Replying the Wrong Quotes on Hinduism
Onslaught on Hinduism
True meaning of Religion known to Non-Hindus
I have, mentioned in nearly every chapter, the wrong notion people carry about Hinduism. This chapter is dedicated to answer to specific people, who have tried to bring their religion on top of Hinduism. Though, Hinduism does not teach to attack, it helps to bind people to God and Humanity, supports any methodology that is harmless and helpful to the society and is based on methodologies that unite people on their diversities, diversities being the basis of existence. Yet, people have tried to take out occasional incidences and outspread it as a hype of common Hindu practice. Arrogantly and enviously, they have cut out Hindu texts from actual context and tried to convince the world that Hinduism is a religion, with lots of pitfalls, wrong beliefs and blind faith. While Hinduism as a religion has never attempted to have comparative education, these leaders have forced Hinduism to become comparative. In the sections to follow, we will analyze how this great religion was attacked and is still under onslaught of various devastating forces.
HISTORICAL ATTACKS ON HINDUISM
We cannot go and elaborate each and every event of history in this book and hence, we will have quick background of how people of the eternal religion had suffered massacres and tortures by the invaders to India forcing their beliefs and practices from centuries.
Threat to ‘Sanatan Dharma’ started with Islamic invasion long back since 800 A.D. Will Durant says in his book ‘The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage’ page 459:
‘The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period’
French Journalist François Gautier says:
‘The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese’
Any historian as they know history, can see the figure in below table and understand what is has been happening to the country called ‘Bharat’ or ‘Hindustan’ or now India – a country every peaceful for the world, a country which is still majority of Hindus, Hindus that seem to be living as refugees in their own motherland – this book is a dedication to all of them.
Data relating to Attacks on Hindus:
Muhammad Ghazni (997 – 1030): Killed more than 50,000 Hindus, river at Thanesar was foaming with blood, people not able to drink the water
Muhammad Ghori (Around 1192): Slaughtered 20,000 Hindus and their heads offered to crow
Qutab-Ud-Din-Aibak (Around 1206): Slaughtered around 50,000 people, slaved 20,000
Badauni in 1254: Killed every male visible above the age of 8 and bound the women.
Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1360): Attacked an island on the sea-coast where “nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations”. The swordsmen of Islam turned “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers”. A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: “Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier.”
Timurlane (December 1398): Ordered the execution of at least 100,000 captives before the battle of Delhi, and after the battle those who had not been killed were taken as slaves
During Timur’s invasion in 1399 he quotes the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timuri: “O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely.” He continues: “My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus…[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus.” To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of kashmir. He ordered his soldiers “to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property”.
By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him “that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty”. Therefore, “no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword”. Tuzk-i-Timuri continues: “I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.”
Bahamani Sultans (1347 – 1528): Killed around 1,00,000 Hindus.
Akbar (1556 – 1605): Emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 (captured) Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod. Another reference indicates that this massacre of 30,000 Hindu peasants at Chitod is recorded by Abul Fazl, Akbar’s court historian himself. The Afghan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, 1,500,000 residents perished.
Centuries later, the same fanatical bloodlust that drove tyrannical Muslim emperors and their generals into an orgy of slaughter and destruction continues to this day in Kashmir.
To classify with an example about the Barbarism faced by Hindus, a quote from ‘Tarikh-i-Firuz Shah written during Firuz Shal Tughlak’ says:
‘An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan. The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completely enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude’
Millions of Hindus were butchered including children and women, tens of thousands of their temples demolished during the Muslim rule in India. Hindus have seen the biggest slaughter of Humans ever known to the world and even today they are facing it in its fullest form, clouded under political and national boundaries. No other religion is as peaceful and tolerant as Hindus, no other religion is as matured as Hindus and no other religion has embraced any other religion as Hindus – and hence it is said that if God have ever come to land, He has come for Hindus and if He has to come again, he would come for Hindus – because it is only the Hindus who has understood God and shown their understanding over time through their sustained maturity and love towards even the Butchers. It is not that Hindus were not great fighters, instead they were not cowards – how can it be that the land of Gods would be devoid of bravery. Their bravery starts from holding the capacity to forgive even demons and allowing them to grow up as a human, and the one of the best example is Prithvi Raj Chauhan (who defeated and forgave Md. Ghori 16 times, but 17th time with help of Jaychand when Mr. Ghori won he did not hesitate to show his devilish character – a character Hindus would never have in their Hindu leaders). Hindus were the hardest fighters and the most valiant men world would ever see. Right from the existence, Hindus have shown unparallel courage. Mahabharat depicts many such realities. But Hindus were not cowards, they were not political and they were not among those who attacked hideously. India would not have seen the devilish face of Mughals, had Prithivi Raj achieved the union of Jaichand. Mughals would have again been overthrown had Mahrana Sanga been not deceived by Babur. Bravery is the property of the soil of India. It is defeated by treachery at times, but it again erupts to stand for the cause of Hinduism on this land.
In fact, tolerance of Hindus is itself a sign of bravery, which when it turns to battle never allows the enemy so easy to get across. True men are brave men. Hinduism is truth, and hence Hindus are the bravest on earth and their bravery is first reflected through their tolerance. Anyway, it would look unnecessary boasting as recent History has gone against Hindus, disintegrating them and then winning over them though. Even today, no religion stands near to Hinduism, no religious leader has courage to face Hindu saints and so they attack the lower section of the illiterate Hindu society to deceive and force conversions – a cowardly act full of inhuman activities.
