  no  support  in  it  for Oak’s  conclusions  stemming  from  his  “dish”  theory.  In  Arabic  the  place where  the  Eid  prayers  are  conducted  is  known  as  the  “Musallaa“.

Oak  betrays  his  ignorance  of  Islam  in  similar  fashion  by  tendering  the following point in  substantiation  of the  “dish”  theory,  

Also  the  word  ‘Namaaz’  derives  from  two  Sanskrit  roots  ‘nama’ and ‘yajna’  meaning  bowing  and  worshipping.

The  word  “namaaz”  is  not  an  Arabic  term.  It  was  never  used  by  the Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  nor  by  the  Arab  Muslims. Even to  this  day  the  Islamic  practice  of  prayers  is  described  as  Salaah,  not NamaazNamaaz  is  of  Persian  origin.  While  Salaah  (Islamic  prayers)  is known  as  ‘Namaaz‘  in  Persian  and  Urdu,  it  has  never  been  the  case  in Arabic.  How  ridiculous  then,  is  it  not,  for  Oak  to  cite  an  Urdu  term coined  ages  after  the  Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  to  bolster  his  theory  arising  out  of  a  dish  supposedly  found  in  the  Ka’bah..??    The Urdu  language  consists  of  words  from  many  languages,  including Sanskrit.    But,  the  Urdu  language  was  not  the  language  of  the  Prophet (on  whom be  peace)  or  of  the  Arabs.

It  is  therefore  meaningless  to  seek  to  forge  a  theory  concerning  the Arabs  of  the  pre-Islam  and  post-Islam  era  by  tendering  terms introduced  by  non-Arab  Muslims  centuries  after  the  advent  of  the Prophet  of  Islam  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Presenting  another  preposterous  and  fallacious  point  in  substantiation of his  “dish”  theory,  Oak  says:

…..that shabibarat is the  corrupt form  of  Shiva  Ratra  and  that the  term ‘eidul  fitr’  derives  from  the  eid  of  piters  (worship  of  forefathers in Sanskrit  tradition  and  Pitri  Paksha  among  Hindus).

The  term  “shab”  is  not  Arabic. The  occasion  referred  to  is  the  15th  night of  the  month  of  Sha’baan  in  the  Islamic  calendar.  The  Arabs  do  not know  this  night  by  the  name,  ‘Shabibarat‘.  This  is  an  Indian  term,  also introduced  ages  after  the  Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  It  is blatantly  false  to  aver  that  the  Urdu  or  Faarsi  word  ‘shab‘  is  the  corrupt form  of  ‘Shiva’.  Whatever  Shiva  may  mean  in  Sanskrit,  it  has  absolutely  no  relationship  with  the  Urdu  term,  ‘shab‘ which  means  night.

The  word  ‘baraa-ah‘  is  not  a  corrupt  form  of  the  Sanskrit  term,  ratra’- Oak  has  allowed  his  imagination  to  play  havoc  with  him.  He  makes sweeping claims  without furnishing grounds  for  his  fallacies.

His  claim  regarding  “Eid ul  Fitr”  is  just  as  fallacious.  Eid ul  Fitr  has absolutely  no  connection  with  some  idolatrous  worship  of  forefathers. Eid ul  Fitr  is  the  Day  of  Happiness  marking  the  end  of  the  month  of fasting,  viz.,  the  month  of  Ramadhaan.  In  Islam  there  is  no  ritual  or practice  which  is  even  remotely  akin  to  the  Hindu  custom  of worshipping forefathers.

Oak  claims  that the  word  ‘Allah ‘, the  Islamic  term  for  God  Almighty,  is  a Sanskrit  word  meaning  ‘goddess  or  mother’.  If  there  is  some  such  word in  Sanskrit  having  these  meanings  stated  by  Oak,  there  is  absolutely  no  proof  for  the  claim  that  the  Arabic  word,  Allah  has  been  borrowed from Sanskrit.  In  Arabic,  the  word  ‘Allah’  does  not  mean  ‘goddess’  or ‘mother’.  The  word,  ‘Allah’  has  been  known  to  the  very  first  man  on earth,  viz.,  Aadam  (alayhissalaam).  If  some  of  the  progeny  of  Aadam  in  the  different  parts  of  the  world  retained  the  term  ‘Allah’  after having  abandoned  the  true  religion  taught  by  the  Prophets,  there  is  no surprise  whatsoever.

