Short answer
Muslims eat beef because God (﷾) made it lawful, but Islam does not require anyone to eat it. The Qur'an tells believers not to forbid what God (﷾) has allowed. A Muslim may leave beef aside out of courtesy, and he must keep the law where he lives. Muslims should respect the Hindu love of the cow and never mock it. The Veda, the highest Hindu scripture, also records beef. The Rig Veda speaks of bulls cooked as offerings. The early Hindu law books allow the meat of cows and oxen for guests and religious ceremonies. Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu teacher, said that by the old rules a good Hindu had to eat beef on certain occasions. So the full ban came after the Veda. Islam's rule on beef has not changed since the Prophet (ﷺ). Beef is lawful, never required, and the animal must be spared suffering.
Full explanation
Beef is lawful, but nobody has to eat it
The Qur'an names cattle among God's (﷾) gifts: from them come warmth and many benefits, "and of their (meat) ye eat". It also tells believers: "make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you". So no Muslim may call beef forbidden. But no Muslim has to eat it either. Once a roasted lizard was served to the Prophet (ﷺ), and he did not eat it. Asked whether it was unlawful, he said no; it was simply not the food of his people. A Muslim who leaves beef aside follows that example, as long as he does not claim God (﷾) forbade it. The Prophet (ﷺ) sacrificed cows for his wives at the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. For the festival he slaughtered two rams with his own hands. So a Muslim in India can keep Eid al-Adha, the festival of sacrifice, with a goat or a sheep.
“And cattle He has created for you (men): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat.”
“O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.”
Khalid ibn al-Walid reports that a roasted lizard (dabb) was served to the Prophet (ﷺ) in the house of Maymuna. He drew back his hand, and Khalid asked whether it was unlawful. The Prophet (ﷺ) said no; it was not found in the land of his people, so he did not like it. Khalid then ate it while the Prophet (ﷺ) watched.
Aisha reports that at Mina during the Hajj beef was brought to her. When she asked what it was, she was told that the Prophet (ﷺ) had sacrificed cows on behalf of his wives.
Anas reports that for the festival of sacrifice the Prophet (ﷺ) offered two horned rams, black and white. He slaughtered them with his own hands, saying the name of Allah and 'Allah is the greatest' over them.
Why Hindus honour the cow
For most Hindus today the cow is gau mata, "mother cow". She gives milk and work and asks for nothing back. This respect has old roots. In several places the Rig Veda calls the cow aghnyā, "not to be slain". One verse calls the cow Aditi, "the sinless", and says she must not be injured (mā gām ... vadhiṣṭa). The Shatapatha Brahmana, a Vedic book that explains the sacrifices, forbids the man consecrated for the Soma sacrifice to eat cow or ox. The Soma sacrifice is a Vedic rite, or ceremony. The reason given is: "the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth". The Manusmriti, a Hindu law book, makes the killer of a cow live among the cows for three months, serving and sheltering them. Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu monk, told an American audience in 1900 that Hindus, however much they differ, are one in never eating beef. Muslims should respect this feeling and never mock it.
Under "Mamsa" (flesh), Macdonell and Keith write that eating flesh appears as quite regular in the Vedic texts, and that slaying a great ox or a great goat for a guest was regularly prescribed (Shatapatha Brahmana 3.4.1.2). Sometimes meat was forbidden, as to a man keeping a vow. They note that the cow was already on the road to special sanctity in the Rig Veda, as her name aghnya, 'not to be slain', shows. A footnote counts the word sixteen times in the Rig Veda, and grants that another sense, 'hard to overcome', is quite possible. But they hold that the name cannot show that meat-eating in general was condemned. They note the myths that identify the cow with the earth or with Aditi, which they call much more than priestly ingenuity. Apart from these, they say, her great value for purposes other than eating is enough to explain her sanctity. They trace its beginnings to Indo-Iranian times.
“The Rudras' Mother, Daughter of the Vasus, centre of nectar, the Âdityas' Sister— To folk who understand will I proclaim it—injure not Aditi, the Cow, the sinless.”
“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.'”
“He who has committed a minor offence by slaying a cow (or bull) shall drink during (the first) month (a decoction of) barley-grains; having shaved all his hair, and covering himself with the hide (of the slain cow), he must live in a cow-house.”