ISLAM AGAINST HINDUISM
To understand the biased and conspiracies created against Hinduism, by other religious groups we would start with and elaborate writings and speeches of one of the most known Islamic leader of current days – Dr. Zakir Naik. In his book, ‘Concept of God in Major Religion’ he has said a lot about Hinduism. I will not comment on whatever he has said about his own religion and all other religion other than Hinduism, as Hinduism do not teach me to do so. My focus would be purely to expose the facts about the notions created by him against Hinduism. He writes:
‘The Aryan religions are further sub-divided into Vedic and non-Vedic religions. The Vedic religion is given the misnomer of Hinduism or Brahminism. The non-Vedic religions are Sikkhism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Almost all Aryan religions are non-Prophetic religions.’
I would not comment on his categorization as Aryan religions and the divisions that he has made, as he has simply done this as other Western Historians. But, I would note, the use of word ‘Brahminism’ as a synonym of ‘Hinduism’ and calling them both as misnomer. First of all, did Dr. Naik at all understand the meaning of Brahminism – probably not? The way he mentioned this clearly implies that he has tried to correlate it with casteism, while ‘Brahminism’ in Hinduism clearly relates to ‘Brahma’ – the creator of Universe. We would anyway try to find out ahead in his book, if he has supported his perception in any form. Additionally, he has categorically told that Sikkhism, Buddhism and Jainism are not Vedic religions. He saying so clearly reflects from Hindu point of view that he knows neither of these religions in their true shape – they all are Vedic religions, as their philosophy is no different from Vedas. They may have developed their own base books, but the philosophy of these religions do not go against the constructive part of Vedas. In fact, if Dr. Naik had known Veda, he would have understood that even Islam is not outside the scope of Veda – only thing is that Islam have adopted in majority the destructive (‘Tamasika’) part of natural laws as described in Vedas.
Coming ahead in his book, in the chapter ‘Concept of God in Hinduism’, he has started with a description about ‘Hindu’ being the name given to inhabitants of people beyond Indus Valley – like other Historians. I have talked a lot on this under the chapter ‘Myth of Truth’ and just brief here that Hinduism is no religion known to Hindus, as the word Hindu or Hinduism is no where found in any of the Hindu scriptures – this name itself, including Brahminism is a deceit to the world about this eternal religion called as ‘Sanatan Dharma’.
Going ahead, he states:
‘Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this by professing belief in a multitude of Gods. Some Hindus believe in the system of three Gods, while some Hindus actually believe in the existence of thirty-three crore. However, learned Hindus who are well versed with their scriptures insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.’
Dr. Naik has produced three different views about Hindus, not based on the Hindu scriptures, but based on what he thinks is practiced and is known through the western Historians. I have addressed in detail about Hinduism as a polytheist religion in the chapter ‘Idolatry and 33 Crore Gods of Hindus’. Here, I just reiterate that the perception that Hindus believe in multitude of Gods or three Gods are ignorance of Dr. Naik about Hinduism and he should go through my chapter ‘A Hindu God’ to understand the actual Hindu God.
‘The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living to be divine and sacred. The Hindus therefore consider the trees, the sun, the moon, the animals and even the human beings as manifestations of God. For the common Hindu, everything is God.
Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of divine creation rather than a divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is Gods’ i.e., God with an apostrophe‘s’. In other words we believe that everything belongs to God. The trees, the sun, the moon and everything in this (Universe belong to God).
Thus, the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is difference of the apostrophe’s’. The Hindus say everything is God. The Muslims says everything is Gods’, the God with an apostrophe’s’.
This is where I got impelled to write down an explanation to his writing. He is clearly reflecting his understanding of Islam being superior to Hinduism. No Hindu believes in such comparison and focuses on simply concentrating on God, unlike above ideology where the fight begins. How can God be superior or inferior, no matter how you call him – and this broad understanding is Hindu ideology, which is given a name of Pantheism? Moreover, developing an understanding of superiority and enforcing on others understanding is a sign of arrogance, a human nature under ‘Tamasika’ or destructive aspect, as said earlier.
But since Dr. Naik has brought this point, I am thankful to him as this point would clarify, why and how Hindus are more correct in their understanding of everything as a manifestation of God. Though this is elaborated in the chapter ‘The Hindu God’, I would still brief to clarify the wrong notion. First thing, if everything is Gods’ (an apostrophe’s’), then it implies that God is an entity (materialist) who owns everything. The attitude to own is human nature and hence by saying so that everything belongs to God, it reflects that God is like a king among many others like him, who owns this Universe (one of the many) as a property – a classical example of closed and materialistic thinking, binding God to materialistic behaviors, though the religion says God is not material and infinite. This also implies that God being the owner is a different and separate entity than the creations. While Islam stops thinking here, Hindus have gone beyond to think more on this. And starts asking simple questions: ‘How do you say that everything is Gods’? Is it because, Islam believes God created this Universe? Who is this God? How has he produced this material (Universe), if he is immaterial?
The law of conservation of mass and energy in a more universal form was laid down with proof by Hindu science thousands of years before modern science understood it. To understand the concept of God as manifestations, let us take an example of ‘Pot and Potter’. Potter creates the Pot, and he creates it out of Earth. Hence, Potter is the creator, and Earth is the source. While earth still remains the same even after creation of ‘Pot’ and simply goes cyclic transformation, ‘Potter’ is no more than a medium to make this transformation take place. In the world of creation, Hindus has similar questions well answered. If God created this Universe, from what did he create? And the answer is – if conservation is maintained, then Universe has to be the transformation of God himself and God has to be the medium too. This no doubt goes with the understanding of modern science – God being the infinite energy transforming into matter and existing as energy in them too. This also establishes the old saying – God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, Hindus believe that everything has to be a manifestation of God has a very profound and well established law of nature behind this philosophy. This creation law has to be in place, because law of conservation is holding the universe in balance. The other way around question envelops, if this law is incorrect in any sense for God, then why we don’t find from thousands of years an incidence of imbalance. There is no explanation in this world – scientific or religious which can describe creation in completeness like in Hinduism. (Refer Rig Veda, 10.29, 10.30 and 10.31). I have simply tried to brief it out in reply to Dr. Naik’s philosophy of apostrophe’s’.
