Hello There :
Please read.
Thanks
Hind translation of this verse is very interesting it says
Again in RigVeda book 10 Hymn 28 verse 3 it says "0 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 RigVeda 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 "Yudhishthirn said, "0 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, 0 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 years. The 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 Brahmjn 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
“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"
This verse says those who don't eat meat will become sacrificial animals in next twenty-one rebirths. It not only says that a person will become an animal but says will become “sacrificial animal" meaning others will sacrifice him
LOGICAL ARGUMENTS
In spite of all these references from Hindu scriptures some still may argue that it is better not to kill any living creature. They forget that even after being pure vegetarian, we have to kill living creatures, to get vegetarian food; we have to kill plants and fruits, which are living creatures. In the past people thought that plants are lifeless but today we know that plants too have life. Some further argue that though! Plants have life it cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant is a lesser crime as compared to killing an animal. Today science tells us that even plants can feel the pain But the cry of plant cannot be heard by the human being This is Hertz to 20,000 Hertz We cannot hear the infrasonic sound whose frequency is below 20 Hertz and we cannot hear ultrasonic sound whose frequency is above 20,000 Hertz. There was a research done by a farmer who invented an instrument, which converted the cry of the plant so that it could be heard by human beings He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried for water. Latest research shows that, the plants even feel happy and sad it can also cry. Plants and fruits have got sexes - male and female.
Some further argue saying, “We agree that plants have life and they also feel pain. But plants only have two or three senses while the animals have five senses. Therefore killing a plant is lesser crime than killing an animal”. Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb and has got two senses less as compared to other human beings He becomes mature and someone murders him. Will you ask the law to give murderer a lesser punishment because your brother has two senses less? In fact you would say that he has killed a masoom!!, an innocent person and you should give the murderer a greater punishment.
If every human being becomes a vegetarian, it will lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since the reproduction and multiplication of cattle is very swift. According to news report in Times of India, about 100 years back there were 40,000 tigers in India. Now there are only 20,000 tigers let, since in past 100 years 20,000 tigers were killed 20,000 tigers killed in 100 years means, in an average, 200 tigers every year And it is feared that if hunting is continued at the same rate, tigers will be vanished from forests of India On the contrary millions of cattle are slaughtered every year and still there is no scarcity of cattle. By killing just 200 tigers a year, the existence of tigers is in danger but by killing millions of cattle every year there is no problem as such. If we stop eating non-vegetarian food there will be overpopulation of cattle. Allah (swt} in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.
Even medically it is preferable to include some portion of non-vegetarian food in our diet Meat is rich in protein, iron, vitamin B1 and niacin. Non-vegetarian food is a good source of excellent protein. Only meat contains "A” class proteins. No vegetable got "A” class protein. The highest class that can be obtained in vegetables is in Soybean, that is “B+” class protein. Thus non-vegetarian food is helpful for our body
Having both vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet i.e. omnivorous diet is quite natural for human beings considering our body structure. If we observe the teeth of herbivorous animal like cow, goat and sheep, we will find something strikingly similar in all of them. All these animals have a set of flat teeth i.e. suited for herbivorous diet If we observe the set of teeth of carnivorous animals like the lion, tiger, or leopard, they all have a set of pointed teeth i.e suited for carnivorous diet. If you analyse the set of teeth of we humans, you will find that we have flat teeth as well as pointed teeth. Thus we have teeth suited for both herbivorous as well as carnivorous diet. We may ask ourselves, if Almighty God wanted humans to have only vegetables, then why did He provide us with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to need and to have both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.
Digestive system of herbivorous animals can digest only vegetables. The digestive system of carnivorous animals can digest only meat. But the digestive system of humans can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food. If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetables then why did he give us digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food?
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). Human beings cannot hear anything below or above this range. 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’ân 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 cattle is artificially milked, it is very painful. This can be very well realized by breast feeding women who sometimes have to voluntarily extract their own breast milk due to some reasons it causes excruciating pain.
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 cattle are 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 blood-shed 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.
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".
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." His Classification of a Vegetarian
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".
We Muslims do not mind if some people are pure vegetarians. However they should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all Indians become non-*!vegetarians then we Muslims will be losers since the prices of meat would rise.
CONCLUSIONS
I like to end with following conclusions
1. If by Ahimsa it means that one should not harm or injure any creature unnecessarily, then we agree with this concept of Ahimsa. But there is no harm in slaughtering the animals and cutting the plants for our food.
2. Though Hindus in general think that non-vegetarian food is against their religion but the fact is Hindu scriptures allow non-vegetarian food.
3. Consumption of non-vegetarian food is quite natural and helpful for our body and not harmful.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.JAINA RELIGIONS AND COMMUNITY- By Dr. Vilas Sangliave
2. HYMNS OF RIGVEDA- By Ralph Griffith
3. HYMNS OF ATHERVAVEDA- By Ralph Griffith
4. THE LAWS OF MANU- By Penguin Books
5. MANU SMRUTI- By Pandit Jwala Prasad Chaturvedi
6. MAHABHARAT
7. THE HOLY QUR'ÂN- Translation by Abdullah Vusuf Ali
8. SAHEEH AL-BUKHAAREE- By Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan
9, MUWATTA 'IMAAM! MALIK- By. Muhammad Rahimuddin
IS NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD PERMITTED OR PROHIBITED
FOR A HUMAN BEING
