Is Non-Vegetarian food permitted or prohibited for a human being by God?’ It is not, ‘Whether Vegetarian food or Non-Vegetarian food - which is healthy or which is better?’ If I prove that ‘an Apple’ is better than ‘a Mango’ that does not mean ‘Mango’, is prohibited. Non-Vegetarian, by definition means - ‘A person who has food of animal origin’. It does not mean ‘A person who does not have Vegetarian food it does not mean a person who does not have vegetable and fruits.’
A more technical and a scientific word is, ‘an Omnivorous diet’. A person who has many types of food, especially foods of plant and animal origin. ‘Vegetarian’, it does not come from the word ‘Vegetables’- it comes from ‘Vegetas’ which means’ full of breath, full of life’. There are various types of ‘Vegetarians’. We have ‘Fructorians’, who only eat fruits and nuts - then we have the ‘Vedanta’, who do not have any animal products - we have ‘Lacto Vegetarian’, they have milk, we have the ‘Ovo Vegetarians’ who have eggs - We have the ‘Lacto-Ovo Vegetarians’, who have egg and milk also - We have the ‘Pesco Vegetarians’ who eat fish. We have ‘Semi Vegetarians’ who also have Chicken. And one can name another 20 types further. I would like to state a quotation by Dr. William T. Jarves. Dr. William T. Jarves, he is the advisor to the ‘American Council of Science and Health’ ‘ACSH’, and he is also the ‘Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine’ in the Lomalinda University, and he is also the founder and the President of the ‘National Council Against Health Frauds’, and he is the co-editor of the book ‘The Health Robbers - a closer look at Ouakery in America’. He classifies ‘Vegetarian’ based on the behavior’s stand point, into two categories ‘Pragmatic Vegetarian’ and ‘Ideological Vegetarian’. ‘A Pragmatic Vegetarian’ chooses his diet on objective health reasons - He is more reasonable in his approach, rather than emotional. ‘The Ideological Vegetarian’ on the other hand, chooses his diet based on a principle, which is based on ideology - he is more emotional, rather than reasonable. And Dr. William T. Jarves says ‘One can spot an Ideological Vegetarian, by his exaggeration of the benefits of Vegetarianism, and the lack of scepticism, and the overlooking of the fact that extreme Vegetarianism, can lead to potential health risk’. He says that‘The ideological Vegetarian he pretends to be like a scientist, but he is more like a lawyer, than like scientist’. They gather data information selectively, against the information which is against the ideology. This may be good for a debate, but not for engendering scientific understanding. Dr. William T. Jarves says that ‘Ideological Vegetarianism’ is filled with hypothesis - It is filled with extremism, from which even scientists and doctors are not immune’.
Let us analyze the various reasons, why a person chooses a food habit. It can be Religious, it can be Geographical location, it can be a personal choice, smell, taste, colour’. Due to humane or ethical consideration, due to anatomical and physiological consideration, due to behavioural consideration, it can be due to ecological and economical consideration, it can be due to nutritional value or due to health and scientific reasons health and medical reasons.
Let us first analyze the geographical reasons and the surrounding environment and as we know, it influences is the person’s food habit - like people living in the coastal region the Kookiness, they have more fish - People living in South India, they have more Rice - People living in the desert, where there is scarcity of vegetation, and people mainly survive on the flesh of animals. The Eskimo in the Arctic region, where there is scarcity of edible vegetation, they survive more on sea food. Let us analyze the ‘Humane reason’, the ‘Ethical reasons’ - And the pure Vegetarians, they say that ‘All life is sacred - and no living creature should be killed’. They fail to realize that today, it is a universal fact, that even plants have got life - So the main argument on killing living creature, does not hold good today. Previously may be a couple of centuries ago, it may have held some weight, but today it carries no weight. Then they further argue, and say, ‘Yes we know that plants have got life, but they cannot feel pain, therefore killing a plant, is a lesser crime and lesser sin, as compared to killing an animal’. Today, science has further advanced, and we have come to know that even the plants can feel pain, they can even cry - But the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human ear, because the audible frequency range of the human ear, is from 20 cycles per second, to 20,000 cycles per second - Anything below and above this, the human ear cannot hear.
But the cry of the animal can be heard by the human being but the cry of the plant cannot be heard by the human being. Just because you cannot hear the cry of the plant, that does not justify you to inflict pain or kill the plant. There was an ideological Vegetarian, who had a discussion with me, and he told me that ‘Brother Zahid, I know the plants have life, they feel pain but you know plants they have got about two senses less, as compared to the animals’. I said ‘For the sake of argument I agree with you’. But then I asked him a simple question, that ‘Suppose your brother is born deaf and dumb - cannot hear, cannot speak - two senses less - and when he grows up, and when someone comes and murders him - will you go and tell the Judge ‘O my Lord give the murderer a less punishment, because my brother had two senses less’. In fact he will say ‘Usne to Masoom ko mara hai’ ‘He has killed an innocent person - give him a bigger punishment’. And further if you analyze as far as living creatures are concerned - they are broadly classified in two types - ‘Human beings who are living creatures’- and Non-human being living creatures. There is no dispute that Human being should not be killed for food, As far as non-human being living creatures are concerned, no human being should harm them unnecessarily, should not kill them unnecessarily for sports, or for fun, or for target practice - but if it is for you security and for your safety, you can stop them, you can even kill them - or if you want for lawful food, but not just for fun and frolic, or for hunting. Even if I agree that the plants are a lesser species, as compared to the human beings - if you take the life of one animal an average animal, it can feed about hundred human beings. For these same hundred human beings, you may have to kill more than hundred plants. So is it preferable to take the life of one living animal, or the life of 100 living plants? Which is a bigger sin? Is it a bigger sin to kill human beings who are handicapped, or kill one healthy human being? Which is a bigger sin? You decide for yourself.
There is a Vegetarian Society by the name of ‘World Foundation on Reverence for all Life’. The name of the foundation is ‘World Foundation as Reverence for all Life’- they forgot to mention (except plant life) in bracket. And it says ‘All creation is one family’ “All life is sacred”. What kind of an ideology is this, that you permit the killing of one family member, but do not permit the killing of another family member? It is illogical and unscientific. In America, there are Vegetarian societies who take students to slaughter houses, and they make them see the bloodshed and convert them to Vegetarianism. It is like a doctor taking the young girls to observe and watch a difficult childbirth, and then say that, “Is the reason you should not marry, and you should not have children”. These are unethical forms of mind control. In fact we should teach our children that, ‘When vegetables can be grown for food, why cannot animals be raised for food?’ All life is sacred. Unnecessarily killing them is wrong - But for your requirement, lawful food is permitted.
Let us analyze the anatomical and the behavioural consideration, Considering the anatomical and the physiological aspect ‘If you observe the teeth of the Herbivorous animals the Cow, the Goat, the Sheep, they have a flat set of teeth, they only have vegetables. If you observe the teeth of the Carnivorous animals Lion, Tiger, Leopard, they have pointed set of teeth; they only have animal flesh - Not Non-Veg. Animal flesh’. They are not called as Non-Veg. animals; they are called as Carnivorous animals. There is a difference between ‘Carnivorous’ and ‘Non-Veg.’ It actually is, ‘Omnivorous.’ But if you analyze the set of teeth of the human being, have got flat teeth, as well as pointed teeth. If Almighty God, our Creator, wanted us to have only vegetables, why did He give us these pointed teeth - for what? The scientific meaning of the word - ‘Canine’ comes from the root word ‘Cananas’, in Latin, which means ‘of Dog’ - and ‘Canine’ means pertaining to the family of Canada, like Wolves, Dogs, etc. - Scientists have given this name, ‘Canine’, meaning ‘pertaining to Dog’. It is the teeth like the Monkeys and monkeys also have Non-Veg.? They have the Lice! - There are many species of Apes, who even have raw flesh of animals. There are many species of Apes who have raw flesh. They are Omnivorous - Who says they are Carnivorous? They are Omnivorous. They are not pure Veg. also. And many species are even called as ‘Cannibals’ - Some species of Apes and Monkeys.
If you analyze the digestive system of the human being, it can digest both Veg. as well as Non-Veg. If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetables, why did He give us the digestion system, which can digest both, Veg, as well as Non-Veg. Most human beings cannot have raw flesh. In the same way, most of the human beings cannot have raw vegetables, raw vegetarian diet, like raw Wheat, raw Rice. Can you have it? Raw Moong, raw Drumstick. You will get indigestion. You have to cook them. So you have to cook them. Similarly with the flesh, Non-Vegetarians, cook them for easy digestion. But yet there are certain human beings, who even have raw meat. ‘Eskimo’, the root word meaning of ‘Eskimo’, it literally means ‘Eaters of raw flesh’. So there are human beings who even have raw meat, they are conditioned. Tomorrow if you are conditioned to eat raw Wheat and raw Rice, even you may be able to digest it. But most human beings cannot digest certain raw vegetables. That does not mean you should not have Rice, you should have Wheat, that you should not have Drumsticks. There are in the Herbivorous animals, an enzyme known as ‘Cellulaze Enzyme’, and every vegetable has ‘Cellulaze’ - and this Cellulaze enzyme, helps in digesting the vegetables. We human beings, we do not have ‘Cellulaze enzymes’, therefore the vegetables we eat, the cellulose part remains undigested and you call them as ‘Fibres’. It is undigested. On the other hand, there are certain enzymes like Lipase, Trapezes, Kino Trapezes, which are mainly meant for digesting Non-Vegetarian food. If Almighty God did not want us to have Non-Veg. food, why did He give all these enzymes? And the primitive man, Archaeological evidence shows us clearly that the Homo Sapiens, the Eskimos, the Austo Aborigines, they were Non-Veg. We have the same teeth; we have the same digestive system.
A Non-Veg., is a person who has the food of the animal products, as well as Vegetarian food - it is an Omnivorous diet. In the human beings the liver & kidneys are small like the Herbivorous, because the animals have raw meat. Therefore they have to remove the toxins on a higher level - we do it by cooking the food. Therefore, God gave us a small kidney, and a small liver, which is sufficient to digest both, cooked Non-Veg. and also vegetables. Similarly with all the arguments, HCL. It is not very acidic, why? - Because we do not require it. If you do not require it, why should God unnecessarily give to us? Same is with saliva, same with the Ph of the blood, same with the Lipo-protein. All the arguments are that because they have raw flesh, therefore they required it. We do not require it so why should God give us? Yes! It is required for digesting Veg food, and cooked Non-Veg food. Carnivorous lick, and the Herbivorous animal sip’. We human beings, we do both. When we drink, while we drink, we sip. When we have ice cream what we do? We lick. We lick also, and we sip also depending upon what is the food we are eating. Even the tea we can lick, not that we cannot lick but why to waste time? - It will take more time. Teeth of humans are close’ because we also have vegetables. If God would have asked us not to have vegetables, then may be our teeth would have been far apart. He asked us to have both Non-Veg. as well as Veg. food.
The plants - many Vegetarians say, ‘they re grow, therefore we are not killing the plants’- and there are some plants which have that facility, not all plants. ‘There are various, which we cut, it re grows’. See this is the only argument, that because it re grows, you can have Veg food. You know if you cut the tail of the Lizard, it re grows - Will you have the tail of the Lizard? It is a delicacy. There are human beings, the ‘Australian Aborigines’, they relish the Lizard, but will you have the tail of the Lizard? –
Let us analyze the ‘Behavioural consideration’. It is not true, that if you eat plants, you behave like plants, it is not scientifically true. It is just an argument. Let’s consider various peace loving people like Mahatma Gandhi if, Mahatma Gandhi was peaceful, indicates, that if you have Veg food, makes you peaceful then today if you analyze the list of the Noble prize winners for peace, almost all, or most of them are Non Vegetarians. Manekchang Began, Non-Veg, Yaseer Arafat, Non-Veg, Anwar Sadat, Non-Veg, Mother Teresa, Non-Veg. I want to ask you a simple question, ‘Which man in the history of human kind, is known maximum, for killing maximum human beings - Can you guess?’ Adolf Hitler!, He has killed six million Jews - Was he a Non-Veg. or Veg.? Vegetarian! On a scientific viewpoint, I do not consider the diet of Hitler to be responsible for him killing six million Jews. Irrespective whether he was a Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian, I am not interested in knowing, because, I know it does not carry any weight. There were other factors which influenced him to take this drastic step, which is totally inhuman, not the diet.
There are various researches done - there have been researches in America on a group of students, who were ‘Pure Non-Veg.’ and on group of students who were ‘Veg. Pure Veg,’ and they analyzed that the group of students who were ‘Non-Veg.’ they were less violent, and they were more social - But it is a research. It is not a scientific fact. I will never use this as an argument to prove that Non-Veg. food makes you peaceful. No. These are ‘Researches’- but these ‘Researches’ are not ‘Scientific Facts’. There is not a single authentic medical book which says that, ‘Non-Veg. food in general should be prohibited’. All these are Researches - like the research done by this person in America. They say that, ‘Veg. food makes a person intelligent’, giving list of great names. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, etc., etc. If we analyze the list of the Noble Prize winners in all these years, majority were the Non-Veg. Today ‘Animal Behavioural’ scientists say, that ‘the carnivorous animal, should be more intelligent than the herbivorous animal, in order to catch the prey. If he is not intelligent, how will he catch the prey?’ But anyway, I am not going to use this as an argument. ‘Therefore Non-Veg. food makes you intelligent’ - because these things do not actually effect a human being. The diet does affect human beings, but these are arguments, do not effect There are people who give examples that… ‘Non-Veg. food makes you strong’ - is a myth. It is a scientific fact mentioned in every medical book, Authentic that, ‘Non-Veg. food is good for health’. It does have diseases also.You can prevent them - There are proteins, which I will come to it later on.
