सोमवार, 1 जून 2009

"Is Non-Vegetarian Food Permitted Or Prohibited For The Human Being? Part - 1"

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. This statement is sufficient to end the dialogue for me, but I have to reply. 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.’ Let it be very clear to all of you. 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’, as Mr. Rashmibhai Zaveri rightly said, it does not come from the word ‘Vegetables’- it comes from ‘Vegetas’ which means…‘ full of breath, full of life’ - he did not give a better explanation. We can talk about it - and he did not speak… 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’, what I believe Mr. Rashmibhai Zaveri is… 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.

This classification is done by the Vegetarian Society… not by me - And you can name another 20, time does not permit me. 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’ - Most of the quotations he gives… from America. And according to him, 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 a other hand, he 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 you could see that in the talk which preceded my talk… exaggeration of benefits of Vegetarianism. And the lack of skepticism, and the over looking 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’ - and you could see that in the talk by the learned speaker, more like a lawyer than like a scientist.
They gather data information selectively, against the information which is against the ideology. This may be good for a debate like the one we are having, 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’. And that you can see the quotation - Mr. Rashmibhai Zaveri has said, several diseases, and it is possible for me to refute each and every… but if time permits. Talking about science…

But the approach was not scientific. All can be prevented very well - ‘Prevention is better than cure’… is the base of the medicine - which time will not permit me to go into health, and etc. In the rebuttal, if time permits I will try and cover most of the other aspects - and ‘Health’… I will try and cover in the rebuttal. 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 behavioral 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 Religious reasons - Mr. Trivedi said that… ‘Religion should not interfere with the human being… where it is concerned, what we should, and what we should not eat - That we should leave it up to the doctor’. I agree with him that most of the Religions, that is in the case. The Religious authority, the main foundation… that is Almighty God, if He is not a doctor, the God that you worship is not a doctor, then you should not follow him - He says… ‘Leave it to the doctor’. But in Islam, we believe… Allah (SWT), Almighty God, is our Creator - and the Creator of the human beings has far Superior knowledge, than all the doctors put together, in all the years. And you can find the statement, as Mr. Rashmibhai Zaveri said… ‘All from doctors’ - he is quoting from these books, which I think is available for sale outside… all these books. I will touch on some of these points, all out of which many are fictitious… fictitious, do not exist at all - Some are irrelevant, some are untested and some are truth… which are half-baked. I would like to make one point crystal clear, that while I prove undoubtedly, that Non-Veg. food should be permitted for the human beings, I do not have the slightest intention to hurt the feelings of any Vegetarian.

And while I prove logically and scientifically that Non-Veg. food is permitted, and if someone feels hurt, his sentiments are hurt… I apologize in advance… I sincerely apologize. My intention is not to hurt anybody’s feelings, but I have to reply to the presentation, to the earlier speaker. As far as Islam is concerned, it is not compulsory for a human being to have Non-Veg. - a Muslim can be a very good Muslim, even by being a pure Vegetarian. But… but when our Creator… Almighty God… Allah (SWT), gives us permission to have Non-Veg., why should we not have it? And I started my talk by giving a quotation from the Glorious Qur’an, from Surah Maidah, Ch. No. 5, Verse No. 1, which says… (Arabic )…. ‘Fulfill all your obligations and lawful for you for food are. All four footed animals with the exceptions named’. Qur’an further says in Surah Nahl, Ch. No. 16, V. No. 5… ‘that cattle has been created by God, for you - in it are various benefits…. - You derive warmth, and of their meat you can eat’. The same message is repeated in Surah Mominun, Ch. 23, V. No. 21… ‘that you can have the meat of the cattle’. Let us 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. And Mr. Zaveri said that…‘he knows that vegetable is not available in certain parts of the world, but today, due to advancement of transportation, we can supply them with vegetables’. I would request the Indian Vegetarian Congress to supply, at least give the transportation cost… that is all… to supply to the Eskimos, to supply to Saudi Arabia. You get vegetables in Saudi Arabia, it is more expensive… Why? … because the cost of transportation - that makes if more expensive. It is illogical and unscientific to spend more money, to buy a food which is less nutritious. 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 today, and they 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 Zakir, 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 that in Islam, as far as living creatures are concerned - they are two types… broadly classified in two types - ‘Human beings who are living creatures’- and Non-human being living creatures. As far as killing the human beings are concerned, Qur’an says in Surah Maidah, Ch. No. 5, Verse No. 32 that… ‘If any person - if any one kills any human being, unless if be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, it is as though he has killed the whole of humanity and if any saves an human being, it is as though he has saved thewhole nation’.