“On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now.”
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.”
What the Rig Veda says about cattle
The Rig Veda is shruti, the highest layer of Hindu scripture. In one verse the god Indra says that "a score of bullocks they prepare" for him, and that he eats the fat. The Sanskrit is ukṣṇo ... pacanti, which means they cook bulls. Another verse praises Agni, the fire god, as the one to whom "horses, bulls, oxen, and barren cows, and rams" are offered. Two translators nearly forty years apart agree that these verses speak of cattle cooked and offered. Griffith (1897) has bullocks and barren cows. H. H. Wilson finished his translation nearly thirty years before it was printed in 1888. He followed Sayana, the Hindu commentator of the fourteenth century. Wilson has "fifteen (and) twenty bulls" and "barren cows ... consigned as burnt offerings". A note in Wilson's edition gives the Yajur Veda's reading of the second of these two verses.
“Fifteen in number, then, for me a score of bullocks they prepare, And I devour the fat thereof: they fill my belly full with food. Supreme is Indra over all.”
“He in whom horses, bulls, oxen, and barren cows, and rams, when duly set apart, are offered up,— To Agni, Soma-sprinkled, drinker of sweet juice, Disposer, with my heart I bring a fair hymn forth.”
“I offer graceful praise with all my heart to Agni, the drinker of water, whose back is sprinkled with Soma, the ordainer (of the rite), to whom vigorous horses and bulls and barren cows and sheep are consigned as burnt offerings.”
The Brahmana: an ox for a guest, and Yajnavalkya's answer
The Shatapatha Brahmana belongs to the Veda too. It explains one rite by the example of hospitality: "for a king or a Brâhman one would cook a large ox or a large he-goat". Elsewhere it gives the rule Hindus rightly point to. It is spoken at the consecration for the Soma sacrifice: that man must not eat the flesh of cow or ox. The reason it gives is general: cow and ox support everything on earth. But the same passage ends with Yajnavalkya, the sage and teacher of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. He says he eats it if it is tender. The rule and the disagreement are shown together below, as Eggeling translated them in 1885. So the Veda gives the rule and a sage's dissent side by side.
“Now as to why it is called 'guest-offering.' He, the purchased Soma, truly comes as his (the sacrificer's) guest,—to him (is offered) that (hospitable reception): even as for a king or a Brâhman one would cook a large ox or a large he-goat—for that is human (fare offered to a guest), and the oblation is that of the gods—so he prepares for him that guest-offering.”
“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.'”
The law books: beef for guests, meat at the rites
The law books are smriti, the layer below the Veda that governs Hindu practice. Apastamba's chapter on food first forbids the meat of "cattle". Then it adds that "(the meat) of milch-cows and oxen may be eaten". Milch-cows are cows kept for their milk. The same law book cites the Veda as well: "bull's flesh is fit for offerings". Vasishtha allows a man to "cook a full-grown ox" for an honoured guest. Manu goes further. At a sacred rite, the man who "refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences". This is the condition in full: "being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite)". Manu also teaches that the Self-existent "created animals for the sake of sacrifices", so that slaughter for sacrifice "is not slaughtering". Georg Bühler, a German scholar, translated all three books between 1879 and 1886.
“(Nor the meat) of one-hoofed animals, of camels, of the Gayal, of village pigs, of Sarabhas, and of cattle. (But the meat) of milch-cows and oxen may be eaten. The Vâgasaneyaka declares 'bull's flesh is fit for offerings.'”
“Now he may also cook a full-grown ox or a full-grown he-goat for a Brâhmana or Kshatriya guest; in this manner they offer hospitality to such (a man).”
“But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences.”
“Svayambhû (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word). Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences. On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed. A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.”
How the rule changed
Even Manu does not count killing a cow among the great sins. "Slaying kine" (kine is an old word for cows) stands in his list of minor offences, which cost a man his caste. Beside it stand giving up the study of the Veda and neglecting the household fire. The penance lasts three months. The slayer wears the hide of the slain cow, lives in a cow-house, and follows, serves and shelters the cows. At the end he gives ten cows and a bull to Brahmins learned in the Veda. Later the ban grew into what it is now. Swami Vivekananda, one of the best-known Hindu teachers of modern times, said so openly in 1900. By the old ceremonials, he said, a man was not a good Hindu unless he ate beef. "On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now." The Veda's verses have not changed. What changed is the practice built on them.
