What's new

IN YOUR FACE SHANGHIS,BHAKTS !In Kerala, a Beef-Eating Fest to Protest Against Beef Ban

WOW .... you are tottally SHAMELESS :lol:

This is what you wrote ,

Thermoluminiscence dating of a few potsherds of the Ochre Colour Ware from the site, conducted by the Archaeological Research Laboratory at Oxford, indicate a mean date of 1880 B.C. Besides other finds, animal bones were found in large numbers. The cut-marks, present on many of them, suggest that meat including beef was the staple diet. Evidence of some grains
(cereal), suggesting agriculture as a subsidiary occupation, was also available.

This is what the ACTUAL LINK SAYS,

..Thermoluminiscence dating of a few potsherds of the Ochre Colour Ware from the site, conducted by the Archaeological Research Laboratory at Oxford, indicate a mean date of 1880 B.C. Besides other finds, animal bones were found in large numbers. The cut-marks, present on many of them, suggest that meat was the staple diet. Evidence of some grains
(cereal), suggesting agriculture as a subsidiary occupation, was also available.


So considering your blatant attempt at propaganda, you have some cheek asking me not to get personal :lol:

Good catch buddy. She has been told in the past not to break forum rules by posting gruesome photos. The fact that she continues to do it makes her motivations amply clear.

Sorry to say @Aamna Ali but you are a mulli. Through and through.
 
That is absolutely fine. Whatever it is, What I am trying to say is that this country has wide range of beliefs, customs, traditions and diversity. You cannot claim that someone should stop eating beef suddenly because some Hindu is offended. This applies to Muslims as well.
The main issue is of criminalising the consumption of beef. You dont like it, dont eat it. What stuns me is the hypocrisy and the reasons given for such a ban.
While bull sacrificing is ok, killing of cow is unacceptable?
I admit that eating beef is not a necessity or even good in our climate but that choice should be of the people.

That point would hold for literature that is considered offensive, for speeches that is considered offensive, for allowing religion based laws, for publishing offensive cartoons of a religious figure, for butchering animals on the streets, for allowing people to use loudspeakers & disturb the neighbourhood quiet, for every indulgence allowed for any religion. All such prohibitions have no place in a truly secular system but we usually work out a compromise, sometimes one that doesn't satisfy a lot of people. This is one such. I'm no fan of this law but I cannot but point out that criticism of only this law smacks a bit of hypocrisy. I'm sure that this law like any other law is open to challenge in the courts of law & that is where it must be tested.
 
Hahahahahahahaha

Pakistanis Hahahahahahaha come lets all laugh at them :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Like clowns at a circus :rofl::rofl::rofl: Laugh at them hahahahahaha

your a muslim ,your a false flagger ,your a Pakistani hahahahahahahahahaha Stop it :rofl::rofl::rofl:
1344442938_laugh-at-you.jpg
 
Animal sacrifices in Vedas, including cow sacrifice

Chapter 24 of the Shukla Yajurveda is a unique chapter that will help us throw light on the animal sacrifices in the Vedas. This chapter contains an exact enumeration of animals that are to be tied to the sacrificial stakes, with the names of the deities to which they are dedicated. Several of the animals cannot be identified. This entire chapter is a weird puzzle, which is difficult to solve for the modern vegetarian Hindus. They are simply unable to explain the coherent meaning of this chapter. You will be amazed to know that even a Vedic scholar like Swami Dayanand is unable to throw any light on it. He merely says that we should know the qualities of each animal by relating to the qualities of the deity to whom they are dedicated. This statement of the Swami is itself a puzzle, as it gives no clear beneficial knowledge to us. Even Pandit Devi Chand, an Arya Samaj scholar, who based his English translation of the Yajurveda on Swami Dayanand's work is clueless about the exact meaning of this chapter. He says in the footnote to verse #1,


"The exact significance of these animals being attached to the forces of nature (or Deities) is not clear to me." (words in brackets mine)



Does this mean that no Hindu scholar for thousands of years has been able to understand the meaning of this chapter? I would say that is not the case. If we go to the Brahmanas and the classical commentators of the Vedas, the puzzle is solved. According to them each animal dedicated to a particular diety in this chapter has to be sacrificed to that deity. See Shatapath Brahmana 13/2/2/1-10



If this view is not accepted as the correct one, then every verse of this chapter would be a question mark with no answer. For example, verse 1 dedicates 'a cow that slips her calf' to Indra. But the question is, what will Indra do with such a cow? Is Indra going to give a sermon to her? or is Indra going to punish her? Such questions require satisfactory answers which modern vegetarian Hindus are unable to provide.



