agniveer.com http://agniveer.com/halal/

Agniveer

In defence of Halal meat

Islam definitely means peace in Arabic. However fake Islamicrepresentatives like Zakir Bhai, MBBS (Dr Zakir Naik) arebent on proving the contrary. We have already seen how DrZakir Naik, who claims to be a Wahabi, is actually a Qadiyaniwith an agenda of his own. (Refer the expose on his fraudwritings).

It is not a surprise that the world sees a brutal history in Islam,if people like Dr Zakir Naik continue to remain itsrepresentative. We shall not dwell into the historical part, butwould review another extract from a book claimed to bewritten by Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik Answer to Non-Muslims Common Questions About Islam.

I am not sure from where Dr Zakir Naik has lifted the materialfor this book, now that we already know that all he does is tocopy-paste from previous books from copyrighted Qadiyani sources without acknowledging the author (sinceQadiyanis are considered non-Muslims by most Muslims especially Wahabis)

But very honestly, if one replaces Dr Zakir Naiks name with some other non-Muslim name, this books appears tobe a book of dark humor to humiliate Islam written by an enemy of Islam. When I first got the copy of the book, Ithought it was created by an anti-Muslim to denigrate Islam and Zakir Bhai, MBBS. But when I searched oninternet and found this to be actually written to promote Islam, I was shocked!

But now that we know the hidden agenda of Zakir Bhai, MBBS, I would request my Muslim brothers and sisters toensure they are not sharing this book Answer to Non-Muslims Common Questions About Islam andpromoting defamation of Islam which means peace.

We have already briefly seen how Zakir Bhai, MBBS has made mockery of Islam by giving funny reasons to justifypolygamy in this post.

In present post, we shall discuss another topic from Answer to Non-Muslims Common Questions AboutIslam and see why with friends like Zakir Bhai, MBBS, who needs enemies.

EATING NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD (Page 18-21)

Dr Naik starts with usual details of ayats from Quran permitting non-vegetarian food and stating that even avegetarian can be a Muslim. Then he goes to discuss typical health benefits of non-vegetarian food which havebeen debated and contested for long. We shall not dwell into those and recommend to go through a variety ofresources available on internet.(The purpose of this article is not to debate vegetarian food vs non-vegetarian food, but to see how Dr Zakir Naikis humiliating Islam).

Suddenly Dr. Zakir Naik gets bizarre. He claims, One may ask, if Almighty God wanted humans to have onlyvegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to need and tohave both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food.

(Comment:

1. I am sure Zakir Bhai, MBBS who claims to be an MBBS knows at least that there are large number of vegetarianfood that require tearing and hence use of pointed teeth (canines). A simple example is sugarcane. In fact almostall vegetarian food that are hard require use of pointed teeth!

2. The pointed teeth (canine) in humans are not as large and pointed as in case of carnivorous animals. Inhumans, they are of same size as other teeth. In fact, it is the vegetarians who give this argument to justifyvegetarianism!

3. Thus I am not sure if Zakir Bhai, MBBS actually wrote this to support Islamic non-vegetarianism or make ofmockery of it)

He goes further berserk and states, If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetables then why did Hegive us a digestive system that can digest both vegetarian as well as non-vegetarian food?

(Comment:

1. I now sincerely doubt if Zakir Bhai, MBBS is an MBBS in first place. Maybe he followed ways of Munna BhaiMBBS to get the degree. Or perhaps he does not check the content before copy-pasting. Or perhaps he is doing itdeliberately, being a Qadiyani.

2. Our digestive system can digest even human flesh and blood. In fact many parts of human bodies can providelarge amounts of nutrients. Does it mean we should start eating dead bodies instead of burying them and drinkingtheir blood?

3. Even if humans eat their own excreta, the digestive system would process it one more time. Do we start eatingthat?

4. Now some followers of Zakir Bhai, MBBS have started quoting from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, to justifythat even saliva is good for health!

See some examples: Muhammad used his saliva to soften a date, and then gave it to an infant to suck(Sahih Bukhari, 25.5340,5341, 5345)

When Anass son was born Muhammad fed him with dates mixed with his (Muhammads) saliva and gave him thename Abdullah(Sahih Bukhari, 31.6013)

Muhammads saliva is good for children. He used to spit into the mouth of suckling children, and his saliva wouldsatisfy them until nightfall(Ash Shifa, p.184)

If a baby sucked Muhammads tongue, the baby became quiet(Ash Shifa, p.184)

He gave alHasan and alHusayn his tongue to suck. They had been weeping from thirst and upon suckingMuhammads tongue they became quiet(Ash Shifa, p.184)

People rubbed Muhammads spittle on their faces(Ash Shifa, p.237)

Muhammad recommended that you can spit on your cloth and then fold it and rub it(Sahih Muslim, 4.1121)

Spit three times to the left when someone questions who created Allah(ibn Ishaq, p.270)

So perhaps, Zakir Bhai, MBBS is soon going start suggesting consumption of each others saliva on same set ofarguments and proofs from Hadiths, as he does to support non-vegetarianism! Or maybe selling his saliva alongwith his books, on same logic that he is using to justify meat here.)

The 4 VedasComplete (English)

Zakir Bhai, MBBS goes further beyond senses when he starts quoting from Hindu Scriptures that they containpermission to eat a variety of meat. He says:There are many Hindus who are strictly vegetarian. They thinkit is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. But the true fact is that the Hindu scripturespermit a person to have meat. The scriptures mention Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarianfood. He goes on to cite evidences from Hindu Scriptures Manu Smriti and Mahabharat.

(Comment:1. I do not understand why suddenly Hindu scriptures emerge in a book on Muslims. Its a common theme in hiscopy-pasted plagiarized material that in a research on Hinduism, he would quote more from Quran and Hadiths;and in a research on Islam, he would quote from Hindu texts!

Perhaps because, being a Qadiyani he believes that Hinduism is the oldest religion and Islam is only a revision!But then what about his Wahabi claim?

2. With regards to Manu Smriti, it clearly prohibits meat in 5.51 which says: Those who permit slaying ofanimals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who sell meat; those whopurchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it; those who serve that meat and those who eat are allmurderers.

Its an open fact that almost half of Manu Smriti is either adulterated or misinterpreted. That is why no Brahmininvolved in rituals ever resorts to meat-eating. If indeed Manu Smriti allowed meat-eating, Brahmins would havebeen the biggest meat-eating class in India! One should refer to Manusmriti by Dr Surendra Kumar available fromhttp://agnikart.com to evaluate this in detail.

3. The Mahabharat evidence is also irrelevant because Mahabharat is not considered an authentic scripture inmatters of Dharma in Hinduism. Mahabharat itself states in Shantiparva 265.9.4:Suraa Matsyaa Pashormaasam Aasavam KrisharoudanamDhurtaih Prvartitam Yajne Naitad Vedeshu VidyateAvyavasthitamaryaadaeh Vimudhairnaastikaeh NaraehSanshayaatmabhiravyaktaih Hinsaa Samanuvarnitaa

Meaning: Alcohol-drinking, Fish, Meat eating, aasava consumption these are not present in Vedas. Thesehave been propagated by fraud people. They have fraudulently added these uncontrolled, reckless,atheist descriptions in our texts.

Further Mahabharat states Mansaharinah Kuto Daya How can you expect compassion from a meat-eater!

The only authoritative text for Hinduism is The Vedas. So if one has to prove meat-eating, he has to show it in theVedas. And for Vedas, refer to http://agniveer.com/vedas/no-beef-in-vedas/ to see beyond doubt that Vedasseverely condemn meat-eating.)

In next point, Dr Naik claims that Hindus adopted vegetarianism from Jains!