It  is  the  belief  of  Muslims–a  belief  stated  by  the  Qur’aan–that  Almighty Allah  had  sent  Prophets  to  all  nations. Prophets  of  Allah  have  therefore appeared  in  India  and  in  all  places  to  deliver  the  Truth  of  Islam.  It  is, therefore,  quite  possible,  in  fact,  almost  certain  that  the  Prophet  or Prophets  who  came  to  India  many  thousands  of  years  ago,  had  come  with  the  word,  Allah.  The  Indians  must  have  been  apprized  by  the Prophets  that  God  Almighty  is  Allah,  The  One.  Therefore,  it  is  not  at  all surprising  if  the  term  ‘Allah  ‘  has  been  retained  by  the  Sanskrit language.  But,  then  why  do  Hindus  not  refer  to  God  with  the  Name  Allah  if  their  language  and  their  religion  claim  that  the  correct  word  for God is  ‘Allah’ ??

Oak,  spurred  on  by  his  imagination,  is  reading  too  much  in  word similarities.  Word  similarities  exist  in  most  languages.  A  word  of  the same  or  similar  pronunciation  may  be  found  with  the  same  or  different meanings  in  different  languages.  Historical  facts  of  certitude  cannot  be deduced  from  such  similarities  of  ambiguity.  Such  flimsy  theories  which are  the  product  of  mere  imagination  and  wishful  thinking  cannot constitute  facts  and  grounds  for  the  negation  of  historical  and  religious facts supported by the testimony of generations of authorities.

In  conclusion  we  are  compelled  to  observe  that  the  findings  of  Oak are  amazing  in  absurdity  and  in  their  degree  of  fallacy.

In  response  to  the  queries  and  views  of  ‘Rationalist’  (The  Leader,  3rd June 1988) we wish to say:

(1)  Whatever  the  meaning  and  significance  of  the  Black  Stone  at  the Ka’bah  may  be,  it  is  NOT  the  interpretation  which  is  associated  with  the “Lingam-Yoni  worship”.  It  is  not  our  intention  here  to  engage  in  any refutation  of  the  rites  of  paganism  and  immoral  cults.  Our  concern  is  with  the  baseless  and  blasphemous  interpretations  and  vile connotations  which  self-appointed  historians  seek  to  attach  to  the religious  rites  and  acts  of  worship  of  Islam.  

P.N.  Oak  is  no  authority  on  any  Islamic  matter.  His  views  are  essentially his  personal,  unfounded  and  unsubstantiated  opinions  devoid  of  truth and  stripped  of  any  sort  of  evidence.  Theories  can  be  propounded  in abundance.  But,  as  long  as  theories  remain  unsubstantiated  by  facts, they  will  be  regarded  as  the  figments  of  imagination  and  the  products of  whimsical  fancy.  Thus,  the  baseless  interpretation  regarding  the Black  Stone  which  “Rationalist”  seeks  to  trade  is  raised  on  the  hollow foundations  of  an  unsubstantiated  theory  of  one  Mr.  Oak  who  avers that  the  Ka’bah  was  a  Shiva  temple.  In  postulating  his  idea  regarding the  Black  Stone,  Rationalist  has  placed  the  cart  before  the  horse.  Let  him  and  Oak  first  prove  conclusively  that  the  Holy  Ka’bah  was  in  fact  a Shiva  temple.  Once  they  have  succeeded  (and  never  will  they  ever succeed)  in  backing  up  their  ill-begotten  theory  with  facts  and evidence,  then  only  will  it  be  rational  for  Rationalist  to  embark  upon  his interpretation  which  he  has  postulated  for  the  Black  Stone  by implication of his reference to the Ka’bah as a Shiva temple. 

Since  we  do  not  accept  Oak  as  any  authority,  his  views  are utterly  baseless  and  puerile  and  in  stark  conflict  with  historical evidence.