In the Yajnas meant for obtaining Rice, meat of bull was cooked and offered to the diety.



Rigveda 10/28/3 mentions this as



"Your worshippers express with the stone fast flowing exhilarating Soma-juices for you. You drink them. They roast bull for you, you eat them when you are invoked, Maghavan, to the sacrificial food."



This is interpreted by Sayana Acharya as follows:



"You (O Indra), eat the cattle offered as oblations belonging to the worshippers who cook them for you."



Acharya Sayana explicitly mentions about sacrificing a bull in the introduction to Atharvaveda 9/4/1 as follows



"The Brahman after killing the bull, offers its meat to the different deities. In this hymn, the cow is praised, detailing which parts of the bull are attached to which deity as well as the importance of sacrificing the bull and the rewards of doing the same."


How does it matter? It is not the case today. Lots of things done ages ago are done differently now, doesn't mean that they have any less sentimental value.
 
Slaughtering and eating animal is just medieval, barbaric, satanic and gross, just because animals can't stage a dharna outside parliament or organize a rail roko doesn't mean you have a right to take their lives
 
Secularism has nothing to do with hurting sentiments. Why should the Government decide what i should eat or not eat? Why should Hindus decide what Muslims or Christians can or cannot eat or vice versa? Dont like something..dont eat it.

1. have you heard of poultry/Farming? Imagine what will happen if Indian stop farming chicken and start eating desi chicken? Desi Chicken will fall into endangered species. Simillarly, In India Desi cow/Bull/Bufallo are killed, there number is decreasing. Govt has all right to save pet animal. In India Pet Cows are killed for food.

Pet cow must not be allowed to cut for beef, I have no issue with Beef which is produced by Farmed cow (Farmed expecially for Beef)..


"दूध की कीमत बढ़ जाये तो आपत्ती। दूध व मिठाई में मिलावट से आपत्ती।
गायों के कत्ल पे पाबंदी लगायें तो भी आपत्ती।
अरे भाई, दूध देने वाली गाय का कत्ल कर दोगे तो क्या दूध कुऐं से निकालोगे ???
आपके बच्चों के शारिरीक विकास के लिए दूध चाहिए मांस का टूकङा नही। घमॆ से उपर उठकर भी कभी सोच लिया किजीए।"



Muslims do not usually and historically consume pork because back then there was no science and people had documented pigs of being Coprophagic and the pig was considered a dirty animal. You can have as many festivals as you want.

Pigs are farmed on cereals as well. If Hindu can eat beef to become secular why not other show some secularism on there side as well??

Hindus too sacrifice animals for rituals. Why does that not hurt any sentiments?

Yes it hurt Secular Sentiment. Same Secular intellects pose for PETA when hindu Sacrifice. Same Secular ppl eat beef when govt ban Pet cow killing....


And more over its Govt prerogative to ban Beef, Pork, Goat, Wine. If not why Pork is ban in 52 Islamic country? Why horse meat is banned in USA? why Dog meat is banned in Germany???
 
There are plenty of places here in Kerala which sells pork.. Nobody chopped anyone's hand for that..

Try selling it in Muslim majority neighborhood, in Kerala or any other so called "secular bastions" of India, and see what happens next. Now extrapolate the scene to India, a Hindu majority country, and you ll know what the whole issue is all about.

Thats below the belt.. Why should it hold next to a mosque? Did any one conduct the beef protest inside the temple? How many hands you know have been chopped off becuase they consume pork?

How is it below the belt? Why suddenly pussy footing around the issue? Is anyone forcing people to consume pork? No they are not, they are merely selling it next to a religious building or in a "minority" community neighborhood,, its a free, "secular" country right? People should be allowed to do whatever they want? Or does this secular free country thing only come into play when its the religious sensitivities of the Hindus are at stake?