Philosophically, a perception about everything as a manifestation of God creates a mass ideology of respecting and utilizing everything as per natural laws, thereby creating a harmless and peaceful society. Hindu scriptures emphasizes on the fact that arrogance and ego are the cause of many sufferings and violent differences. And these two attitudes can be killed only by the strength of respect and love in worship-able form. And hence, a consideration of everything as a manifestation of God naturally brings down the ego and arrogance and helps a weak human understanding to strengthen his inner self. The concept that everything belongs to God, should not be falsified by inhuman acts, an example can be killing of animals and humans in the name of God. How can a creation of God be humiliated with a consideration that God has made if for humans? Either God has not created animals, or if he has created, it is respectable and lovable – after all God has created it and humans understand this. Very importantly, when God and we are viewed as two different entities, it immediately brings a separation between these two, thereby laying the foundation of all wrong and harmful doings (Boundaries, right and wrong both can be very easily laid down on this ground). While a unity of God and us, inspires us to hold and perform Godly and prosperous acts.
And it is not that Hinduism had not considered Dr. Naik’s apostrophe’s’ philosophy. In fact, Hinduism has matured as a religion after enveloping in so many fields like science, socialism, philosophy, psychology, etc. As another case, why has not other religions considered a simple truth – that no other planets has life as on earth or we require another galaxy and similar environment to realize life; such a planet is not known to modern science yet, it is detailed in Purans though. We can understand the concept of God and Creations being same and parallel and relative to each other, by simply considering the existence of other planets without life. A simple question – who would have talked about God had there been no life on earth? Who is talking about God on Jupiter, Venus or Mercury? How will God prove that all those planets belong to him and to whom would he prove over there? God becomes immediately meaningless if we consider that there is no life. Thus everything belongs to God becomes a meaningless sentence had there been no life on earth, while everything being a manifestation of God would still hold its meaning. Hence, life and God has to be parallel to each other and they are as per the far extended study of Hinduism. And if life and God are so important to each other, if so exists the relation between the two, it is also possible to realize this relation. But how! It is possible only if either of them is reachable. While Dr. Naik’s apostrophes’ conveys the message that God is ‘there’ segregating life and God and not allowing human to reach God in any terms, Hinduism understands the depth and first says under the manifestation theory that God is ‘here’ – in our Self in the form of life. First step thus in Hinduism is to realize the Self and then feel the God in the light of life-God relation.
Here are few quotes from Bhagwad Geeta that can initially be interpreted as what is emphasized by Dr. Naik, confirming that Hinduism have gone past all the considerations of Islam or any other religion of this world. And Hinduism, do not stop on putting a full stop that everything belongs to God. It goes ahead and ahead to ask questions that brings it near and dear to God.
9.4: This entire world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifested form; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them.
9.5: Not do beings exist in Me, behold My Diving Yoga! Bringing forth and supporting the beings, My Self does not dwell in them.
9.9: These acts do not bind Me, sitting as one neutral, unattached to them.
9.11: Unaware of My higher state, as the great Lord of beings, fools disregard Me, dwelling in the human form.
9.13: But the great-souled ones possessed of the Divine Prakriti, knowing me to be the origin of beings and immutable, worship Me with a single mind.
9.14: Glorifying Me always and striving with firm resolve, bowing down to me in devotion, always steadfast, they worship Me.
Till here, Dr. Naik would find everything matching to his concept of Apostrophe’s’, as God is said to be not dwelling in beings or non-beings, and asking the great souls to concentrate on one and only God. And Dr. Naik would get happy to cut these scriptures in say of this support. But then he is incomplete in his knowledge of Hinduism, as these scriptures are just a consideration of one of the philosophy known and understood by him. Hindus would not stop here. They do not want to close their eyes and go back into ignorance with one, only and limited philosophy. They want to understand God more. They want answers related to life and death. They want answers related to happenings in this world and universe. And hence, they move ahead from here. Thus, what Dr. Naik declares as a difference of apostrophe’s’, is actually a stepping stone too early in Hindu’s search of God. Let us see few more sentences ahead in Bhagwad Geeta in the same chapter.
9.8. Animating my Prakriti (nature), I project again and again this whole multitude of beings (Universal creation including life), helpless under the sway of Prakriti (nature).
9.10: By reason of My proximity, Prakriti produces all this, the moving and the unmoving; the world wheels round and round, because of this.
9.15: Others, too, sacrificing by the Yajna of knowledge (i.e., seeing the self in all), worship me and the All-Formed, as one, as distinct, as manifold.
9.16: I am the father of this world, the mother, the sustainer, the grandfather, the purifier, the (one) thing to be known, (the syllable) Om, and also the Rk, Saman and yajus; The Goal, the supporter, the lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, the dissolution, the substratum, the storehouse, the seed immutable. I give heat; I withhold and send forth rain; I am immortality and also death; being and non – being am I.
Suddenly the meanings in the same chapter seem to be changing. It started as God do not dwell in being or non – being and it is coming to God is being and non – being both.
9.22: Persons who, meditating on Me as non-separate, worship Me in all beings, to them thus every zealously engaged, I carry what they lack and preserve what they already have.
The meanings go deep, and I have dealt with this depth in my chapter ‘The Hindu God’. Here, I have just brought to notice, that the picture exposed to the world about Hindus is either limited or negative.
Going ahead, we find Dr. Naik bringing in the texts of religious books.
‘The Holy Holy Quran says:
Come to the common terms as between us and you. The first common term is that we worship none but Allah.
So, let us try and find commonality by analyzing both Hindu and Islamic scriptures.
The most popular among all the Hindu scriptures is Bhagwad Geeta. Consider the following verse from Geeta.
Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own nature.
Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 7, Verse 20’
The lines of Bhagwad Geeta, seems to be saying the same thing as in Holy Quran, as long as the context and actual lines of Bhagwad Geeta are not exposed.
I would quote the actual lines here:
Tang tang niyammasthaya prakritya niyatah swya’
Meaning: “Others again, deprived of discrimination by this or that desire, following this or that rite, devote themselves to other gods, led by their own natures.”
At one instance, this seems to be similar to what has been written by Dr. Naik. But there is a difference: while Dr. Naik’s translation hides the context (‘Tang Tang’), my quoted translation, not missing out all words, reflects that there is a context which is there in the word ‘this’ and the meaning becomes deep in context.
Translating the verse 19: “At the end of many births, the man of wisdom takes refuge in Me, realizing that all this is the innermost self, very rare is that great soul.”
This makes clear that Hindu text emphasizes on concepts like knowledge of self and self – confidence as a power of humans, in the path of realizing God.
As far as the concept of God as ‘One’ is considered, it is for sure that God cannot be bound by the smallest finite number and he is not so easy to be measured as ‘One’. If we say God is ‘One’ and ‘One’ only, questions add up – where is that One? And this would falsify many concepts, as God is not an entity and if he is not material, how can we define him as ‘One’.
The above two sentence from Dr. Naik also reflects the variance in boundaries between the two religions. While Holy Quran, according to Dr. Naik, strictly specifies that one has to come to common terms (an ideology that forces not to think ahead and not to challenge anything beyond what is said), Bhagwad Geeta, according to same Dr. Naik, very humbly lays down the path of wisdom to be followed by one’s own nature (an ideology that never puts a full stop on human thinking, allowing the knowledge to grow immensely to extent of achieving Godly qualities by self realization as a first step).
Dr. Naik further either very dexterously, or within his biased and partial study, starts quoting scriptures from Upanishads, hiding the actual text and exposing just what seems to support his understanding and his religion. This is also biased, as he seems to be apprehensive of disclosing the immense knowledge hidden in Upanishads, if he somehow and to some extent knows them. As a matter of fact, Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas are subject to higher studies in Hinduism and quoting a word or a group of words from them shows that the person has simply overlooked the details and tried to steal things which help him to criticize or limit Hindu understanding. Vedas and Upanishads should not be viewed and understood the way Dr. Naik has tried to do. If he really wanted to quote from these books, he should have quoted ten lines ahead and ten lines following the line that he has quoted and presentation would have completely changed. Anyway, I will for you, quote the whole lines and their explanations, following the quote of Dr. Naik (Svetasvatar Upanishad, 6.9).
‘Na casya kasuj janita na chadhipah’
Of him there are neither parents nor Lord.
A Hindu agrees to above meaning, but further asks: why there are neither parents nor lord. And the answer lies in the complete verse, which is not exposed. The complete verse goes as:
‘Na tasya kaschit patirasti loke
Na cheshit naiv na tasya lingam
Sa karnam karnadhipadhipo
Na casya Kaschijanita na chadhipah’
Meaning: Lord is the cause of everything; he is the creator and creation both. He is all manifestations. Had there been a parent or lord to him, he would himself be one from the manifestations. If he is not the Whole, if He is not the one that is all manifestation, if he exists as a separate entity than all manifestations and all belongs to him – then who made him? Some logic would then fit to prove that God is a manifestation of some Super God. Hence, there cannot be a parent or lord to him, as he is all manifestation himself – an answer that is not found in any other religious books.
(Svetasvatar Upanishad, 4.19)
‘Na tasya pratima asti’
There is no likeness of him.
A Hindu agrees to above meaning, but again asks: Why is there no likeness of him? The complete verse goes as:
‘Nainmurdhwam na tiryanchan na madhye parijgrabhat
Na tasya pratima asti ysya naam mahadyashah’
Meaning: No one can hold him either from beginning or end or in middle, as he is infinite in divinity and manifestations. He cannot be explained in words or images as human imagination cannot reach there, as he is all infinite manifestations. Now, one would come here to ask immediately, from his mood of onslaught, that then why do Hindus have images and idols – let them read my chapter ‘Idolatry and 33 Crore Gods of Hindus’ as an answer.
Dr. Naik very cleverly quotes the whole verse, where he in some form finds similarity to the verse of Holy Quran.
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]
‘Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canaiam. Hrda hrdistham manasa ye enam, evam vidur amrtas te bhavanti’
Dr. Naik explains above lines as follows and immediately correlates it with Holy Quran.
His form is not to be seen; no one sees him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know Him as abiding in the heart become immortal’
The Holy Holy Quran refers to this aspect in the following verse:
No vision can grasp Him But His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, Yet is acquainted with all things’ [Holy Quran 6:103]
I have not contradicted his quotes, about Hindu scriptures above; I have just exposed his partial quotations. What seemed to him similar to Holy Quran he brings forth in support and what goes against, he do not dare to look into them and simply diverts the topic to incidences of wrong practices in the society. Dr. Naik is wrong to perceive that Hindu scriptures if detailed would be against Quran. In fact, Hindu texts goes beyond Quran and Quran would be the stepping stone towards Hindu scriptures, if a Muslim would dare to know more about God. Probably, some fear envelops Dr. Naik, which he needs to break and first step would be to kill his own arrogance and accept that knowledge is not limited and is as vast as God. And thus, Quran alone or any scripture alone is not enough to wrap everything. Thus, Muslims should be allowed to grow in their knowledge and not live in boundaries, particularly those boundaries that give them wrong fame. This book can be an earnest request to Dr. Naik, or to Muslim brothers, to understand a very basic fact – had Hindu scriptures been against Muslims, they would not have enjoyed a free growth (from 5% to 20%) in country like India, particularly when Hindus are diminishing in their countries.
