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

The Question of consuming meat and non-vegetarian foods has been object if 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 nonvegetarian 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. II. Lacto-Vegetarian: This diet includes milk and dairy foods, but no animal flesh or egg. Ovo-Vegetarian: Diets that include eggs but no milk, dairy food, or animal flesh.

Ill. Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarian: flesh. (c)

Diets that include milk, dairy foods, and egg but no animal

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. Jarvi's 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 (i) RELIGIOUS 1. AND 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 NonVegetarian 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 someones sentiments are hurt because he is an ideological vegetarian9 I sincerely apologize for the same. 2 (a) FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT ISLAAM SAY ON THIS ISSUE? 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 Qurn 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

Again in Rig-Veda 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 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 "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" 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 even 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 scarified 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 Vivekanand 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 scarified 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 scarified. 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 CHHINNKARNTWADIDASHRAHITYAM. 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, HORSE, GOAT 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 2/6/6That 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 rnembrane 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 he 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 he 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 Rigveda 10/89/14 -The

'That is, "0 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 [1O/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," 0 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, "0 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 -YAJURVED6 35/20 THAT IS, "0 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 [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 AGHNYYAM 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 SMIRITI

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 BRIHDARANYAKOPANISHAD (6/4/18): mention the beef-eating. Thus says the

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 SANWATASARMIHOCHCHAYATTE. -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 Mahahharat 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 aboveverse 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, -MAHAHHARAT, 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 BHOOVEE PARINTTRAM RANTIDEOSYA KRILEEM. MANYISHAYAN SHROTOMRITYAM -MEGHDUTAM 45,48, 49

That is, "0 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 Brahmins and 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 SOCALLED 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 SAUKARCHCHHAGLAINEYA RORAGURAYEN CHA BHAGRAVAISHCHA MANSVRIDHYA' PITAMAHA. PRAYANTE TRIPTIM MANSAIASTU YADHINSAMISHAIH. -VISHNU PURAN [3/16/1-2.] CHA. TATHA NITYAM

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 QURN PERMITS EATING OF NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD. According to the Glorious Qurn: 1. Surah Maidah Chapter 5 Verse 1(5: 1) "0 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 Muminoon 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 Qurnic verses make it crystal clear that Muslims may have non-vegetarian food. (D) QURNIC VERSES MISINTERPRETED

Some ideological vegetarians try to prove from the Qurn 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 Allh ,it is your piety that reaches him: He has thus made them subject to you, that you may glorify Allh for his guidance to you: and proclaim the good news to all who do right" This verse of the Glorious Qurn 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 people1/3 rd 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 Anaam Chapter 6 Verse 14 "Say: 'shall I take for my protector any other than AIlah1 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 Qurn 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 Qurn 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 peoples staple diet is food obtained from animal sources. 3. ESKIMOS IN ARTIC 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 nonvegetarian 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 Qurn Surah Maidah 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 VEGETARIAN FOOD: (a) THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN ALSO DIGEST NON-

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 nonvegetarian 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 nonvegetarian 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 SALIVA OF CARNIVORES ARE MORE ACIDIC THAN THAT OF THE HUMAN

11 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 QURN SAYS PROPHET PROHIBITS WHAT IS BAD

The glorious Qurn says in Surah A`raaf Chapter 7 Verse 157(7:157 ) "Those who follow in the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet (PBUH), 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 Prophets (PBUH) 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 (PBUH) 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. iii. iv. (2) Certain rodents like mice, rats, rabbits with claws, etc. Certain reptiles like Snakes, alligators etc. Birds preying with talons or claws, like vultures, eagles, crows, owl, etc; 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 Arafat1 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 nonvegetarian 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 (PBUH) and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) 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 DOESNT 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 is 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 pastures1 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 nonmilking 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. 5 .EAT 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 Qurn prohibits dead meat in no Less than 4 places. In Surah Baqarah chapter 2 verse 173 (2:173) In surah Maidah chapter 5 verse 8 (5:8) In Surah Anaam 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 B 12. Vitamin B 12 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 10. EGG 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 germs1 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 DOESNT 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 Qurn: 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 Anaam 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: (20:81)

The Glorious Qurn mentions in Surah Taha chapter 20 verse 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. 6. PREVENTION 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 MAIOR 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 nonvegetarian 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 nonvegetarians. 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 NonVegetarian 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 VEGETARIAN MEDICAL HEALTH ORGANISATION HAS PROHIBITED NON-

I do not know of a single authentic medical health organisation, which has banned all nonvegetarian 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 like Meat 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: 1. Not a single major religion prohibits all non-vegetarian food in general 2. 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? 3. I fail to understand on what ground they claim that there is not provision of beef eating in the Hindu religious books. 4. 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. 5. What would the Eskimos living in the Arctic regions eat where edible vegetation is hardly found? 6. If all life is sacred then why kill plants, which also have life? 7. Plants can even feel pain. 8. Killing a non-human living creature of two senses less is not a lesser crime. 9. Sacrificing one animal life is better than 100 plant's lives 10.Whether milk is non-vegetarian is debatable. 11. Even animals feel pain while milking. 12.If animals are not created for food then drinking milk is robbing the milk meant for the calves. 13.If plants can be grown for food then why can't animal be raised for food? 14.Human being have omnivorous set of teeth for eating both vegetarian food as well as nonvegetarian food. 15.Human beings can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food. 16.Primitive man was non-Vegetarian. 17.Meat protein doesn't cause scarcity of edible vegetable protein. 18.Raising animals for food doesn't cause scarcity of land for agriculture. 19.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. 20.If cattle is not slaughtered for food then there will be over population of cattle. 21.Vegetables are not always cheaper than non-vegetarian food. 22.Even if non-vegetarian is more expensive there is no harm in paying more money for good quality food. 23.Protein of non-vegetarian is biologically a complete protein and of a higher quality. 24.All essential fatty acids are present in meat 25.Non-vegetarian contains more Haem iron, which is more easily absorbed. 26.Non-Veg food also contains vitamin B 12, Zinc and Iodine.

27.Egg is a nutrient dense food 28.Prevention of nutritional deficiency is possible in Vegetarian food but it should be planned and regulated very carefully and meticulously. 29.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. 30.Maintaining the hygienic conditions and cooking meat well can prevent several diseases 31.Abstaining from pork can prevent several diseases. 32.Food rich in fat irrespective whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian causes IHD. 33.Egg is rich in cholesterol but is not solely the cause of IHD 34.According to ACSH it is not necessary to give up meat and become a vegetarian to enjoy the benefits of healthy life. 35.No government in the world has banned all non-vegetarian food in general. 36.No authentic medical book has prohibited all non-vegetarian food in general. 37.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? 38.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. If yet you consider that non-vegetarian should be prohibited, I request you to answer all the 38 points at non-vegetarian@allaahuakbar.net 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.