agniveer.com http://agniveer.

com/halal/
Agniveer
In defence of Halal meat
Islam definitely means peace in Arabic. However fake Islamic
representatives like Zakir Bhai, MBBS (Dr Zakir Naik) are
bent on proving the contrary. We have already seen how Dr
Zakir Naik, who claims to be a Wahabi, is actually a Qadiyani
with an agenda of his own. (Refer the expose on his fraud
writings).
It is not a surprise that the world sees a brutal history in Islam,
if people like Dr Zakir Naik continue to remain its
representative. We shall not dwell into the historical part, but
would review another extract from a book claimed to be
written 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 material
for this book, now that we already know that all he does is to
copy-paste from previous books from copyrighted Qadiyani sources without acknowledging the author (since
Qadiyanis 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 to
be a book of dark humor to humiliate Islam written by an enemy of Islam. When I first got the copy of the book, I
thought it was created by an anti-Muslim to denigrate Islam and Zakir Bhai, MBBS. But when I searched on
internet 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 to
ensure they are not sharing this book Answer to Non-Muslims Common Questions About Islam and
promoting 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 justify
polygamy in this post.
In present post, we shall discuss another topic from Answer to Non-Muslims Common Questions About
Islam 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 a
vegetarian can be a Muslim. Then he goes to discuss typical health benefits of non-vegetarian food which have
been debated and contested for long. We shall not dwell into those and recommend to go through a variety of
resources available on internet.
(The purpose of this article is not to debate vegetarian food vs non-vegetarian food, but to see how Dr Zakir Naik
is humiliating Islam).
Suddenly Dr. Zakir Naik gets bizarre. He claims, One may ask, if Almighty God wanted humans to have only
vegetables, why did He provide us also with pointed teeth? It is logical that He expected us to need and to
have 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 vegetarian
food that require tearing and hence use of pointed teeth (canines). A simple example is sugarcane. In fact almost
all 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. In
humans, they are of same size as other teeth. In fact, it is the vegetarians who give this argument to justify
vegetarianism!
3. Thus I am not sure if Zakir Bhai, MBBS actually wrote this to support Islamic non-vegetarianism or make of
mockery of it)

He goes further berserk and states, If Almighty God wanted us to have only vegetables then why did He
give 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 Bhai
MBBS to get the degree. Or perhaps he does not check the content before copy-pasting. Or perhaps he is doing it
deliberately, being a Qadiyani.
2. Our digestive system can digest even human flesh and blood. In fact many parts of human bodies can provide
large amounts of nutrients. Does it mean we should start eating dead bodies instead of burying them and drinking
their blood?
3. Even if humans eat their own excreta, the digestive system would process it one more time. Do we start eating
that?
4. Now some followers of Zakir Bhai, MBBS have started quoting from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, to justify
that 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 the
name Abdullah(Sahih Bukhari, 31.6013)
Muhammads saliva is good for children. He used to spit into the mouth of suckling children, and his saliva would
satisfy 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 sucking
Muhammads 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 of
arguments and proofs from Hadiths, as he does to support non-vegetarianism! Or maybe selling his saliva along
with his books, on same logic that he is using to justify meat here.)

