|
|
|
| Sunday, 23 April 2006 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Why build a conditional
regard only for the cow?: All animals are equal by Afreeha Jawad Now let me ask you - Why is the cow held in greater reverence over other animals? Everything in the world is stratified and so be it I believe even with reverence - not to forget that the system itself will be defunct if not for the stratification of caste, class and now adding to the list - R-E-V-E-R-E-N-C-E.
Lest I digress... talking of the cow being recipient to high or rather higher degree veneration, over all other animal species, its not 'surprising' anyway. As milk giver, load bearer, tiller, plougher and all else - Ah! I almost forgot? What of its hyde that make human feet get that extra comfort - surely then she 'deserves' more sympathy for her services to man throughout history. Bereft of such, the treatment of her would perhaps be the same as to any other. But my point is this. Why build a conditional regard only for the cow. After all the Buddha said 'Siyalu Sathvayo Niduk Wethwa.' May all beings be happy. Is it then that the life of a goat, rabbit or tortoise steeped in less significance than a cow? Is it that other animals least serve man and hence invite overlooking. Getting on to the topic of flesh eating per se, some say the Buddha was not particular on the abstinence of flesh. But let's argue logically. Retrospective thinking of the Buddha's words Siyalu Sathwayo Niduk Wethwa - how come the very next second one is seen devouring some dead carrion. Long past are the days when not even fish was cooked for almsgiving - flesh being considered a compelling pollutant to unimpeachable piety - not to forget the recent emergence of some Buddhist clergymen's insistence on their choice preference - they name it and it's all there - mutton, chicken, fish whatever, neatly laid out and of course with beef's exception. Interestingly what the Holy Quran has to say on this rather controversial topic collides with whatever be the Muslims' attitude towards flesh consumption. The Holy book's constant reference to avoid 'transgression' in flesh consumption is a vehement reminder to the 'Ummat' or followers insisting on sanity over avarice. The Quranic insistence of conditional sanctioning of flesh eating as 'only for food' itself renders 'food for thought.' If to partake of food is to appease one's hunger, flesh consumption understandably is permitted only in the absence of edible alternatives. Arabia during Prophet Muhammed's time notably devoid of greenery and vegetation, with mile upon mile of vast unending, barren, sandy stretches was home to only date trees and animals. Little wonder then why the Prophet permitted flesh eating still for all under strict conditional adherence. For instance the pre-slaughter Thakbeer recital is an imposition that upholds life's sanctity which in turn is consolidated further with the insistence that during Haj while in pilgrims clothing (Ihram), even a branch twig should not be relieved. Such utterances against the backdrop of transgression and excesses is worth reflecting upon. All this apart, this written endeavour's call is for parity of status for all animals in the consumption of flesh by humans with absolute disregard for preference of one over the other. P.S. Let it NOT be "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal." |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
Sometimes I begin to wonder... could it be the economic layout impacting
the people? I mean the liberal market's influence where 'mutual caring' is
operative. Well, it happened under caste environs as well - this exchange of
caring I mean ,but of course with a difference. During those times sharing
and caring emanated out of goodwill unlike today amid high degree
opportunism. 