(2)  On  the  contrary,  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  the  arguments  of  Oak  are  irrelevant  in  entirety  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  has  advanced  his personal  idea  unsubstantiated  by  evidence.  His  allegation  about  a “dish”  –  a  Shiva  dish  –  a  Vedic  dish  —  is  laughable,  to  say  the  least.  One  has  to  be  really  senile  in  the  mind  to  regard  the  dish-trash  as  evidence for  upsetting  and  negating  the  historical  evidence  which  has  been transmitted  reliably  down  the  long  corridor  of  time.  A  theory,  no matter  how  plausible  it  may  sound  and  how  appealing  it  may  appear  to the  imagination  of  some  persons,  remains  pure  conjecture  as  long  as evidence  cannot  be  advanced  to  make  it  stand  on  its  legs.  A  mere allegation  of  a  “dish”  supposedly  discovered,  is  not  evidence  for  the ridiculous  contentions  made  by  Oak.

To  men  of  intelligence,  the  claims  of  Oak  do  not  appear  reasonable  ”by large”  as  Rationalist  asserts.  On  the  contrary  his  claims  appear downright childish  and  ludicrous.

(3)  Arguing  in  vindication  of  Oak’s  blasphemous  views  pertaining  to  the Holy  Ka’bah,  Rationalist  states:

He  has  established that there  is  a  well  at Mecca  called  Zam  Zam

Rationalist  presents  this  as  a  wonderful  discovery  made  by  Oak.  Every little  child  –  all  Muslim  children  by  the  million,  the  world  over,  know  of the  existence  of  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  We  are  certain  that  numerous non-Muslims  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  There is  no  secrecy  surrounding  the  existence  of  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  The Zam  Zam  is  not  some  hidden  relic.  It  is  not  a  discovery  which  any archeologist  has  made.  It  is  a  Well  which  has  been  in  daily  use  since  the advent  of  Nabi  Ismaa’eel !  (alayhissalaam).  It  is  indeed  laughable to  read that  Oak  has  finally,  possibly  after  prolonged  research  and  years of  in-depth  investigations,  established  the  existence  of  a  Well  which  is as  famous  as  Makkah  itself.  This  reflects  the  degree  of  historical knowledge  possessed  by  the  self-appointed  historians  of  the  age  –  by those  who  pride  themselves  with  investigations  conducted  in  the  socelled  search-light of scientific  facts.

(4)  Again,  Rationalist  lending  support  to  the  vile  theory  which  Oak propounds  in  relation  to  the  Sacred  Ka’bah,  seeks  to  display  Oak’s  mentioning of the  Black  Stone as  a  significant discovery,  hence  he  avers that  Oak  has  established  the  existence  of  the  Stone  in  the  Ka’bah.  But, the  existence  of  the  Black  Stone  at  the  Ka’bah  is  not  a  secret–  has never  been  a  secret  hence,  Rationalist’s  claim  In  regard  to  the establishing of this  fact by  Oak  is  meaningless.
(5)  Rationalist  then  makes  the  lurid  and  the  stupid  conclusion  that  “to the  Saivites  this  is  Siva’s  lingum“.  Stones  and  immoral  inscriptions elsewhere  may  be  “Siva’s  lingum”.  But  to  associate  the  Sacred  Black Stone  at  the  Ka’bah  as  the  miserable  lingum  of  siva  is  among  the  worst statements  of blasphemy.

Let  Rationalist  and  Oak  inform  us  precisely  when  did  this  ludicrous  idea developed  among  Saivites..??  Since  when  has  saivites  considered  the Sacred  Black  Stone  at  the  Ka’bah  to  be  the  lingum  of  siva..??  Why  has this  idea  arisen  in  this  belated  century  belated  in  relation  to  the  Vedic religion..??  Even  if  Saivites  have  imagined  this  silly  notion,  what  is  the evidence  to  support  this  conjecture??  The  allegation  of  a  chance-finding of some  idolatrous  “dish”  is  not  evidence.  

(6)  Rationalist  also  alleges  that  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam  to  the  Saivites represents  the  river  Ganges.  How  childish  can  Rationalists  and scientists  become  in  presenting  the  figments  of  their  imagination!  Since when  have  saivites  regarded  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam  to  represent  the river  Ganges  of  India..?  Is  it  rational  to  aver  that  the  Zam  Zam  Well  in Makkah  represents  the  river  Ganges  in  India??  What  is  the  rational  and the  scientific  factor  of  relationship  of  this  supposed  representation?? Rationalist  prides  himself  with  the  “searchlight  of  scientific  facts”.  But, how  rational  and  how  scientific  is  he  behaving  by  postulating  a relationship  between  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam  at  Makkah  and  the  river Ganges  in  India??  Rationalist  should  drop  the  outer  facade  of rationalism which  he  has  sought  to  adopt.  Rational  thinking  has  no  scope  for  the type  of  ridiculous  relationships  and  baseless  representation  which Rationalist  has  endeavored  to  portray  between  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam and  the  river  Ganges.