“Slaying kine, sacrificing for those who are unworthy to sacrifice, adultery, selling oneself, casting off one's teacher, mother, father, or son, giving up the (daily) study of the Veda, and neglecting the (sacred domestic) fire,”
“He who has committed a minor offence by slaying a cow (or bull) shall drink during (the first) month (a decoction of) barley-grains; having shaved all his hair, and covering himself with the hide (of the slain cow), he must live in a cow-house.”
“On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now.”
Cattle as a sign, sacrifice as charity, and mercy in slaughter
The Qur'an calls cattle "an instructive sign": out of their bodies God (﷾) brings milk, "pure and agreeable to those who drink it". It gives every people rites of sacrifice, so that they remember God (﷾) over the animals He provided. The meat is to be eaten and given to the poor, "the distressed ones in want". And the Qur'an says plainly what the sacrifice is for. "It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him." The Prophet (ﷺ) said that God (﷾) has prescribed excellence in everything. So the one who slaughters must sharpen his blade and spare the animal suffering.
“And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.”
“To every people did We appoint rites (of sacrifice), that they might celebrate the name of Allah over the sustenance He gave them from animals (fit for food). But your god is One God: submit then your wills to Him (in Islam): and give thou the good news to those who humble themselves,-”
“"That they may witness the benefits (provided) for them, and celebrate the name of Allah, through the Days appointed, over the cattle which He has provided for them (for sacrifice): then eat ye thereof and feed the distressed ones in want.”
“The sacrificial camels we have made for you as among the symbols from Allah: in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment, and such as beg with due humility: thus have We made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful.”
“It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.”
Shaddad ibn Aws reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said Allah has prescribed excellence in everything. So when you slaughter, slaughter well: sharpen the blade and spare the animal suffering.
Respect, and keeping the law
The Qur'an forbids Muslims to revile what others hold sacred. So the Muslim answer to cow reverence is courtesy, never mockery. Muslims in India must keep the law of their state, as Islam requires. Living under a state's protection is an agreement with it, and the Qur'an commands believers to fulfil their obligations. The Prophet (ﷺ) told Muslims to obey those in authority unless they are ordered to sin. A law against killing cows orders no sin, since no Muslim has to eat beef or sacrifice a cow. Muslims may also leave beef aside to avoid giving offence. The Prophet's (ﷺ) own example shows that leaving a lawful food aside is no sin. What a Muslim may not do is say that God (﷾) forbade beef. The deeper question is where a rule comes from. By Vivekananda's account the same act went from a duty to something Hindus now shun, while the scripture stayed the same. Islam's food law has not moved since the Prophet (ﷺ): pork forbidden, beef allowed, and mercy to the animal required.
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.”
“O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations.”
Abdullah ibn Umar reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said a Muslim must listen and obey those in authority, whether he likes it or not, unless he is ordered to disobey God. If he is ordered to commit a sin, there is no listening and no obeying.
Khalid ibn al-Walid reports that a roasted lizard (dabb) was served to the Prophet (ﷺ) in the house of Maymuna. He drew back his hand, and Khalid asked whether it was unlawful. The Prophet (ﷺ) said no; it was not found in the land of his people, so he did not like it. Khalid then ate it while the Prophet (ﷺ) watched.
“O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.”
“On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now.”
Shaddad ibn Aws reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said Allah has prescribed excellence in everything. So when you slaughter, slaughter well: sharpen the blade and spare the animal suffering.
The replies, answered
Rig Veda 8.101.15 — Mandala 8, Hymn 101, verse 15
“The Rudras' Mother, Daughter of the Vasus, centre of nectar, the Âdityas' Sister— To folk who understand will I proclaim it—injure not Aditi, the Cow, the sinless.”
Cited for
The Veda calls the cow aghnya, "not to be killed", and here it says "injure not Aditi, the Cow, the sinless". So the Veda itself forbids killing cows, and beef was never Vedic.