(Comment:1. How is this point relevant in a book explaining logic of Muslim practices is best known to Zakir Bhai, MBBS.

2. Hindus and Jains both have origin from same basic humanistic ideology as presented in Vedas. The traits ofDharma as presented by both is almost similar. Jains are an integrated part of the society that is nowadays calledHindu. Zakir Bhai, MBBS attempts to deliberately create differences between them by providing statements out ofcontext is utterly deplorable.

3. Or perhaps he is trying to feed his Qadiyani agenda!)

Next he goes on to prove that Plants also have life and that Plants also feel pain. He states:

If a person can survive without killing any living creature, I would be the first person to adopt such a wayof life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a universal fact that even plants havelife. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.Therewas research done by a farmer in U.S.A. who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plantso that it could be heard by human beings. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself criedfor water. Latest researches show that the plants can even feel happy and sad. It can also cry.

(Comment:1. Look at the source of research of Zakir Bhai, MBBS: a FARMER in USA! No scientist, institution, or university,but a farmer best known only to Zakir Bhai MBBS! What more one needs to see if he is defending or defamingIslam!

2. No such research has ever been conducted, nor it is possible to conduct. While researches have been done toestablish similar electrochemical and biochemical reactions in plants as in animals, there is nothing to suggestthat plants cry or feel pain. Opinion is divided among theists on whether plants have soul or not, but all agree thatplants do not feel pain in the manner animals feels.

3. Incidentally, all Muslims are not as fanatic as Zakir Bhai, MBBS would want the world to believe. There is agrowing population of Islamic vegetarians who interpret the Quran to justify vegetarianism. Many among themrefuse to consider the Quran in current form as final word of Allah and are much progressive. Some even believethat parts of Quran are misquoted by fanatics to present an Islam which is completely against the true concept ofIslam. Some are approaching Vedas to understand original Dharma. We shall discuss the views of these rationalMuslims who submit to reason in another article.

But here, let me reproduce reply to Zakir Bhai, MBBS by a leading Muslim vegetarians society(http://islamveg.com):Do Plants Feel Pain?

Some Muslims have been misled by Internet discussions indicating that plants feel pain. This argument is used bythose who wish to justify their meat consumption by claiming that because both plants and animals feel pain, thereis no ethical or religious difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food.

Not Taking LifeOne argument begins by explaining that plants have life, presumably just the same as animals and humans, andthus, this argument claims that one cannot avoid taking life simply by consuming plant foods. The concept of life

used in this argument is nebulous and general, and the argument does not make a moral or religious distinctionbetween the life possessed by plants and that possessed by animals.

One author claims that if it were possible to eat a diet that did not involve taking life, he would adopt that dietimmediately, but since, according to the author, a vegetarian diet also takes life, he states that he may as wellcarry on eating meat. In addition to the lack of clarification about the concept of life and the lack of distinctionbetween animal life and plant life, the author failed to note that a diet that meets his criteria does exist. Manypeople follow a fruitarian diet, meaning that they eat fruits, some vegetables that have seeds, and nuts.Fruitarian diets do not require the taking of life, as plants produce fruits, seeds, and nuts so that they can beeaten. The plants neither suffer nor die to provide these foods. While we do not recommend this diet, it does meetthis authors criteria, and if the taking of life really is so important, this is the diet for him.

Supporters of this view of life also claim that since both plants and animals have life, it is better to take the life ofone animal, who might feed 100 people, than to take the life of 100 or more plants to feed the same number ofpeople. The fallacy of this argument will be investigated in more detail below.

Plants Inability to Feel Pain

Supporters of this theory also claim that plants feel pain andthat one farmer used a device to scientifically catch thesounds of plants crying out and screaming in pain. Theystate that our limited range of hearing cannot pick up thescreams of plants but that machines can.The truth is thatplants, when stressed, release a chemical called ethylene.This chemical indicates that the plant needs to increase cellgrowth or take other measures against the perceived stressor.Scientists measured levels of ethylene released fromstressed plants by listening to them using lasers until a certain frequency was measured.While this researchshows that plants might have a stress-avoidance response, it is quite a stretch to refer to this as pain. It is evenmore erroneous to equate this response with the pain suffered by animals and human beings. Plants lack nerveendings, brains, hormones, and other structures that would allow them to experience pain. They also lack theability to move away from sources of stress, an evolutionary trait linked with the ability to feel pain.