Had I wished to do a similar act, as Dr. Naik did by Quoting from Hindu scriptures, I would have easily and clearly formulated hundreds of similarity and contradictions between Quran and Hindu scriptures. But Hindus are not taught about this. Hindus have the culture of respect and regard in their blood, executed through the practice of worship and love. And, I have every reason to respect the Holy Quran, as long as it remains peaceful for humanity and creatures outside its practitioners.
I do not want to comment on what Dr. Naik has said about Quran and God in Quran, as it is in his understanding an attempt to define God, and follow that definition and should be respectable. But, coming across he lays down an example:
‘Tape recorder, for instance, are manufactured in large numbers. It has never been suggested that in order to understand what is good for the tape recorder the manufacturer should become a tape recorder himself. One simply assumes that the manufacturer will publish an instruction manual, since he has complete knowledge of his product. In short, the instruction manual gives the dos and don’ts for the machine.
If you think of Human Being as a machine, it is indeed a complex creation of Allah. Our Lord and creator Allah, need not come in the form of a human being to know what is good or bad for the human being. He only has to reveal the instruction manual to mankind. The Holy Quran is the instruction manual for human beings.
Moreover, Allah will call this creation to account on the Day of Judgment. It therefore stands to reason, that Creator informs us about the dos and don’ts of life’.
Now, here lies great error in such explanations.
1. First, comparison of Tape-recorder with human being is not a correct one. Tape-recorder is not the Realizer of its manufacturer. It is humans who created Tape-recorder and it is humans who judge it for dos or don’ts. And hence, human has to be human to judge it; and this is what a Hindu says that God has to take the utmost shape of Human to correct human errors. If the tape-recorder was to judge its operation and report back to its manufacturer, then it would have been a meaningful comparison to say that Quran is the manual for us and also a creation of Allah and would be judged based on the manual. And hence, the example would produce an effect like there are many Allah and creation of one is being judged by others based on the manual Quran; in fact, this can be thought as manifestations which is denied by Islam. Even Muslims would not agree to this.
2. Second, manuals are produced for the users of the tape-recorder, and it can go up gradation as the features enhances in the tape-recorder. Manual is produced for humans and hence, the manufacturer has to be necessarily being a human and enter the mind of its users to create a readable manual. Again, the manual is not a complete and closed chapter for the tape-recorder, as further improvement and enhancement to the tape-recorder features are possible, which would upgrade the manual. Obviously, humans are changing every day in their behaviors. So, Quran (the human manual) should accordingly change, which is not happening. The example and actual are contradicting.
3. Very importantly, such concepts are insult to Allah himself. We all know that humans have existed since thousands of years. There must be instruction manuals before Quran too, and they are probably Bible or even before that Vedas. If all these manuals are written by humans and not Allah, then what happened to the manual given by Allah during creation, as his creations have existed since thousands of years and human cannot have the power to destroy Allah’s manual. Either we accept with equal grace to the all the religious books (which Hindus do in respect of God or Allah) and there would be no fight, no comparison, no contradictions and no superior-inferior combat – all would be creations of Allah and Quran probably an upgrade to earlier versions, or we simply stop claiming that Quran is the last say or manual from Allah. As a matter of fact, earlier versions like Vedas, Upanishads, Purana, and Bhagwad Geeta of Hindus are so vast that Quran seems to be a river in the sea.
4. And one important error is to declare that Allah would go into the accounts only on the Day of Judgment. What about the people who are dying today and who have already died? Haven’t they seen the Day of Judgment? If Dr. Naik is talking of some specific day, which would probably be the end of the world, he is not doing a good job towards humanity. As this would strengthen his people to do inhuman acts in assumption that everyone would anyway get killed and punished on the final day. Vedas have described such destruction in terms of ‘Yug’ and that too don’t go without logic. It has considered that human population would grow, unlike other species, but not the size of the earth. Population would contain good and bad, constructive and destructive people with powers distributed in both. Ignorance and knowledge would always be there, diversities is the basis of existence, and hence the day would come when this would result in natural imbalance through various means like increasing pollutions of various types, attempts to tamper environmental balance through technological advancement, mass human envy in the name of religion, etc. And to come to such situation of imbalance, it takes a period described as ‘Yug’ in Vedas, following which Natural force (in form of Natural power of highest order in human form, otherwise resembled to God, in order to make sure that nothing unnatural takes place even in the phase of creating balance again – a concept of Hindu that is so logical and realistic) would come into play to reorder and reestablish the stability and balance. To me, it seems to be a logic, as this is what is happening – human population are increasing at a pace and humans have every reason to diminish population of animals and birds (some species have already extinguished). Pollution of all orders are traveling towards their top, human diversity are impatiently and agitatedly taking pace in the name of religion, region, nation, politics, policies, socialism, etc. Where would it lead to one final day? But this doesn’t mean that there would be a day of judgment for Allah and rest are for us. Though a calculation, Hinduism emphasizes on humans to behave so as to work towards the betterment of humans and all other creatures within the laws and limitations of natural laws.
5. Last but not the least; Allah has created millions of species, all living in the same world as us. Where is the manual for them and who makes them understand those manuals? And what stopped God from creating more species as intelligent as human? If Dr. Naik do not have the answer to this, let me state to him that manuals are meant to describe machines, machines that cannot do anything by itself. And if Quran is a manual, it means that its followers do not have emotions like humans (and is this the reason given by Mr. Naik to support terrorism). Actually, this is the biggest difference between Hinduism and Islam – while Islam (as I understand from Dr. Naik’s conclusions) is an ‘Order’, while Hindu scriptures are ‘Messages’. These two have different implications – ‘Order’ proves that humans are incapable and illogical, while ‘Message’ reflects that humans have their own thinking and they can interpret the message and do the right or wrong. While ‘Orders’ restrict human to go beyond, ‘Messages’ allows him to expand to outreach God.