In  our  reply  to  Oak’s  views  we  had  already  answered  the  claims regarding  the  circumambulation  and  the  shaving  of  the  head.  We  shall,
therefore,  not  repeat  ourselves  here.  Our  earlier  reply  suffices  to dismiss  the  unfounded idea  of  Rationalist  stated in  support of  Oak.

(7)  In  an  attempt  to  force  another  relationship  between  the  idolatrous Vedic  cult and  Islam,  Rationalist  avers:

The  moon  has  an  important place  in  Islam. The  sighting  of  the  moon on  certain  occasions  is  imperative.  To  the  Hindus  the  moon  is  an emblem on  Shiva’s  forehead.

Be  the  moon  “an  emblem  on  Shiva’s  forehead”.  It  is  not  the  emblem  of  Islam.  The  adoption  of  the  crescent  moon  on  the  flags  of  most  Muslim countries  is  not  a  teaching  of  Islam.  Islam  is  what  the  Qur’aan  and  the Traditions  of our  Holy  Nabi  Muhammad  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  teach. The acceptance  of  the  crescent-symbol  on  Muslim  flags  is  not  grounded  in Islamic  teaching.  It  is,  therefore,  baseless  to  portray  the  moon  as  an object  of  religious  significance  in  Islam.  It  may  have  religious significance  in  the  cult  of  shiva  and  the  pagans,  but  it  has  no significance  in  Islamic  teaching.

The  imperativeness  of  sighting  the  moon  “on  certain  occasions”  is  not because  of  religious  significance  which  Muslims  attach  to  the  moon. Rationalist  exhibits  his  ignorance  of  Islam  by  having  made  this  claim. Muslims  have  a  lunar  calendar.  Just  as  the  sun  is  the  imperative  object in  the  determination  of  the  solar  calendar,  so  is  the  moon  in  the  lunar calendar  which  Islam  has  adopted.  Since  Islam  is  the  universal  religion for  all  mankind,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  which  are  simple  folk  inhabiting  villages  and  the  country-sides,  Islam  has  fixed  a  simple  way for  all  to  determine  the  beginning  of  the  months  of  the  lunar  calendar. The  lunar  month  for  Muslims  commences  with  the  sighting  of  the crescent  moon.  Thus,  the  imperativeness  of  the  sighting  is  purely  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  commencement  of  the  new  lunar month.  The  sighting  of  the  moon  is  not  restricted  to  “certain occasions”.  Rationalist  conveys  the  impression  that  auspicious occasions  in  Islam  are  related  to  the  moon.  This  notion  is  utterly  false. The  sighting  of  the  crescent  moon  is  imperative  to  establish  the  beginning  of  every  month  in  the  Muslim  lunar  calendar.  Hence,  some Muslims  in  a  community  are  required  to  sight  the  crescent  moon  every month.  There  is  absolutely  no  other  occasion  and  no  other  purpose  for which  the  moon  is  sighted.  There  is  thus  no  religious  significance  and no  symbolic  interpretation  which  Islam  associates  with  the  moon. Rationalist  is  indeed  exhibiting  irrationalism  by  his  ideas unsubstantiated by  proof and  facts.

(8)  The  following  statement  by  Rationalist  demonstrates  his  profound ignorance  about  Islam:

What lends  added support to  Oak’s  findings  is  that the  Holy Qum  by Abdullaah  Yusuf  Ali page  62  foot  note  160  makes mention  of  a  male and  female  idol near  the  well of Zam Zam.  To  the  Hindus  these represent  Shiva  and  Parvathi.