Even those who argue that plants feel pain and suffer should support a vegetarian diet because the number ofplants that must be fed to an animal to produce enough meat for one human is greater than the number of plantsrequired to feed that same human if he or she ate the plants directly. Meat-eaters are responsible for killing 10times more plants than vegetarians, and they also kill and cause suffering to animals.The argument that plants feelpain and suffer and that killing them is as bad as killing animals is weak and illogical. Those who use thisargument to justify their continued consumption of meat should attempt to approach the debate in a more logical,scientific manner.

Such claims have fooled many well-intentioned Muslims into perpetuating these falsehoods on the Internet. Thisis harmful to our Ummah, as it makes us appear ignorant and ill informed.

We ask that all Muslims who have put forward such unfounded claims remove these claims from their Web sitesand other public forums and cease spreading these fictitious claims at conferences and debates. For moreinformation regarding plants inability to feel pain, see Peter Singers Animal Liberation.

Zakir Bhai surges ahead in his mission to defame Islam by stating another peculiar reason: If every humanbeing was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction andmultiplication is very swift. Allah (swt) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of Hiscreation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.

(Comments:

1. By now, one would have no doubts that Zakir Bhai, MBBS is merely cracking jokes on shoulders of Islam.

2. Despite his claims of MBBS, he seems to have no clues about natural ecological cycles that automatically takescare of overpopulation of certain breeds.

3. Most importantly, he conveniently ignores stating that there is already an overpopulation of cattle due to humandemand for meat! Cattle are specifically reared for meat consumption who consume 4 times more resources thanhumans, and are way above natural limits as per ecological requirements.

4. Either Zakir Bhai, MBBS has given this argument because he did not read the material that he stole for hisbook, or he is on a mission to denigrate Islam. Because this again is a big argument in favor of vegetarianism, thatmeat-eaters cannot answer.)

He ends up this section with a silly joke: I do not mind if some people are pure vegetarians. However theyshould not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all Indians become nonvegetarians then thepresent non-vegetarians would be losers since the prices of meat would rise.

(Comment:One cannot understand what he means by this statement. Is he defending vegetarians or non-vegetarians. Thepara is quite confusing, but one thing is clear He is demeaning Islam in any case. Perhaps because being aQadiyani, his vision of Islam is different from the more rational ones among Muslims.)

Zakir Bhai, MBBS missed certain other arguments in favor of vegetarianism namely:- environmental conservation in raising vegetarian food compared to animal food- resource optimization by minimizing food resources used to feed cattle reared to feed humans- feeding more people through vegetarian food that can feed at least 10 times more people- plants can be regrown, animals cannot be- the number of disease that non-veg foods make one vulnerable to- etc etc.

You can visit any vegetarian site like ivu.org or PETA or http://www.ethicalvegetarian.com/arguments.html etc formore on this. Or review our article Say No to Meat.

As I emphasized, the purpose of this article was not to get into veg vs non-veg debate, but show how Zakir BhaiMBBS uses this as a ploy to demean Islam.

I would however like to emphasize that Vedas, where Zakir Bhai sees the source of Prophet, stronglycondemns any practice that is based on killing innocent creatures, degrading environment and wastingvaluable resources.