The response
Aghnya is a real Vedic name for the cow, and this verse honours her as Aditi. Macdonell and Keith, the scholars who compiled the Vedic Index, count the name sixteen times in the Rig Veda. They take it as a sign that the cow was gaining special sanctity. But they add that it does not show that meat-eating in general was condemned. And the same Veda speaks of bulls and oxen cooked and offered. Indra says bulls are cooked for him, and Agni receives bulls, oxen and barren cows. The law books built on the Veda allow the meat of milch-cows and oxen, and an ox cooked for a guest. Even Manu ranks killing a cow as a minor offence, one that costs caste and needs a penance, not as a great sin.
Where it lands — The Veda reveres the cow, but it also records cattle offered and eaten. The total ban is later than the Veda.
Rig Veda 10.86.14 — Mandala 10, Hymn 86, verse 14
“Fifteen in number, then, for me a score of bullocks they prepare, And I devour the fat thereof: they fill my belly full with food. Supreme is Indra over all.”
Cited for
These are mistranslations by Western scholars. Words like ukṣan can mean something else, such as a plant, and the Vedas never meant the killing of cattle.
The response
Sayana, the fourteenth-century Hindu commentator, explains ukṣṇaḥ here as vṛṣabhān, "bulls", which the worshippers cook for Indra. Wilson translated Sayana's reading. Griffith, nearly forty years later, differs from Sayana only on who the "fifteen" are; he too has bullocks prepared for Indra to eat. In 10.91.14 the word stands in a list with horses, bulls, barren cows and rams, all animals offered in the fire. The law books need no guessing: Bühler's Apastamba says plainly that the meat of milch-cows and oxen may be eaten. Eggeling's Shatapatha has the ox cooked for a guest. And Vivekananda, a Hindu monk speaking of his own tradition, said the old rules required beef.
Where it lands — A Hindu commentator, four translators across nearly forty years, and a Hindu teacher all read these texts as speaking of cattle offered and eaten.
Shatapatha Brahmana 3.1.2.21 — kanda 3, adhyaya 1, brahmana 2, kandika 21
“He (the Adhvaryu) then makes him enter the hall. Let him not eat (the flesh) of either the cow or the ox; for the cow and the ox doubtless support everything here on earth. The gods spake, 'Verily, the cow and the ox support everything here: come, let us bestow on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belongs to other species!' Accordingly they bestowed on the cow and the ox whatever vigour belonged to other species (of animals); and therefore the cow and the ox eat most. Hence, were one to eat (the flesh) of an ox or a cow, there would be, as it were, an eating of everything, or, as it were, a going on to the end (or, to destruction). Such a one indeed would be likely to be born (again) as a strange being, (as one of whom there is) evil report, such as 'he has expelled an embryo from a woman,' 'he has committed a sin;' let him therefore not eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox. Nevertheless Yâgñavalkya said, 'I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender.'”
Cited for
The Shatapatha itself forbids eating cow and ox, and gives the reason: they support everything on earth. That is the true Vedic teaching.
The response
The rule is real, and it is shown in full above. It is given at the consecration for the Soma rite, as the man enters the hall, though its reason is stated in general terms. And the same passage closes with Yajnavalkya: "I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender." Later in the same book (3.4.1.2), cooking a large ox for a king or a Brahmin is taken as ordinary hospitality.
Where it lands — The Shatapatha restrains beef at the Soma consecration, records its greatest sage eating it, and treats it as normal fare for guests.
Manusmriti 5.48 — chapter 5, verse 48
“Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.”
Cited for
Manu tells people to shun meat, because it cannot be had without injury. Hindu law praises the vegetarian, so meat was only ever a concession.
The response
Manu 5.48 does say that. But the same chapter says that a man engaged at a sacred rite who refuses meat becomes an animal for twenty-one births. It also says that slaughter for sacrifice "is not slaughtering". Bühler found an older form of 5.48 in Vasishtha. He took that passage to come from an older law book of Manu's school. There the verse ends by saying that slaughter at a sacrifice is not slaughter. Bühler concluded that Manu's ending had been altered to suit the doctrine of non-injury (ahimsa).