As a conclusion, in no way, can the example of Tape-recorder suit an explanation that Allah cannot take human form. In reality, Bhagwad Geeta described why nature creates one in ages, a human capable of Godly qualities (Refer to chapter ‘A Hindu God’).
Dr. Naik quotes another example:
‘Each attribute of God is unique and possessed by him Alone’.
The example supporting above say goes as:
‘If someone says Neil Armstrong is an American, the attribute of being American possessed by Neil Armstrong is correct but not sufficient to identify him. Similarly, Neil Armstrong is an astronaut. The attribute of being an Astronaut is not unique to Neil Armstrong. To identify the person uniquely we must look for a unique attribute. For example, Neil Armstrong was the first human to set foot on the moon. So, when one asks; who was the first man to set foot on the moon, the answer is only one, i.e., Neil Armstrong. Similarly, the attribute of Almighty God should be unique e.g., Creator of the Universe. If I say creator of the building, it may be possible and true that it is not unique. Thousands of people can make a building, so there would be no difference between man and God. But each Attribute of Allah points to none but Allah.’
Ar-Reheem: the most Merciful
Ar-Rahman: the most Gracious
Al-Hakeem: the most Wise’
‘In continuation with the earlier example, if somebody says Neil Armstrong is an American Astronaut who is only four feet tall, the attribute (American Astronaut) is correct but its associated quality (only four feet tall) is false. Similarly, if someone says that God is the Creator of the universe with one head, two hands, two feet, etc. the attribute (Creator of the Universe) is correct but the associated quality (in the form of human being) is wrong and false.
Since there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God. To say that Neil Armstrong was an American Astronaut who first set foot on the moon, but his the second was Edwin Aldrin is wrong. Both have unique qualities similarly to say that the Creator is one God and the cherisher is another God is absurd because there is only one God with all these attributes combined together’.
Again Dr. Naik has done the same mistake as in previous example.
1. The say and the example both clearly, forces God to be an entity, an identifiable entity, an identifiable physical entity with known attributes.
2. Unique is a term applied only when there are huge numbers of similar forces. Thus, this also implies that there are many equivalent forces as Allah, but Allah has unique attributes that segregates him from them. I do not know, how much Muslims agree to this, but Hindus do not surely.
3. The quotes that Dr. Naik has quoted do not fit to the example. The ‘most’ merciful, the ‘most’ gracious, and the ‘most’ wisest, is correct to give him identification. But it is then, not possessed by him alone and hence not unique to him. As the word ‘most’ clearly signifies that these qualities are held by many others, including humans. Thus, Allah simply excels to humans in these qualities. The qualities are thus not unique to Allah, only the quantity of these qualities surpasses his competitors. I do not say that the definition is wrong, but it is incomplete. Hindus go beyond to fathom that none can understand God actually nor can anyone measure the multitude of his manifestations. As far as ‘most’ is concerned, we have manifestations of God in human forms also with those qualities.
4. There must be many Neil Armstrong on earth. Every human being on this earth is unique, and can be made unique through various identifiable meanings as name, address, achievements, date of birth, etc. An attempt to define Allah with attributes and unique attribute, would lead to vision his world composed of many like him but with different features and qualities, thus requiring Allah to create uniqueness for himself for his identity. No doubt, these terms leaves an individual into darkness when it comes to actually understanding God and realizing God. This darkness is nothing but called Ignorance and answered in Vedic philosophy.
5. As far as trying to find Uniqueness of God is attempted by Dr. Naik, he has failed to realize that by the grace of same God, each and every creature of each and every specie are created unique, with variance in some other way. Hence, my features are unique and do not match to anyone in the world. Even the definition of God as per Quran has failed to convey a simple message that everything is a manifestation of same God because every other thing is unique in its nature. Thus, Hindu ideology has a universal meaning which is sound proof from all angles.
6. Very importantly, when Dr. Naik says, ‘Since there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God’, he is committing a great error. An attempt to define and close God cannot take place as a part of human explanation. The sentence clearly shows how hard is the boundary on Allah that he should necessarily hold attributes that points to him alone. It reflects an immaturity in understanding God. This is also reflected further in his texts when he attaches hearing, seeing and other human attributes to God.
At one instance, he has mentioned about Vishnu as God and having four hands and other attributes of human. Though, I have elaborated this in detail in the chapter ’33 Crore Gods of Hindus’, I must reiterate here that Vishnu is not considered as God, but again a manifestation of God in natural and immaterial form (he is one of the Tri-Deva, thus a deity as Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma). God is very vastly explained in Hinduism (Refer chapter ‘A Hindu God’), and is subject to very high study. I suggest the religious leaders of the world to listen to the preachers and saints of Hindus – I am sure they would not find any onslaught on any religion, they would not find a word ‘Hindu’ in their preaching and most of the time the preaching would be philosophical, social, psychological and scientific. This would surely help them to change their perception about Hindu Gods and limited understanding of endless Hindu ideologies.
Apart from the understanding of God, Dr. Naik has also brought in the scriptures related to living standards and behaviors of Hindus, including their eating habits. In his book, ‘Answer to Non-Muslims, Common questions about Islam’, in the Chapter 6 – Eating Non-Vegetarian Food, he has mentioned many Hindu texts to support Islamic way of killing animals and feasting on non-vegetarian food. Though, I have detailed on this topic in my book ‘From the Laws of Nature’, I would at least visit Dr. Naik’s quotations from Hindu scriptures and expose the realities.
I would avoid commenting on anything in Quran, as Quran do not talk about Hinduism as such. And focus only on what Dr. Naik is saying about scientific and religious understanding of non-vegetarian diet.
‘3. Meat is nutritious and rich in complete protein (He mentions Iron, Vitamin B1 and Niacin).
First thing, there are rich sources of protein (cereals like ‘Dal’) and these elements in vegetarian diet as well. Hence, he is correct not to mention ‘only’ in non-vegetarian diet.