Indeed,  Rationalist  just  does  not  realize  what  he  is  saying.  Firstly,  the Qur’aan  is  not  a  Book  by  any  Abdullah  Yusuf  Ali.  The  Qur’aan  is  the revealed  Word  of  Almighty  Allah.  Furthermore,  Abdullaah  Yusuf  Ali  is  a non-entity  in  Islam. He  is  no  authority  in  Islam  in  fact, many  of his  views are  his  personal  opinions  just  as  baseless  as  Rationalist’s  and  Oak’s  ideas.  Yusuf  Ali  in  his  spurious  commentary  of  the  Qur’aan  is  guilty  of  certain  opinions  and  theories  of  blasphemy.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned Rationalist  may  just  as  well  say  “the  Holy  Qur’aan  by  Oak”.  Just  as unworthy  as  we  consider  Oak’s  and  Rationalist’s  propositions  and suppositions,  so  do  we  consider  many  of  Yusuf  Ali’s  comments  and views.  Rationalist  has  not  at  all  enhanced  his  hypothesis  by  introducing Yusuf  Ali  since  he  is  no  authority  in  Islam.  In  fact,  Yusuf  Ali’s commentary on the Qur’aan  is  heretical.

Thus,  Rationalist  should  understand  that  the  statement  which appear  in  the  footnotes  of  Yusuf  Ali’s  commentary  do  not  constitute the  Qur’aan  nor  are  his  comments  authentic  Qur’aanic  exegesis.  They are  merely  the  baseless  suppositions  of  a  mere  child  gone  astray  in  the spiritual  realm  of  Islamic  Knowledge  springing  out  of  the  Qur’aanic Fountain.  

Without  having  checked  Yusuf  Ali’s  comment  mentioned  by  Rationalist and  without  any  attempt  to  verify  the  historical  veracity  of  the  claim  of the  idols  in  close  proximity  to  the  Zam  Zam,  let  us  assume  for  a moment  that  such  idols  did  exist  once  upon  a  time  near  to  the  Sacred  Well  of  Zam  Zam.  If  such  idols  did  in  fact  exist  there,  it  will  not  be  cause for  any  surprise  when  it  is  a  historical  truth  that  even  the  Holy  Ka’bah  was  polluted  and  contaminated  with  the  presence  of  hundreds  of  idols which  the  pagan  Arabs  had  installed  possibly  under  the  influence  of  the devilish  missionaries  who  had  hailed  from  India  according  to  Oak  some millennium  ago.  What  then  is  so  surprising  if  some  of  the  idols  of  the idolaters  had  been  left  near  to  the  Well  of  Zam  Zam..??  If  Hindus  indeed  did  or  do  regard  the  miserable  idols  which  allegedly  and  supposedly existed  near  to  the  Zam  Zam  once  upon  a  time,  as  Shiva  and  Parvathi, then  by  all  means  let  them  soothe  themselves  with  such  silly  notions. We  discern  nothing  rational  and  nothing  scientific  in  this  preposterous supposition  fabricated  by  Rationalist.  Whatever  the  Hindus  may  think or  may  have  thought  of  the  imagined  idols  at  the  Zam  Zam,  all  idols  are evil  and  condemned  by  Islam.  The  Arabs  since  their  adoption  of  Islam eliminated  the  traces  of  their  pre-Islam  idolatrous  cult  and  idolatrous and  a  paganistic  cult  of  evil  and  immorality  which  was  akin  to  the idolatry  of  the  Hindus.  But,  the  pre-Islam  idolatry  of  the  Arabs  should not  be  confused  with  any  teachings  of  Islam.  To  imagine  any relationship  between  the  idolatrous  rites  of  paganistic  cults  and  Islam  is pure  conjecture.  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  to  back  up  the  claims made  by  Oak  and  Rationalist  in  this  regard.  

(9)  Rationalist  arguing  in  support  of  Oak  mentions  some  poem  of  a  pre-Islam  pagan  Arab.  The  poem  purports  to  sing  the  praises  of  India  and the  Vedic  religion.  But,  any  such  poem  cannot  be  cited  as  any  relationship  between  Islam  and  the  idolatrous  Vedic  religion  of  the Hindus. The  pre-Islam  pagan  Arab  was  just as  idolatrous  as  the  idolaters of  India.  One  idol-worshipper  lauding  the  religion  of  other  idol worshippers  cannot  be  interpreted  as  any  relationship  between  Islam and  the  Vedic  religion  of  idolatry.  Even  if  the  idolater  happens  to  be  an Arab,  it  presents  no  evidence  for  the  ridiculous  theories  of  Oak.  We  fail to  understand  the  absurd  level  of  thinking  portrayed  by  Rationalist  in his  support for the  ideas  propagated by  Oak.  

The  polytheists  in  their  iconological  zeal  have  indeed  stretched  their imagination  to  absurd  proportions  by  the  attempt  to  strike  a resemblance  between  the  monotheistic  teachings  of  Islam  and  the idolatrous  practices  of  the  cult  of  iconolatry.  Idolatry  paralysis  the  human  mind  and  spirit  and  diminishes,  not  only  diminishes  but  utterly  destroys  the  dignity  of  human  being  –  a  dignity  which  pervades  him  by virtue  of  his  intelligent  belief  in  the  natural  concept  of  Tauheed  (Unity of Allah).

(10)  Rationalist  alludes  to  an  apparent  contradiction  in  our  explanation of  the  origin  of  the  Holy  Ka’bah.  It  was  said  in  our  explanation  that Aadam  (alayhissalaam)  was  the  first  person  to  build  the  Ka’bah. Again  we  stated  that  Nabi  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  was  the founder  of the  Ka’bah. Thus,  Rationalist  asks,

Was  Nabi  Ibraaheem  and  Adam  the  one  and  the  same  person?
  
No,  Nabi  Ibraaheem  and  Nabi  Aadam  (alayhimussalaam)  were  not the same  person.  Islam  teaches  that  the  first  House  of  Worship  on  earth was  the  Ka’bah  which  was  first  erected  by  Aadam  (alayhissalaam) under  the  guidance  of  Jibraeel  (the  Archangel  Gabriel).  The  great Deluge  during  the  time  of  Nabi  Nooh  (alayhissalaam)  destroyed the  building  of  the  Ka’bah  and  so  it  was  lost  to  mankind.  According  to the  Qur’aan  Nabi  Ibraaheem  and  his  son  Nabi  Ismaa’eel  (alayhimussalaam)  under  divine  instruction  and  guidance  once  again  founded  the Holy  Ka’bah  and  erected  the  holy  building.  The  Father  of  the  Arab nation  was  Ismaa’eel  the  son  of  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam). Historical  links  of  the  Arabs  leading  to  Ibraaheem (alayhissalaam)  were  well  recorded among  the  pagan  Arabs.  Thus,  while  they  were  fully  aware  of  the  fact that  Nabi  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  erected  the  Ka’bah,  they  did not  necessarily  have  the  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  Aadam  (alayhissalaam)  was  the  first  man  on  earth  to  have  built  the  Ka’bah.  Our  contention  that  Ibraaheem  (alayhissalaam)  was  the  founder  of  the Ka’bah  was,  therefore,  in  relation  to  the  Arabs  and  their  known  history. There  is  thus  no  real  contradiction.

(11)  In  an  attempt  to  refute  the  Islamic  contention  of  the  Ka’bah’s special  significance  in  so  far  as  Muslims  are  concerned,  Rationalist states:

But in the  Holy Quran,  Abdullah  Yusuf  Ali advocates  that  it  merely typifies  activity.

Commenting on  this  view  of  Yusuf  Ali,  Rationalist  asks,

Which  of  the  two is  acceptable,  what is written in  the  Holy Quran  or what the  Ulama  say..?”  

This  statement  reflects  Rationalist’s  stark  ignorance  about  matters pertaining  to  Islam.  Nowhere  in  the  Qur’aan  or  even  in  the  Ahaadeeth (Traditions)  is  it  said  that  the  circumambulation  (Tawaaf)  of  the  Ka’bah typifies  activity.  Rationalist  has  confused  Yusuf  Ali’s  personal  idea  and opinion  with  the  Qur’aan.  Rationalist  seems  to  be  labouring  under  the mistaken  notion  that  Yusuf  Ali’s  views  and  comments  are  in  fact  the Qur’aan  of  Islam.  What  Yusuf  Ali  believes  and  propagates  is  not  Islam. On  the  contrary  the  Ulama  present  what  is  propagated  by  the  Qur’aan. Yusuf  Ali’s  views  on  many  issues  are  just  as  fallacious  as  Oak’s  and Rationalist’s  theories  and  ideas  pertaining to  Islamic  issues.  