Where it lands — Manu holds both teachings side by side because the rule was changing: he praises abstaining, yet still requires meat at the rites.
Swami Vivekananda, "Buddhistic India", Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, 2 February 1900
“On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now.”
Cited for
The change was moral growth. Hindus rightly came to put ahimsa, non-injury, above the old sacrifices. As Vivekananda said, the ancient sacrifices are gone, and modern India follows the spiritual part of the Vedas.
The response
Islam agrees that no one has to eat meat, and it commands mercy when an animal is killed. A Hindu who keeps from beef out of kindness does nothing Islam condemns. But calling the change moral growth has a cost. Shankara, the Hindu teacher of about the eighth century, holds the Veda eternal. Manu says neither the Veda nor the law books may be called into question. Yet Manu requires meat at the rites, and by Vivekananda's account the old ceremonials required a bull to be sacrificed and eaten on certain occasions. If that was wrong, then later teachers have judged the Veda and found it wanting. Their ban is then their own judgement, not the Veda's. The Qur'an says God (﷾) made animals subject to people so that they may be grateful, and that rule has stood since it was revealed.
Where it lands — Islam honours kindness to animals too, but a ban that overrules the Veda's own rites cannot claim the Veda's authority.
Swami Vivekananda, "Buddhistic India", Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, 2 February 1900
“On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it. That is disgusting now.”
Cited for
Cow slaughter wounds the feelings of hundreds of millions of Hindus. If Muslims respected their neighbours, they would give up beef.
The response
Islam does not require beef. The Prophet (ﷺ) left a lawful food aside without forbidding it, and offered rams himself, so Muslims may avoid beef where it gives offence. They must keep the law of the state where they live, as Islam requires. They must never mock what Hindus revere. What respect cannot ask is that a Muslim say God (﷾) forbade what He allowed. Vivekananda's own words show that the refusal of beef came later, while the scripture stayed the same.
Where it lands — Muslims can honour Hindu feeling in practice without changing God's (﷾) law.
Qur'an 6:108 — Surat al-An'am (The Cattle), verse 108
“Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.”
Cited for
Some Muslims, rulers among them, killed cows to humiliate Hindus. In India, beef has been a way of showing contempt, not of obeying God.
The response
Where anyone killed a cow to wound Hindus, he broke the Qur'an; he did not keep it. The Qur'an forbids Muslims to revile what others worship, lest the insult be returned. It says that neither the meat nor the blood of a sacrifice reaches God (﷾), only piety. A slaughter meant to insult has no piety in it. No Muslim is required to eat beef, so none needs a cow to keep his faith. Islam judges rulers by its law; it is not judged by them.
Where it lands — Killing a cow to humiliate Hindus is forbidden by the Qur'an itself, so it cannot be charged to Islam.
Manusmriti 5.48 — chapter 5, verse 48
“Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.”
Cited for
Eid al-Adha is cruel. Killing thousands of animals in the name of God is violence, and it cannot please Him.
The response
Vedic worship itself was built on animal sacrifice. Manu says the Self-existent created animals for sacrifice, and that slaying them at the rites leads both slayer and animal to "a most blessed state". The Rig Veda praises Agni for the bulls, oxen, barren cows and rams offered to him. In Islam the sacrifice is thanks for food God (﷾) provided. The Qur'an says the meat and blood do not reach Him; only piety does. The meat is eaten and shared with the poor, and the animal must be killed with a sharp blade and spared needless pain.
Where it lands — Sacrifice is older than both: the Qur'an says God (﷾) gave every people rites of sacrifice. Islam adds mercy to the animal and food for the poor.
Qur'an 4:43 — Surat al-Nisa (The Women), verse 43
“O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.”
Cited for
Islam changed its law too. At first wine was only kept away from prayer, and later it was banned. So a Hindu rule changing over time is no different.
The response
The Qur'an's steps on wine came within the Prophet's (ﷺ) own mission, by revelation, and all pointed one way. Before the final ban it had already said that in wine "is great sin". The final word has stood unchanged for fourteen centuries. The Hindu change reversed the rule itself: what was once a duty at the rites is now shunned. It came over centuries through later law books and custom, while the Vedic verses stayed in the Veda.