‘4. Humans have omnivorous set of teeth.
5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.
In his explanation, Dr. Naik either doesn’t know about Omnivorous teeth or has tried to hide in his explanation about it. Both Omnivorous and Carnivorous animals have sharp, pointed and protruded set of teeth, which they use to kill and tear animals naturally. Does Dr. Naik want to convince his followers that, we have natural ability to kill animals by our teeth and tear them live? We have pointed teeth, but they are not protruded and not pointed enough to tear live flesh. And this is one of the major reasons, why people mostly around the world cook meat and make them edible, which is not natural.
As far as digestion is concerned, our digestive system is not at all made to digest non-vegetarian food. Consider following points:
Herbivorous & Humans Carnivorous Omnivorous
Stomach acidity: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach Stomach acidity: pH less then equal to 1 with food in stomach Stomach acidity: pH less then equal to 1 with food in stomach
Stomach capacity: Less then 30% of total volume of digestive tract Stomach capacity: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract Stomach capacity: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Small Intestine: More then 10 times of body length Small Intestine: 3 to 6 times of body length Small Intestine: 3 to 6 times of body length
Colon: Long and complex Colon: Simple, short and smooth Colon: Simple, short and smooth
Kidney: Moderately concentrated Urine Kidney: Extremely concentrated Urine Kidney: Extremely concentrated Urine
Humans have exactly the Herbivorous type of stomach. The digestive system undergoes tremendous pressure, wear and tear in order to digest uncooked non-vegetarian diet. Our immune system has the capacity to build the wear and tear and thus is not exactly understood by consumers of non-vegetarian diet. Anyway, we move ahead to reach that point, which is religious and impelled me to consider this topic as a part of this chapter.
Dr. Naik says:
7. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-vegetarian food.
a. There are many books which are strictly vegetarians. 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 scripture mentions Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarian food.
b. It is mentioned in Manu Smriti, the law book of Hindus, in Chapter 5, Verse 30: ‘The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad, even if he does it day after day, for itself created some to be eaten and some to be eater.’
c. Again next verse of Manu Smriti, that is Chapter 5, Verse 31 says: ‘Eating meat is right for the sacrifice, this is traditionally known as the rule of the God’
d. Further in Manu Smriti, Chapter 5, Verse 39 and 40 says: ‘God himself created sacrificial animals for sacrifice,…, therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing’
The first thing people must know that the divine creation in Hinduism is Vedas. Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are based on Vedas. Manu Smriti is pure human creation, based on life styles in those times. Anyway, life style has nothing to do with vegetarian or non-vegetarian food, as humans were then and are now humans only. More importantly, Manu Smriti had been rejected by Hindus long back as it goes against Vedas at many places. Somehow, the critics took this opportunity and brought it back to onslaught the Hindus, by declaring that Manu Smriti is the law book of Hindus. However, what is shown to the world of that book is not the true and complete picture.
To clarify this, I will quote from the same book that yet conveys the rules from Vedas.
Chapter 5, Verse 4: ‘Through neglect of the Veda study, through deviation from the rule of conduct, through being remiss in the fulfillment of duties, and through faults committed by eating forbidden food, death becomes eager to shorten the lives of Brahmin.’
The above statement clarifies that Vedas prohibits eating of non-vegetarian food as a rule of conduct (as natural law) and Vedas are made for the man kind and not for Brahmins alone. In fact, as I have detailed in my Chapter ‘Casteism’, Vedas do not segregate the society at all based on birth. It clearly says that the four fold path of an individual to exist in this world is necessary and the choice depends on individual to individual as per their nature and attitude. Thus, Brahmanism is not a caste or a birth in Vedas; it is the highest state of spiritual knowledge and true human behavior as per natural laws.
First misdirection by Dr. Naik is that he says ‘Manu Smriti’ is the law book of Hindus. In fact, for his knowledge, Manu Smriti is an optional subject for those who are learning Vedas and are directed to take is just for the knowledge sake. There is no law book for Hindus, there are only knowledge books. Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are the only authenticated books that are to be followed and they are law books not because those laws are imposed on Hindus, but because they simply contains details of nature and natural way of leading life.
Let us look few more verses from the same chapter of Manu Smriti and things would be clear:
Verse 42: A twice born man who, knowing the true meaning of Veda, slays the animal for these purposes causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.
Sage Manu, starts emphasizing that a man (twice born: first in society, second in the world of true knowledge of Vedas), would kill the animal only to enter a blessed state. He does not mention here that he kills and eats the flesh of the animal. The killing happens only for the betterment of the society, maybe in war, in forest to protect the self, or for other reasons. And he makes his point further clear in terms of eating flesh.
Verse 33: ‘A twice born man who knows the law must not eat meat except in conformity of the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his victims.’
Verse 43: A twice born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in his house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress cause an injury to any creature which is not sanctioned by Veda.
Verse 46: He, who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, but desires the good of all beings, obtains endless bliss.
Verse 49: Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.
Verse 51: He who permits the slaughter of animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, must all be considered as slayers of animals.
Verse 52: There is no greater sinner than that man who, though not worshipping the Gods and or the manes, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by consuming the flesh of other beings.
From the above verses, it becomes very clear, how some people are trying to misdirect, the world about Hinduism as a religion. Unfortunately, not all Hindus read these books (most of them stick to Bhagwad Geeta alone – as it is concise form of the vast knowledge), and do not confront to these conspiracies.
At last, Dr. Naik, has quoted a conversation between Ydhistira and Bhishma, talking of animal sacrifices as a process of ‘Sraddha’ a ritual in Hindus. Moreover, Bhishma is describing the sacrifice and not the consumption of meat as a common practice. It is also to be noted that the whole episode of Mahabharat is based on the fact that crime and unlawful activities were at peak and birth of Lord Krishna was to ensure that the laws are reestablished.
Thus, first, the conversation cannot be taken as a base of authentication that Hindu scriptures allow non-vegetarian diet.
Second, Yudhistira and Bhishma are both from ruler and soldier family and killing (killing in war) is as per their nature. Had they been so correct and authenticated, Lord Krishna would have explained the whole Bhagwad Geeta to Arjuna. Discussion between these two soldiers are not the law of nature, it is simply their perception. And Veda Vyas has mentioned these things so as to make people realize that these things are not correct for the living standard of humans.
Third, Bhishma has just started describing the beliefs of Sraddha here. Later in the scripture, Bhishma described how the process of Shraddha started as a pure vegetarian diet, even without salt. As it is a very long discussion, I cannot mention them all. It is suggested to read the whole conversation before concluding on the cuttings of Dr. Naik.
Fourth, Hinduism, as I had emphasized always, is not a boundary of thoughtless laws. It allows people to think and do anything that can be constructive. It lays on the fundamental principle that definitions cannot bind the infinite God and Creations, only directions can be set towards them. Hence, vegetarianism is an explanation in Hinduism as a healthy and righteous food (Sattvika food). Hence, Dr. Naik’s claim that it is allowed in Hinduism is not a correct statement; it is only mentioned as harmful diet in Hinduism.
He further says:
‘7. Hinduism was influenced by other religions
Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to have non-vegetarian food, many Hindus adopted the vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.’
This is absurd, and explained in detail above. To ensure, see below scriptures of Bhagwad Geeta, which I believe existed far before Jainism or any known religions of the world:
Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 17, Verser 7, 8, 9, 10:
‘The food also (like worship, yajna, austerity, almsgiving, knowledge, action, intellect, fortitude, happiness, and others) is threefold’
‘The foods which augment vitality, energy, strength, health, cheerfulness, and appetite, which are savory, oleaginous, substantial, agreeable and pure, are Sattvika’.
‘The foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively hot, pungent, dry and burning, are Rajasika’
‘That which is stale, tasteless, stinking, cooked overnight, refuse and impure are Tamasika’.
No way has the concept of vegetarian a gift of Jainism. Jainism have gone the hard way, and produced out of Hinduism. Jainism has only tried to live the ‘Sattvika’ way described in Hinduism.
He further mentions:
‘8. Even plants have life
9. Even plants can feel pain
10. Killing a living creature with two senses less is not a lesser crime’
I don’t understand that a literary man like Dr. Naik cannot differentiate between vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet, even in terms of life, the way they are composed as organism, the way they exist as creatures.
I have detailed about Vegetarianism in second volume, yet let us see few things as known even to children.
We understand very well that animals grow proportionally within their body and after certain time period even that also stops while unlike animals, plants have the power to spread its life within and outside its body (we need not know the methodology of plant growth here). Plants grow on natural resources, while animal depends either on plants or other animals. More importantly, we can preserve plants for longer period in contrast to animals. Now what is more important to understand here is that preservation effects are different in both cases. When we are preserving plants, we are preserving their life. But when we are preserving animals, we are just keeping the dead body away from biological effects. Plants do not eat as animals do. Plant does not move as animals do. We all know these differences between Plant and Animal kingdom. Reasoning that when we eat plant we kill them is not at all rational. It can very simply be realized that when we eat plants we consume it in lively state, unless we cook them, but when we consume animals, we consume them dead. In fact, humans do not consume dead plants and the rotten part gets visible immediately unlike meat. Hence, there is no reasoning that can proof that eating of plant is same as eating of animals.
Moving ahead, we find more reasoning from him.
’11. Over population of cattle
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.’
It is amazing to realize that Islam has no boundary on controlling its own human population, but allows humans to control other creature’s population. Do Dr. Naik want to say that cows multiply faster than human population – he may compare the two population in any country, any region to understand this, where people do not eat cow.
Second important thing: who is capable of controlling population, human or nature? If Dr. Naik thinks that human is the one who is controlling the population of millions of species, then I do not have to say further. But, if nature has this capacity, the conclusion becomes baseless. It is simply one reason in protection of our human taste.
‘12. Cost of meat is reasonable since all aren’t non-vegetarians
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 non-vegetarians then the present non-vegetarians would be losers since the prices of meat would rise.’
The price of meat is anyhow far more than vegetarian diets. Dr. Naik is so poor in his reasoning; I had not come to know till this point. It is so simple, if all Indians go non-vegetarians, there won’t be meat to meet the demand. But if all Indians go vegetarians, there would still be enough food to meet the ever growing demand and price also would come down and that is why nature created humans as vegetarians – balance is not broken.
How can the human say that human are more important than all other creatures? What if God would have not created trees and plants and created only humans? What if there would not have any water? What if there would not have been air? In fact, to make human realize the importance of all creatures and creations of equal value, God have created other planets which do not have these things and we all know what is the environment there – no life, no humans, no one to realize even God? Hence, every creature is of equal importance to God and they are expected to behave as per natural laws. All other actually behaves so, barring humans. Though naturally made vegetarians, they enforce methodologies and endeavor to support their unlawful behavior through various challenged logics that these pretty and helpless creatures are made to be murdered by them and for them (their taste and authority).
Thus the belief that Hinduism is against meat is true, as Hinduism understands that life is a property of God and life simply do not means human life, it relates to every other entity that is involved in creating life support system, it relates to every creature which has realized such system. The data that more than 99 percent criminals and 100 percent terrorists are meat eaters, allows the vegetarians to condemn eating of meat. Eating meat is a barbarian act and as per Hindu understating, who kills it, who sells it, who buys it, who cooks it, who serves it and who eats are equal contributors in the murder of humble animals. They all contribute to the killing of humbleness which in turn induce in them the barbaric nature, some carry this to ahead to become criminals, murderers and terrorists.