I have said it several times before, the text book definition of secularism doesn't work in India, and if the so called secular people want to impose the text book model of secularism in India, then it should be enforced on every religion of India, not just the Hindu majority. People should be free to slaughter cow, pigs, sell and eat it wherever they want, whenever they want. People should be allowed to read/watch, Da Vinci Code, Satanic verses and The Hindus, all at the same time.

When Christians get the da vinci code banned its a ok, when Muslims get Satanic Verses and Tasleema Nasreen banned its a ok, but when Hindus have issues with Wendy Doniger's book suddenly all hell breaks loose, and the leftist liberal pseudo intellectuals of India start saying that India is going in the reverse gear and slipping into backwardness right?
 
Last edited:
Try selling it in Muslim majority neighborhood, in Kerala or any other so called "secular bastions" of India, and see what happens next. Now extrapolate the scene to India, a Hindu majority country, and you ll know what the whole issue is all about.

Dude go to the markets of kollam or kottarakkara..most of the sellers are muslims and the market itself is situated near muslim street..There are plenty of people buying pork meet from there..Never had any issues.. Yes they dobt sell pork but they never made any issue out of it..

How is it below the belt? Why suddenly pussy footing around the issue? Is anyone forcing people to consume pork? No they are not, they are merely selling next to a religious building or a "minority" community neighborhood,, its a free, "secular" country right? People should be allowed to do whatever they want? Or does this secular thing only come into play when its the religious sensitivities of the Hindus are at stake?

I have said it several times before, the text book definition of secularism doesn't work in India, and if the so called secular people want to impose the text book model of secularism in India, then it should be enforced on every religion of India, not just the Hindu majority. People should be free to slaughter cow, pigs, sell and eat it wherever they want, whenever they want. People should be allowed to read/watch, Da Vinci Code, Satanic verses and The Hindus, all at the same time.

Your comments about we have a choppibg hand ritual is below the belt..How many times do you see it happens? Yes religious bigots are there but people here are much tolerant to other religions.. I too said many times before that govt shouldn't be a hostage to any religious parties..They have plenty of things to do than working for any religion..We as a nation should learn to keep religion as a personal business rather that trying to force it on others..
 
Pigs are farmed on cereals as well. If Hindu can eat beef to become secular why not other show some secularism on there side as well??

Well I do consume pork being a Muslim as well. Not because i want to be secular but because i like it and India is a free country. Whether i eat worms, cockroaches, mutton, beef or pork should not be determined by the government. By the way dont feel disgusted by worms and cockroaches. They are available in Kolkata in Tiretti Bazar and sold by the chinese.

You do have a point if you say Pet animals should not be killed and only farmed animals should. That would be fair.

Try selling it in Muslim majority neighborhood, in Kerala or any other so called "secular bastions" of India, and see what happens next. Now extrapolate the scene to India, a Hindu majority country, and you ll know what the whole issue is all about.



How is it below the belt? Why suddenly pussy footing around the issue? Is anyone forcing people to consume pork? No they are not, they are merely selling it next to a religious building or in a "minority" community neighborhood,, its a free, "secular" country right? People should be allowed to do whatever they want? Or does this secular free country thing only come into play when its the religious sensitivities of the Hindus are at stake?

I have said it several times before, the text book definition of secularism doesn't work in India, and if the so called secular people want to impose the text book model of secularism in India, then it should be enforced on every religion of India, not just the Hindu majority. People should be free to slaughter cow, pigs, sell and eat it wherever they want, whenever they want. People should be allowed to read/watch, Da Vinci Code, Satanic verses and The Hindus, all at the same time.

When Christians get the da vinci code banned its a ok, when Muslims get Satanic Verses and Tasleema Nasreen banned its a ok, but when Hindus have issues with Wendy Doniger's book suddenly all hell breaks loose, and the leftist liberal pseudo intellectuals of India start saying that India is going in the reverse gear and slipping into backwardness right?

Very True. There are too many over sensitive Muslims as well. Muslims should stop feeling hurt at the drop of a hat. We have more than enough rights and equality as a minority community. Rights which would never have been given in any Majority Muslim country. That is what makes India what it is today.
 
Well I do consume pork being a Muslim as well. Not because i want to be secular but because i like it and India is a free country. Whether i eat worms, cockroaches, mutton, beef or pork should not be determined by the government. By the way dont feel disgusted by worms and cockroaches. They are available in Kolkata in Tiretti Bazar and sold by the chinese.