Where it lands — A prohibition revealed in stages within one mission is not a scripture's practice reversed by later custom.
Perspectives
Reverence for the cow
The cow is sacred. The Veda calls her Aditi and forbids harming her. The Brahmana gives the reason: cow and ox sustain everything. She gives milk and labour and asks nothing back, and she stands for ahimsa, which means not harming living beings. Krishna himself was a cowherd, Gopala. Hindus of every school have long refused beef. The old sacrifices have passed away, and modern Hinduism follows the spiritual part of the Vedas.
The Veda's reverence for Aditi, the Shatapatha's rule, and Hindu practice today
A Rig Veda verse calls the cow Aditi and says she must not be injured.
Rebuttal
Islam honours cattle too: the Qur'an calls them "an instructive sign". But the same Veda says bulls are cooked for Indra and bulls, oxen and barren cows are offered to Agni. The scholars Macdonell and Keith read the name aghnya as growing sanctity, not as a ban on all meat.
The Shatapatha Brahmana forbids the consecrated sacrificer to eat cow or ox, because they support everything on earth.
Rebuttal
The rule is real. It binds the man who has been set apart for the Soma sacrifice. But the same passage ends with Yajnavalkya saying: "I, for one, eat it, provided that it is tender." And the same book treats cooking a large ox for a king or a Brahmin as ordinary hospitality.
Vivekananda said that Hindus, however much they differ, are one in never eating beef. And he said the ancient sacrifices are gone.
Rebuttal
That is true of Hindus today, and Muslims should respect it. But the same speaker said that by the old ceremonials a man had to sacrifice a bull and eat it on certain occasions. So the total ban came after the Veda's rites, not with them.
Manu tells a man to shun meat, because meat cannot be had without injury to living creatures.
Rebuttal
Manu does say that. Islam, too, requires no one to eat meat, though no one may call it forbidden (5:87). But the same chapter says a man engaged at a sacred rite who refuses meat becomes an animal for twenty-one births. It also says slaughter for sacrifice "is not slaughtering".
Protecting the cow is a religious duty.
Rebuttal
For Hindus today it is a duty. Muslims must respect that, and keep the law where they live. But Manu ranks killing a cow as a lesser offence, with a penance. And the early law books allow beef. Islam does not forbid what God (﷾) has made lawful (5:87). Even so, a Muslim is free to leave beef aside.
What the scriptures record
The Rig Veda, the Shatapatha Brahmana and the early law books record cattle being offered, cooked and eaten. They allow beef for guests and at rites. Later law made killing a cow an offence. And later custom made eating beef unthinkable.
The Rig Veda speaks of bulls cooked for Indra and of bulls, oxen and barren cows offered to Agni.
The Shatapatha Brahmana treats cooking a large ox for a king or a Brahmin as ordinary hospitality. And it records that Yajnavalkya ate beef.
Apastamba and Vasishtha allow the meat of milch-cows and oxen, and an ox cooked for a guest.
Manu punishes refusing meat at a sacred rite. And he ranks killing a cow as a lesser offence, one that costs a man his caste, with a penance to make up for it.
A leading Hindu teacher said that the old rules required a good Hindu to eat beef at times. And he said that Hindus now avoid it.
The Islamic perspective
Beef is lawful because God (﷾) made it lawful, and no Muslim may call it forbidden. No Muslim has to eat it. Muslims must keep the law where they live, and should respect their neighbours' reverence. Cattle are a sign of God (﷾), sacrifice is for piety and for the poor, and the animal must be spared suffering.
The Qur'an forbids believers to make unlawful what God (﷾) has made lawful.
The Prophet (ﷺ) left a lawful food uneaten without calling it forbidden.
The Prophet (ﷺ) sacrificed cows on behalf of his wives, and slaughtered two rams with his own hands. So Eid al-Adha, the festival of sacrifice, does not need beef.
The Qur'an honours cattle as a sign and says that only piety, not meat or blood, reaches God (﷾).
The Prophet (ﷺ) commanded mercy in slaughter: a sharp blade and no needless suffering.
A Muslim must obey those in authority unless ordered to sin, so he keeps a law against killing cows.
The Qur'an forbids reviling what others hold sacred.