If any person kills any human being… Muslim or Non-Muslim, unless if it be for murder or for creating mischief, Qur’an says… ‘He has killed whole of humanity - if you save any human being, you have saved the whole of humanity’. 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 this 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’… Most of the quotations which he gave, is from here and from these three books… most of them … all most all. 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 the another family member? - It is illogical and unscientific.

You know in America, there are Vegetarian societies who take students to slaughter houses, and they make them see the blood shed 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 - unethical…unethical. 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… I agree… Unnecessarily killing them is wrong - But for your requirement, lawful food is permitted. Let us analyze the anatomical and the behavioral consideration, and there were a list of various things mentioned by Mr. Zaveri - you know he was reading from paper at 100 miles per hour, I was trying to note down, note down, note down how many diseases… diseases I being an medical doctor can answer… but how much can I answer? To name ten diseases, will taken few seconds - To reply all ten will take more then an hour - And he had listed a lot. I will just try and tell you, that if you go to authentic books… authentic books - not researches made by Ideological Vegetarians… most of the answers are given on the medical aspect. Considering the anatomical and the physiological aspect… and he had rightly said, that… ‘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 hare 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.’ - Non-Veg. 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? And Mr. Zaveri said… ‘These pointed teeth, they are not referring to the Dog - they refer to the Apes’. He does not know 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’. And he said… ‘It does not look like the teeth of Dog - it refers to teeth of Apes and Monkeys’. I believe in agreeing with the argument and proving the point, than to disprove him - It is easy. Even if I agree… ‘It is the teeth like the Monkeys’… do you know Monkeys also have Non-Veg.? they have the Lice! - There are many species of Apes, who even have raw flesh of animals. 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. And Mr. Zaveri said that we cannot have raw flesh - I agree with him… 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 … Can you have? … You will get indigestion. So what is the argument? - No… no, you have to cook them.