You do have a point if you say Pet animals should not be killed and only farmed animals should. That would be fair.


Good at least we agree on something.. Even our Court has said "Don't communalize beef ban". The Ban is imposed on the ground

The truth: "Saving the livestock of India, Due to illegal and uncontrolled killing of pet Cows , Cow population is going down"

What BJP said: "We did it to save Hinduism"
What Secular ppl said: "We will eat cow, because eating cow is secular"

What is solution: Like Chicken Farm, Fish Farm, Beef eating secular should open Cow Farm, where they can cultivate those cows which grow faster and yield more beef..


Govt has all right to decide what we should eat. If not Salman Khan would not facing trial on killing deer(Buck).. Govt can ban eating Desi chiken if they see its in danger...
 
Try selling it in Muslim majority neighborhood, in Kerala or any other so called "secular bastions" of India, and see what happens next. Now extrapolate the scene to India, a Hindu majority country, and you ll know what the whole issue is all about.

forget abt selling pork in muslim neighborhoods, when a muslim women volunteer of PETA asked muslims not to kill animals on eid, she was heckled, hurled, abused and beaten.. u can even see a muslim women in burqa shouting on the girl and asking men to rape her..:(:(


images


suraiya-PETA.jpg


1eba21ca-59d8-44da-ae33-23cc3b19c624WallpAutoWallpaper2.JPG
 
Well I do consume pork being a Muslim as well. Not because i want to be secular but because i like it and India is a free country. Whether i eat worms, cockroaches, mutton, beef or pork should not be determined by the government. By the way dont feel disgusted by worms and cockroaches. They are available in Kolkata in Tiretti Bazar and sold by the chinese.

You do have a point if you say Pet animals should not be killed and only farmed animals should. That would be fair.

Theoretically "pet" animals too can be farmed as also wild animals like tigers, bears etc. We make some distinctions even if they are not always based on logic because our sensibilities are offended. This is one such topic.
 
Theoretically "pet" animals too can be farmed as also wild animals like tigers, bears etc. We make some distinctions even if they are not always based on logic because our sensibilities are offended. This is one such topic.
@MokshaVimukthi
Beef eating in the Hindu Tradition


Ask any Hindu to respond spontaneously to this question: What are the two most holy things in your religion? Chances are the first two responses will be ‘the Vedas’ and ‘the Cow’. Conflated, these two have been used for years (centuries!) to feed a Hindu abhorrence toward beef eating. How often I’ve heard it said – “Of course the cow is sacred – it says so in the Hindu scriptures. It says so in the Vedas!” The Vedas. Which 99.99% of Hindus haven’t read. We have no clue what they contain. At best we may be able to name them and tell you which is the oldest, since we learnt that in Ancient Indian History at school.


I respect a Hindu’s right not to eat beef, or any meat for that matter. But to quote the scriptures in support of this belief is quite ridiculous. To prove my point, I will refer to a variety of ancient Hindu sources including the Samhitas (oldest portions of the Vedas), the Brahma as (Vedic texts which lay down the rules for the Vedic sacrifice) and the Dharma-sutras, (post Vedic texts which continue to be the bedrock of orthodox Hindu belief.)


Early Vedic Period


The cow was undoubtedly very important, indeed sacred to Vedic Indians. But not in the way we most of us imagine. It was the arya's sustenance, his wealth, his most prized possession. Not surprisingly, it was therefore the best offering to his gods in sacrifice. The laity, as well the priests who conducted the sacrifice partook of the left over (ucchi??a) of the ceremony. In fact in the words of Dr. B.R Ambedkar, “For the brahmin, everyday was a beef-stake day.” (From his 1948 work “The Untouchables…)


That the arya of the Rig Veda ate beef and meat is clear from the text itself. The killing of cows for guests was so wide-spread that go-ghna (killer of cows) became a synomym of atithi (guest). RV X.68.3 mentions a hero called Atithigva*, which means literally ‘slaying cows for guests’. Madhuparka, an offering for special guests mentioned first in the Jaiminya-Upanishad-Brahmaa was not just curd and honey as the name might suggest, but a cow was immolated or let loose as part of the welcome. Either way, in no case was Madhuparka complete without beef or some other meat. Perhaps there were exhortations to limit the killing, reflected in the response of Yajñavalka, a renowned ancient Rishi who said “I for one eat it (beef) provided it is tender.” The Taittireya Samhit? tells us how to cut up the animal and gives an idea of the distribution of its flesh (TS 6.3.10. 2-6).