The 4 Vedas
Complete (English)
Zakir Bhai, MBBS goes further beyond senses when he starts quoting from Hindu Scriptures that they contain
permission to eat a variety of meat. He says:There are many Hindus who are strictly vegetarian. They think
it is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. But the true fact is that the Hindu scriptures
permit a person to have meat. The scriptures mention Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarian
food. 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 his
copy-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 of
animals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who sell meat; those who
purchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it; those who serve that meat and those who eat are all
murderers.
Its an open fact that almost half of Manu Smriti is either adulterated or misinterpreted. That is why no Brahmin
involved in rituals ever resorts to meat-eating. If indeed Manu Smriti allowed meat-eating, Brahmins would have
been the biggest meat-eating class in India! One should refer to Manusmriti by Dr Surendra Kumar available from
http://agnikart.com to evaluate this in detail.
3. The Mahabharat evidence is also irrelevant because Mahabharat is not considered an authentic scripture in
matters of Dharma in Hinduism. Mahabharat itself states in Shantiparva 265.9.4:
Suraa Matsyaa Pashormaasam Aasavam Krisharoudanam
Dhurtaih Prvartitam Yajne Naitad Vedeshu Vidyate
Avyavasthitamaryaadaeh Vimudhairnaastikaeh Naraeh
Sanshayaatmabhiravyaktaih Hinsaa Samanuvarnitaa
Meaning: Alcohol-drinking, Fish, Meat eating, aasava consumption these are not present in Vedas. These
have 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 the
Vedas. And for Vedas, refer to http://agniveer.com/vedas/no-beef-in-vedas/ to see beyond doubt that Vedas
severely 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 of
Dharma as presented by both is almost similar. Jains are an integrated part of the society that is nowadays called
Hindu. Zakir Bhai, MBBS attempts to deliberately create differences between them by providing statements out of
context 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 way
of life. In the past people thought plants were lifeless. Today it is a universal fact that even plants have
life. Thus their logic of not killing living creatures is not fulfilled even by being a pure vegetarian.There
was research done by a farmer in U.S.A. who invented an instrument which converted the cry of the plant
so that it could be heard by human beings. He was able to realize immediately when the plant itself cried
for 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 defaming
Islam!
2. No such research has ever been conducted, nor it is possible to conduct. While researches have been done to
establish similar electrochemical and biochemical reactions in plants as in animals, there is nothing to suggest
that plants cry or feel pain. Opinion is divided among theists on whether plants have soul or not, but all agree that
plants 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 a
growing population of Islamic vegetarians who interpret the Quran to justify vegetarianism. Many among them
refuse to consider the Quran in current form as final word of Allah and are much progressive. Some even believe
that parts of Quran are misquoted by fanatics to present an Islam which is completely against the true concept of
Islam. Some are approaching Vedas to understand original Dharma. We shall discuss the views of these rational
Muslims 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 by
those who wish to justify their meat consumption by claiming that because both plants and animals feel pain, there
is no ethical or religious difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food.
Not Taking Life
One argument begins by explaining that plants have life, presumably just the same as animals and humans, and
thus, 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 distinction
between 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 diet
immediately, but since, according to the author, a vegetarian diet also takes life, he states that he may as well
carry on eating meat. In addition to the lack of clarification about the concept of life and the lack of distinction
between animal life and plant life, the author failed to note that a diet that meets his criteria does exist. Many
people 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 be
eaten. The plants neither suffer nor die to provide these foods. While we do not recommend this diet, it does meet
this 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 of
one animal, who might feed 100 people, than to take the life of 100 or more plants to feed the same number of
people. 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 and
that one farmer used a device to scientifically catch the
sounds of plants crying out and screaming in pain. They
state that our limited range of hearing cannot pick up the
screams of plants but that machines can.The truth is that
plants, when stressed, release a chemical called ethylene.
This chemical indicates that the plant needs to increase cell
growth or take other measures against the perceived stressor.
Scientists measured levels of ethylene released from
stressed plants by listening to them using lasers until a certain frequency was measured.While this research
shows that plants might have a stress-avoidance response, it is quite a stretch to refer to this as pain. It is even
more erroneous to equate this response with the pain suffered by animals and human beings. Plants lack nerve
endings, brains, hormones, and other structures that would allow them to experience pain. They also lack the
ability 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 of
plants that must be fed to an animal to produce enough meat for one human is greater than the number of plants
required to feed that same human if he or she ate the plants directly. Meat-eaters are responsible for killing 10
times more plants than vegetarians, and they also kill and cause suffering to animals.The argument that plants feel
pain and suffer and that killing them is as bad as killing animals is weak and illogical. Those who use this
argument 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. This
is 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 sites
and other public forums and cease spreading these fictitious claims at conferences and debates. For more
information 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 human
being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and
multiplication is very swift. Allah (swt) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His
creation 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 takes
care of overpopulation of certain breeds.
3. Most importantly, he conveniently ignores stating that there is already an overpopulation of cattle due to human
demand for meat! Cattle are specifically reared for meat consumption who consume 4 times more resources than
humans, 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 his
book, or he is on a mission to denigrate Islam. Because this again is a big argument in favor of vegetarianism, that
meat-eaters cannot answer.)

He ends up this section with a silly joke: I do not mind if some people are pure vegetarians. However they
should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all Indians become nonvegetarians then the
present 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. The
para is quite confusing, but one thing is clear He is demeaning Islam in any case. Perhaps because being a
Qadiyani, 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 for
more 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 Bhai
MBBS uses this as a ploy to demean Islam.
I would however like to emphasize that Vedas, where Zakir Bhai sees the source of Prophet, strongly
condemns any practice that is based on killing innocent creatures, degrading environment and wasting
valuable 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 hygienic
b. It keeps meat fresh for longer time
c. 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 have
provided ample material to prove that this is an extremely loathsome method in current context and goes against
teachings 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 and
presenting 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 Vegetarian
Islam.
1. They quote from New Scientist, the premiere research journal on how Animals Feel the Pain of Muslim
Slaughter: 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. Eating
vegetarian 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 rational
approach of Vedas as welcomes by progressive Muslims. In Vedic approach, one does not kill innocent animals
for 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 allow
Muslims 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 his
behaviour. 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 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. Muslims eat peaceful and docile animals because Muslims are
peace 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 whether
the 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 not
carnivorous animals also considered peaceful? After all a carnivorous animal like lion, tiger or leopard also eats
docile animals like Muslims. So either one considers lion, tiger etc also to be peaceful like Muslims or should
consider 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 Quran
should not prohibit eating of carnivorous animals also. Because it is hence proved that even carnivorous animals
are peaceful and Muslims are permitted to eat peaceful animals!
The 4 Vedas
Complete (English)
4. Going further, even eating of peaceful humans should be justified because eating peaceful humans will make
one loving and non-violent!
5. Zakir Bhai is perhaps creating grounds for defense of terrorists who kill innocent people. He would thus argue
in 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 fake
scholars like him to continue to be representative of Islam. If yes, Muslims are bound to face ridicule and
humiliation. 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. But
demeaning Islam on pretext of defending Islam is indeed a shameful act.