I know as a medical doctor, that raw Wheat, raw Rice, raw Drumstick if you have… you will have problem, you cannot digest them - So you have to cook them. Similarly with the flesh, we Non-Vegetarians, we cook them for easy digestion. But yet there are certain human beings, who even have raw meat. He gave the name of ‘Eskimo’… he did not tell the root word meaning - 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, as said by the earlier speaker as well as the chief guest… Archeological evidence shows us clearly… the Homo Sapiens, the Eskimos, the Austo Aborigines, they were Non-Veg. So why the change now?… We have the same teeth, we have the same digestive system. And he has given a list of other comparison, which prove we can have Veg…. and I agree with that - where did I ever say, that you cannot have Veg.? A Non-Veg., is a person who has the food of the animal products, as well as Vegetarian food - it is an Omnivorous diet. He said that the liver and the kidney in Carnivorous animals is large. In the human beings it is 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 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. He said… ‘Carnivorous, they lick, and the Herbivorous animal they sip’. We human beings, we do both… 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. Similar by with all the arguments he has given about… ‘the teeth being 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. And there are various verses in the Qur’an, talking about various foods, Pomegranates, talking about vegetables, talking about Dates, etc., which we should have. The plants - many Vegetarians say… ‘That 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 - Will you have the tail of the Lizard? - And the answer will be… ‘ No.’ You know what I am doing now? I am behaving like a lawyer. I am feeling ashamed to answer all these things, but I have to do because it is also a debate. I had come here, so that we understand better, and have a friendly understanding of each other, but I have to behave like a lawyer also, besides being logical and scientific, because of the argument put forth. Any one who has general knowledge can reply... but because people do not have general knowledge - Many people are not aware… that is why these arguments may satisfy many people. And all these arguments are given in the books which are distributed… ‘Meat eating, 100 facts’ by Nemichand, distributed by Jain organization - also by the Indian Vegetarian Congress. These are the books given to me by Mr. Zaveri… ‘100 facts about Egg’, ‘Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian’… Each and every argument, each and every argument can be disproved - Certain things I know… that Non-Veg causes diseases, which can be prevented. Let us analyze the ‘Behavioral consideration’ - He gave certain arguments… ‘The food we eat, has an effect on our behavior’- I agree with him to a certain level. The food we eat, has an effect on our behavior - That is the reason, we Muslims have flesh of Herbivorous animals like Goat, Sheep, who are docile and peace loving - We want to be peace loving and docile. We do not have the meat of the Carnivorous animals like Lion, Tiger, Dog, Pig, etc. - and the Prophet clearly says, all these animals are prohibited. We are peace loving people, therefore we want to have animals which are peaceful. And countering your argument… ‘You all eat plants, and you all behave like plants’… that is, suppression of the senses… a lower species - I know scientifically it is wrong… I am only behaving like a lawyer - I feel ashamed to speak these points, as a medical doctor. It is not true, that if you eat plants, you behave like plants - But the argument he has put forth… I am giving a counter reply … ‘You eat plants and behave like plants, weak and suppressed - cannot move properly’. I am sorry, I really apologize… I apologize - I have to reply to the arguments - I apologize if I have hurt the feeling of any Vegetarian. It is not scientifically true - It is just an argument… A counter argument.

Further, he gave the list of various peace loving people like Mahatma Gandhi… and I respect Mahatma Gandhi, because he has done certain good things for India, and humanity. But if, because 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.,… Mother Teresa. 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?’ Hitler… Adolf Hitler!… He has killed six million Jews - Was he a Non-Veg. or Veg.?… Vegetarian! Anyhow, there are crusaders of Vegetarians - you know… now in the internet if you go, they say… ‘See, Adolf Hitler was a Vegetarian… is a myth - He sometimes had Non-Veg.’. And the other side says that… ‘You know, when he had gastric problems, that time he had vegetable foods only’. To tell you frankly on a scientific viewpoint, I do not consider the diet of Hitler to be responsible for him killing six million Jews. Neither am I telling… irrespective whether he was a Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian,

I am not interested in knowing, because I being a doctor, 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… I am a doctor… more of a doctor, as well as lawyer where required… because I am in a debate. There are ‘Researches’- but these ‘Researches’… are not ‘Scientific Facts’. Most of the statements what Mr. Rashmi Zaveri made - all were ‘Researches’… not ‘Scientific Facts’. There is not a single authentic medical book which says that… ‘Non-Veg. food in general should be prohibited’ - Not a single. All these are Researches - like the research done by this person in America. Then they say that… ‘Veg. food makes a person intelligent’ - and he gave a 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. … Majority! And today ‘Animal Behavioral’ scientists - they 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 effect human beings, but these are arguments… do not effect… these arguments do not effect - And all the other arguments given, they do not carry weight actually. 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…


एक टिप्पणी भेजें

आपको लेख कैसा लगा:- जानकारी पूरी थी या अधुरी?? पढकर अच्छा लगा या मन आहत हो गया?? आपकी टिप्पणी का इन्तिज़ार है....इससे आपके विचार दुसरों तक पहुंचते है तथा मेरा हौसला बढता है....

अगर दिल में कोई सवाल है तो पुछ लीजिये....

टिप्पणी प्रकाशन में कोई परेशानी है तो यहां क्लिक करें..

Related Posts with Thumbnails