In next part of the article, he addresses the following issue:

ISLAMIC METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS APPEARS RUTHLESS (Page 22)

He explains the method and then provides following set of ridiculous arguments to justify it:a. It is more hygienicb. It keeps meat fresh for longer timec. Animals do not feel pain

(Comments:Instead of putting my personal views, I would like to share that it is the progressive Muslims of today who are

demanding ban on meat and especially the form of Halal meat that Zakir Bhai is recommending. They haveprovided ample material to prove that this is an extremely loathsome method in current context and goes againstteachings of original Quran of Prophet Muhammad (and not Zakir Bhai).

They deplore the fact that fake people like Dr Zakir Naik are claiming to be sole representatives of Islam andpresenting a distorted Islam to world that makes lives of an average educated Muslim miserable.

Here are certain points from http://www.islamveg.com/halalmeat.asp which is dedicated to promoting VegetarianIslam.

1. They quote from New Scientist, the premiere research journal on how Animals Feel the Pain of MuslimSlaughter: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17972-animals-feel-the-pain-of-religious-slaughter.html?full=true&print=true

2. They provide several reasons why so-called Halal meat is not actually Halal.

3. They claim that Vegetarian foods and ingredients, not counting alcohol, are halal by nature. Eatingvegetarian is the best and easiest way to ensure that you are keeping halal.

I hope the Muslims misled by like of Zakir Bhai MBBS, would reject the fake Qadiyani, and embrace the rationalapproach of Vedas as welcomes by progressive Muslims. In Vedic approach, one does not kill innocent animalsfor taste-buds and hence the question of slaughter does not arise in first place.)

-

The next topic he takes is

NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD MAKES MUSLIMS VIOLENT (Page 23)

Question:Science tell us that whatever one eats, it has an effect on ones behaviour. Why then, does Islam allowMuslims to eat non-vegetarian food, since eating of animals could make a person violent and ferocious?

Answer:1. Only eating of herbivorous animals allowed I agree that, what a person eats has an effect on hisbehaviour. This is one of the reasons why Islam prohibits the eating of carnivorous animals like lion, tiger,leopard, etc. who are violent and ferocious. The consumption of the meat of such animals would probablymake a person violent and ferocious. Islam only allows the eating of herbivorous animals like cow, goat,sheep, etc. that are peaceful and docile. Muslims eat peaceful and docile animals because Muslims arepeace loving and non-violent people.

He then goes on to quote from Quran and Hadiths on the kind of meat that is haram and halal based on whetherthe animal is peaceful or violent.

(Comment:1. Nothing could be more obvious than this concluding part of the topic of food, on true motives of Zakir Bhai,MBBS. He is simply writing all this to ridicule Islam on pretext of Veg-non-veg debate!

2. Let us analyze: First he admits that food has an impact on ones behavior.

Next, he says that Muslims are peaceful because they eat peaceful animals. By this logic, why are notcarnivorous animals also considered peaceful? After all a carnivorous animal like lion, tiger or leopard also eatsdocile animals like Muslims. So either one considers lion, tiger etc also to be peaceful like Muslims or shouldconsider Muslims to be violent and ferocious like carnivorous animals.

3. And if we consider carnivorous animals to be peaceful because they eat same food as Muslims, then Quranshould not prohibit eating of carnivorous animals also. Because it is hence proved that even carnivorous animalsare peaceful and Muslims are permitted to eat peaceful animals!

The 4 VedasComplete (English)

4. Going further, even eating of peaceful humans should be justified because eating peaceful humans will makeone loving and non-violent!

5. Zakir Bhai is perhaps creating grounds for defense of terrorists who kill innocent people. He would thus arguein court, These terrorists are peace loving and non-violent people because they kill peaceful and docile people!

)

-

Muslims, especially followers of Zakir Bhai, MBBS should introspect and decide if they can afford to allow fakescholars like him to continue to be representative of Islam. If yes, Muslims are bound to face ridicule andhumiliation. If not, they should promote more progressive Muslim movements, who evaluate Islam more rationally.

What you eat may be your personal choice. One can debate on this, and yet maintain cordial relationships. Butdemeaning Islam on pretext of defending Islam is indeed a shameful act.

In defence of Halal meat