12)  For  the  information  of  Rationalist,  Muslims  do  not  believe  in  the Black  Stone  as  a  deity.  Islam  does  not  teach  the  Black  Stone  to  be  a possessor  by  divine  power.  Muslims  do  not  worship  the  Black  Stone. Kissing  by  no  means  constitutes  an  act  of  worship.  In  contrast, prostration  and  other  specific  acts  of  propitiation  do  constitute  acts  of worship.  Muslims  do  not  believe  the  Black  Stone  to  be  an  intermediary  between  them  and  Allah.  Kissing  the  Black  Stone  has  absolutely  no relationship  with  icon-worship.  Icon-worship  is  the  practice  of  the idolaters  who  believe  in  the  deification  of  man-made  idols.  Worship  is offered  to  man-made  idols.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  Muslim  belief (which  Rationalist  is  not  asked  to  believe  or  accept)  that  the  Black Stone  heralds  from  Jannat  (Paradise).  Its  present  form  is  not  its  original form  of  beauty  and  lustre.  It  is  kissed  as  an  expression  of  love  for  the Holy  Prophet  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  who  had  kissed  it  because  of  its origin.  It  originated  from  man’s  original  and  true  home,  viz.,  Jannat (Paradise),  the  abode  where  Aadam,  the  first  man,  was  created. Aadam (alayhissalaam),  our  father,  inhabited  Paradise.  The  original  home  of  man  is therefore  Paradise.  Man  will  have  to  return  to  his  original  home  one day.  The  Black  Stone  is  a  momento.  It  reminds  us  of  our  Home.  Our kissing,  it  is  thus  a  mere  expression  of  love.  Such  expressions  of emotions  are  perfectly  valid  and  reasonable  for  people  in  love.  Even those  in  love  with  transitory  worldly  objects  have  their  emotional  ways of  expressing  their  love  and  affection  –  ways  which  have  nothing  to  do with  worshipping.  

(13)  Rationalist  asks:

Cannot  one  have  communion  with  Allah  without these tangible  and intangible  supports..?

What  are  the  intangible  supports  to  which  Rationalist  refers?,  Here  is  a self-contradiction.  The  ‘tangible’  supports  obviously  refer  to  physical objects.  But, what does  Rationalist  mean by  “intangible  supports??”  

Out  of  the  hundreds  of  millions  of  Muslims  who  inhabit  this  earth  only about  a  million  annually  perform  the  pilgrimage  to  Makkah.  The  vast majority  of  Muslims  never  gain  the  opportunity  to  visit  the  Holy  Places, yet  they  commune  with  Allah  Ta’ala  without  any  ‘tangible  supports’. Even  those  who  perform  the  pilgrimage  and  have  the  opportunity  of expressing  their  love  by  kissing  the  Black  Stone  of  Jannat  commune with  their  Creator  Allah  without  the  support  of  the  tangible  Black Stone.  The  object  of  kissing  the  Black  Stone  is  not  to  establish communion  with  Allah.  Rationalist  possesses  absolutely  no understanding  of  Islamic  practices,  hence  he  jumps  to  baseless conclusions  which  are  merely  his  wishful  thinking.  Even  when performing  their  Salaat  (obligatory  five  daily  prayers)  Muslims,  while required  to  face  the  direction  of  the  Ka’bah  are  not  at  all  required  to  contemplate  the  Ka’bah  or  the  Black  Stone  or  any  other  physical  or tangible  object.  Such  contemplation  of  physical  objects,  viz.,  idols,  is the  practice  exclusively  of  those  who  have  sold  their  souls  to  satanic iconolatry.  Rationalist  has  thus  gravely  blundered  in  attempting  to strike  a  parallel  between  the  Islamic  act  of  kissing  the  Black  Stone  and the  worship  of icons  by  the  idolaters. 

(14)  Rationalist  states:

The  whole  controversy, initiated  by  Ahmad  Deedat need  not  have arisen:  We  agree  with  Rationalist  in  this  observation  and  condemn  Deedat  for initiating  such  useless  and  destructive  controversies.  Deedat  is  not  an ambassador  of  Islam  nor  is  he  qualified  to  speak  on  matters  pertaining to the Islamic Shariah