Vedic Indians fed their gods their own favourite foods – milk, butter, ghee, barley, goats and sheep. But Indra, their mightiest god, destroyer of enemy strongholds, preferred the flesh of the bull. Sometimes he ate one, sometimes fifteen, twenty, a hundred, 300 bulls. Even a thousand buffaloes. Agni was not so particular. He mostly liked ghee, but was not averse to horses, bulls, oxen, cows and rams. (RV X.91.14). The third most important god was Soma, and in the Soma sacrifice including cows as bali (victim) was crucial. It was the Soma sacrifice that went on to become the defining practice that demarcated rya from an arya.


Late Vedic Period
The Gopatha Br?hma?a describes 21 types of yajñas (sacrifices), the most important of which included animal sacrifice. The offering varied depending on which god was being propitiated. Bulls were sacrificed to Indra, dappled cows to the Maruts, a copper coloured cow to the A?vins, a regular one to Mitra-Varu?a. The A?vamedha, the R?jas?ya, and the V?japeya yajñas all included animal sacrifice in large numbers, including cows and bulls. In theA?vamedha for instance, more than 600 animals were killed, and its finalé was the sacrifice of 21 cows. In fact an independent yajña is actually called pa?ubandha, pa?u meaning animal (Gopatha Br?hma?a 1.5.7)

There isn’t space to go into the detail of even the main yajña here, but this extract from the ?atapatha Br?hma?a should give you an idea. This is from the Sautr?ma?i rite, which is said to replenish the sacrificer: “He (the priest) consecrates him (the sacrificer) by sprinkling him with the fat gravy of the sacrificial animals, for the gravy of the animals means excellence … But that gravy is also the highest kind of food: with the highest kind of food he thus sprinkles him. There are hoof-cups (of gravy) for on hoofs cattle support themselves: he thus causes him to obtain such a support…”


While this excerpt raises the question of how the fat was extracted, it doesn’t prove that the priests and the sacrificer actually ate the remains of the sacrificial animal. For this we turn to animal sacrifice in the Soma ceremony. We join the sacrificer’s wife and the adhvaryu priest after the animal has been"quietened" : “They turn the victim over so it lies on its back … the animal is then cut and when the omentum is pulled out it is heated on the cooking fire … then after the basting of the heart of the animal with clotted ghee … then portions are made from various parts of the body …” (?B 3.8.2-4). ?B 3.8.3.11 specifies that some portions of the sacrificial animal must not be eaten e.g.the head, but there is no objection to eating other parts of the animal.


Post Vedic Period


Let us now turn to the Dharma-sutr?s which were normative texts whose core audience was the Brahmin male. There are a lot of them, so rather than bore you, I'll quote briefly from the best known of them all – Manu. Ch 5 of his law code deals with rules for food. "To perform sacrifices Brahmins may kill sanctioned animals and birds, as also to feed their dependants … for at the ancient sacrifices of seers and the Soma offerings … the sacrificial cakes were prepared with the meat of permitted animals and birds." (5.22-23) “He may eat meat when it is sacrificially consecrated, at the behest of Brahmins, when he is ritually commissioned according to rule…” (5.27). And “There is no fault in eating meat … that is the natural activity of creatures.” (5.56). Undoubtedly the same chapter also argues for not eating meat and the rewards thereof, but I focus on the portion which continues the Br?hma?ical tradition in order to prove that beef/meat eating was extant in the post Vedic period.


Finally…


Evidently at some stage, the practices mentioned fell into disuse, and Hindus came to abstain from meat, from beef in particular. if you’re a Hindu and you don’t eat meat, particularly beef, because of a religious sentiment, I respect that completely. But to those who say they are doing it because the Hindu scriptures censure it, I urge you to read the aforementioned texts and decide for yourself.
not always based on logic because our sensibilities are offended. This is one such topic.
Where do these sensibilities arise from? Even Hindus have often been in two minds regarding the issue. Any one can be offended at the slightest of issues,which is why intolerance exists. But being a rational person, why make an issue of something where none exists? No one is forcing Hindus to eat beef or even kill cows. But let others enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom