How did Hindus Become Vegetarians?

Sattar saab,

if a secular country like india can provide subsidy on hajj and vishnu yatra then why shouldn't a government of islamic country take side in the issue where muslim identity is at stake.

As far as killing of opostates (whatever the spellings) is concerned. Let me explain it how I beleive it. In my opinion every prophet came up with clear and irrefutable evidence. Those who did not converted to faith and moreover tried to oppose by teasing prophet got destroyed. This happened to noah, loot and other prophets audience nation. In case of last prophet those who accepted in his time and then reverted are given death in the same prophetic tradition. But after the time of prophet this is no more valid.

Re: # 199

I would like to be educated and corrected in this regard.

Re: # 197

Eklavya:

I think a part of blame goes to the believers as well who when argue with atheists who masquerade as "science types", have to speak a common language. For example, take the example of the 'floating stones" that Lord Ram used to build a bridge from mainland India to Sri Lanka to rescue Sita. A science guy will reject the notion of a floating stone right away. But we now know that the floating stones do exist in the world even though very rare. It is those meteors that contain high silica content. When these meteors enter Earth's atmosphere they start heat up to several hundred degrees; the silica in the stones turns into liquid glass and traps bubbles of air in them. So as they touch the earth surface they start cooling down with air still trapped in them. This trapped air provides the necessary buoyancy to keep those stones afloat. Here we solve on part of the atheist's problem whose science contention was that "stones do not float". Well they do, if you do not know about them then it does not mean that they do not exist. Now their next question would be about the logistics of carrying those stones to sea and even finding them in a large quantity etc.

A similar argument is made by Muslims who propound Einstein's theory of relativity and the concept of Time Dilation to explain to science types how it was possible for Holy Prophet (pbuh) to travel to Jerusalem, heavens, and back to Medina in a split second in one night. Isn't it interesting that as the human conscience is growing it is finding answers to mind boggling paradoxes by itself.

Re: # 188

brother urstruly,

The way you understood concept of reciprocity is totaly out of the place. You are treating this in the same way as concept of "eye for an eye" was treated by law of hamurabi. e.g. if one kills wife of other, his wife will be killed as a punishment.. needless to say this eye for an eye explanation was wiered and wrong. So is your understanding about reciprocity...

#196 Posted by Layman on March 4, 2008 9:50:39 am


I believe vegetarianism was later incorporated into Hindu life with the following logic: brahmins (teachers, priests) and vaisyas (traders) were forbidden meat since they led a sedantary (saatvik) life.


If you have a sedentry lifestyle, you should probably give up rice before anything else. it's the number one culprit in the high instances of elevated blood sugar among desis who move to the US.

dm sahib

On this monkey business, I agree entirely with urstruly.

All these challenges arise simply because you and sattar bhai lack faith. For those who possess faith, there are no logical problems.

Hindus and Sattar bhai are arguing that there are certain things God can NOT do. If you are a person of faith, then that would be a silly argument for you.

I agree with most of what Shri Murad A Baig says in this article. Hindus (including Brahmins) did eat beef and other forms of meat. In the Mahabharata, there is the story of two rakshasa brothers, Vatapi and Ilvala, who had received a boon that one of them could take the form of an animal and if killed, could then be revived through a mantra chanted by the other brother. Their favourite pastime used to be to invite brahmins to a meal of goat(which was one of the brothers). After a hearty meal, the other brother would chant the mantra and Vatapi would emerge from the poor brahmin's stomach, tearing his entrails and killing him in the process. When they tried the trick on Sage Agastya, it fails, as he had obtained the boon to digest anything.

I believe vegetarianism was later incorporated into Hindu life with the following logic: brahmins (teachers, priests) and vaisyas (traders) were forbidden meat since they led a sedantary (saatvik) life. Kshatriyas (soldiers) and shudras (labourers) were allowed meat as they led a physically vigourous (tamasik) life. The Bhakti movement, Adi Shankara etc who revived Hinduism, when it was in danger of being swamped by Buddhism and Jainism in the early part of the previous millennium must have incorporated many teachings from these two religions, including vegetarianism. Several brahmin communities (e.g., Madhwas) also have dietary restrictions on eating garlic and onions, similar to Jains.

One point that I do not fully agree with Shri Murad is when he says cow slaughter is a reality in every village. As far as I know, cow slaughter is banned in most Indian states. It is however legal in some states, such as Kerala, the North Eastern states, possibly Bengal and J&K. The reality is that cattle gets 'smuggled' to these states for slaughter. Beef however is legal in every state, as far as I know.

Urstruly,

Ironically, there was once a time when you tried to (ahem, ahem) prove and validate … the “last prophet� notion. You quoted the following hadith, which, in your view, proved the notion beyond doubt:

�I am the last prophet and this mosque of mine is the last mosque.�

I asked you to read the full hadith … and not just the first half of it … and ponder over the meaning of last. And you got stumped. Not surprisingly, now your position is that … last prophet notion should simply be accepted.

Moving on …

It is difficult to take your suggestions seriously. For one, you also suggest killing an apostate. [Now, Bhatti Sahib is distancing himself from this practice … even as he associates it with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Subhan-Allah …]

Coming back to your point: Hey, if I lived in India, I’d certainly consider giving up beef. Happy now???

Re: # 193

Asa matter of fact Iqbal's couplet should be;

Mirzai du-ee pasand hai, Muslim la sharik".

If you scroll below, I am in fact suggesting Indian Muslims to give up on their desire to eat cows, in the spirit of being good neibhbors to Hindus. I did not argue with Hindus on their scripture, I just asked their opinion whether they consider Muard baig's refernces authentic or not. I have absolutely no problem whether a Hindu eats a cow or worship it just as I have no problem you beliving that Mirza Quadini is a prophet of God...the problem only starts when....we have been thru this raod before.

Bhatti Sahib (#161),

Valid points … and since you are looking at finer details, here’s something to consider: Actually, I am OK with being considered a non-Muslim by you. You have the right to your opinion … and I have no issue with it whatsoever.

The main point is that … government (of Pakistan, in this case) has no right to force its interpretation of Muslim, making it a crime for an Ahamdi to consider himself a Muslim. Note the distinction: You may consider me a non-Muslim … but you have no right to lock me up for considering myself a Muslim. If we can agree to this, there is little left to debate.

(As a side comment ... from what I know, non-Ahmadi-Muslims are considered Muslims by Ahamdis …)

BTW, your golden rule argument got quickly deflated … when confronted with the issue of killing apostates. Are you suggesting that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself violated this “golden rule�. Apparently, in your Islam, Muslims violated the golden rule from the very start, only to lecture others, later on, on not violating the golden rule. Takbeer …

+++

This just in: Read #188 by Urstruly … esp. the last paragraph. No arguments are needed for what he believes … but when it comes to Hindus and beef, he wants to argue on basis of Vedic scriptures. And this is the double-standard I earlier pointed out. I rest my case …

Re: # 190

It is not a matter of acceptance, It is matter of beleif. So if a hindu wishes to believe that then so be it. A belief is as strong as the will of of the believer. Those who reject the belief must present tangible proof, the burden of proof lies with the acuser; beliver has to do squat.

#187 Posted by sattar2,

(btw, your chief zee thinks such ideas constitute superstition, which have nothing to do with Islam. FYI.)

I don't know why so many people misquote me when I've never said anything vague or ambiguous.

What I had said, as I recall, was such things were deliberately induced symbolism (superstitions?) and imagery, like Greek mythology, but not without a purpose. Any way to get the idea across is fine to whatever depths one wants to wade.

Urstruly#186:

You are saying the same thing that some Hindus say about their history; should we accept that Hanuman's bandar sena built a bridge over the ocean or that he flew in an airplane (pushpak viman) to fly from Lanka to the Himalayas? (btw, bangladeshis have named their airlines (v)biman)

Bhattisaab#176:

"I'll speak just for my own self. I think rather I say I beleive that the killing of person who converted out of islam does not hold true anymore.'

As an individual you may believe anything, just as tahmed sahib believes that islam means nothing more than an individual accepting responsibility for his actions before God. But in most Islamic societies, conversion out of islam is a severe crime; indeed, last year an Afghan was facing death for the same crime and even the Nato-supported Karzai govt. was able to save him only through some manipulative tricks. Of course, a compassionate Muslim, like my friend urstruly, would perhaps argue that any Muslim who converts out of islam knowing the consequences is insane and therefore should not be held punishable for his insanity.

"As far as not allowing women to marry a non muslims is concerned, any non muslim religion can stipulate that marrying with a muslims is forbidden."

Of course, they could do that, and that would make their religion meet the test of reciprocity but not islam. Different religions seem to have different approaches: catholics are somewhat similar to Muslims, without the gender bias; Parsees do not accept any child of an interreligious marriage as Parsee; Hindus used to excommunicate anyone who married even outside their caste, let alone religion, but it is an evolving religion and they are changing in that respect also.

"As far as Muhammad (PBUH) ancestroral question is concerned, again refer to the above. What christians say is there problem. But why christians would keep track of Prophet's geneology in the first place when his ancestor is not even legitimate according to them...."

My question was larger than Prophet's ancestry; the question was whether the old testament dwells at length about what happens to ishmael after the sacrificial episode?

Re: # 161 KR Bhatti

I do not agree with your principle of reciprocity. The religious law as stipulated by Quran and Hadith have precedence over principle of reciprocity. Consider this: Today if a Mirzai says that "Ok we as Mirzais do believe that Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) is the true prophet of God, then by reciprocity Muslims should also consider Mirza Quadini the true prophet of God", shouldn't we then have a problem? That is because the reciprocity that they are demanding is contradictory to both Qura'n and Hadith and their take on the issue of End of Prophethood (khatam-e-nabuwat). We must accept, and we must be uncompromising on the fact that our religion (Islam) is absolutist in nature. You cannot mix cultural demands in it to make it more palatable. You cannot nitpick to choose what suits your lifestyle; you cannot turn it into a buffet to reject what does not suite our lifestyle. In the words of Prophet (pbuh) we must enter into Islam wholly and wholeheartedly ("Islam main puray dakhil ho jao). Allama Iqbal has pointed out to this Absolute nature of our religion in this beautiful couplet:

"Batil du-ee pasand hay haq la sharik hay.
shirkat miyan-e haq-o-batil na kar qubool

(Tr: The Untruth likes the duplicity and duality, the Truth is Monotheist and uncompromising
So never accept the mixing of Truth and Untruth to be valid.)


Having said that our stance on the issue of End of Prophethood must be uncompromising; it must be unaccommodating; and it must be straightforward. We need not justify. We need not put forth argument; there is no discussion no discourse on the issue. We are only allowed to put forth an argument on this issue when we need to reach out to people to introduce them to the True Message of Allah and that includes Mirzais too. It is quite possible that by Grace of Allah they might see the truth and revert back to Islam and their salvation.

Kaal,

Arguably, Islam’s internal problems … have much in common with Hinduism’s internal problems. They reflect two sides of the same coin, in my view. Both religions were revealed by the same God, through prophets, with scriptures … and over time, both have become victims of human interpolation, with fairy-tale like idea associated with each. So I am not sure if you can make a clear separation between the two.

And yes, God does whatever He wants. And He has 6 heads and 12 arms … and the universe is resting on the nose of an elephant ... and the earth is flat. Yes, all this is indeed possible … and there is nothing wrong in believing any of this …

And counter to what you suggested, arguably, present-day Islam is indeed very much human bs … (to use your terminology). And if belief in a one-eyed monster riding a fire-breathing giant is Islam, then I’d rather be a non-Muslim. And such a fairy-tale notion is yet another parallel between Hinduism and Islam in this day and age … (btw, your chief zee thinks such ideas constitute superstition, which have nothing to do with Islam. FYI.)

Islam is evolvinng ... like Hinduism did several thousand years ago. So your point remains unsubstantiated, rather negated in the context as I have explained. And this is why I fail to understand Urstruly's issue with Hinduism ...