The smell and the sight of a Carnivorous animal is strong, the night vision is strong’. It is said that, ‘Night vision and sense of smell is strong in Carnivorous in Herbivorous, it is less, in human beings it is less, therefore we should be Vegetarian. There are Herbivorous animals like the ‘Bee’ whose sense of smell is very strong, and they even have a very good night vision. See, these arguments, which are not scientific, may be useful in a debate to convince the people illogically. The argument that Carnivorous animals have hoarse voice and Herbivorous animals have coarse voice.’ I want to ask you a simple question - Which animal is maximum known for a hoarse voice? - Donkey! Veg or Non-Veg? It’s Veg. Anyway, by no means am I trying to prove that Vegetarian food creates hoarse voice, or Non-Vegetarian food creates melodious voice. If you see the list of singers, many are Non-Veg, many are Veg. also. just by quoting singers who are Vegetarian - ‘Oh! That is why Vegetarian diet makes you melodious’... is all illogical arguments.
I put forth following points in support of the view that God did not design human vegetarian but created omnivorous.
Point No. 1 - There is not a single major Religion, which bans or prohibits all
Non-Veg. food in general.
Non-Veg. food in general.
Point No. 2 - Geographical places like Arctic, where Eskimos live - how could you have provided food all these years back, and today also if you provide, it is going to be more expensive.
Point No. 3 - If all life is sacred, why do you kill the plants even they have life.
Point No. 4 - Even plants feel pain.
Point No. 5 - Even if I agree that they have two senses less - killing a creature of two senses less is a lesser crime is illogical.
Point No. 6 - It is preferable to kill one animal and take one animal life, than to take 100 lives of plants, for feeding 100 people.
Point No. 7 - Each and every argument can be disproved the size of liver and the kidney, HCL, same with saliva, same with the Ph. of the blood, same with the Lipoprotein.
Point No. 8 - The human beings have an Omnivorous set of teeth, for eating Veg as well as Non-Veg.
Point No. 9 - They have a digestive system which can digest both Veg and Non-Veg.
Point No. 10 - Primitive man was Non-Veg. So you cannot say ‘It is prohibited for human beings’ - human beings means, it is even for that person.
Point No. 11 - The food you eat has an effect on you behavior but saying that ‘Non-Veg food makes you violent’, has got no scientific base at all.
Point No. 12 - Giving arguments that ‘Veg food makes you strong, makes you peaceful, makes you intelligent makes you athletes’, are all myths.
Point No. 13 - ‘Night vision and sense of smell, is strong in Carnivorous - in Herbivorous it is less’. ‘The Carnivorous animal has hoarse voice, you know coarse voice - Herbivorous animals do not have coarse voice’ are all illogical arguments.
Point No. 14 - ‘That Veg. food is cheaper’. It is not economical. In certain countries like India, it can be - But if you go abroad, in the Western countries, Veg food is more expensive and fresh Veg. food is phenomenal, Fresh vegetables. Further more
Point No. 15 – That the land required to graze the animal, will cause scarcity of the land for growing crops is also wrong.
Point No. 16 - If the Non-Vegetarians stop slaughtering the cattle do you know that there will be over population of cattle?
Point No. 17 - According to Dr. Kar, All books recommending vegetarian food are written by dieticians, they cannot be relied upon’.
Point No. 18 -There is not a single statement in any authentic medical book which says ‘Non-Veg. food in general, should be banned’.
Point No. 19 - There is not a single government on the face of the earth, which has banned all Non-Veg. food, as a general rule.
Point No. 20 - The American Council on Science and Health’ has said that ‘for a healthy diet, being a pure Vegetarian is not required’. These are sufficient proofs, logical and scientific, that Non-Veg. food has to be permitted.
Therefore God has created Human Omnivorous and equipped him accordingly. God also blessed human beings the brain which can logically analyze and accept the truth happily. Fanatics are coward people. It requires courage and serenity to accept what is truth and reject what is false. As a general rule whenever falsehood is hurled against the truth, truth will ultimately prevail. It is a personal choice. Some people like, due to certain taste, etc. And, only thing I would like to tell the people that the Vegetarians, the ideological Vegetarians who do so much propaganda that, ‘This has got more value, etc.’ - they should stop such things, and stop distributing these type of books and propagating illogical and unscientific views which mislead the people.
Col MZU Siddiquie,SM
No comments:
Post a Comment