| Author |
Michael Wolfe ('My Hajj Experience') |
london-uk
Joined: Oct 01, 2003
Posts: 214
From: Londres
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-29 21:53:39, dealer3 wrote:
...
im not sure about shooting an animal at its head...but it is A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN fact that the way halal meat is cut, its causes less pain to the animal than nearly all modern methods...
...
|
|
Your statement is plainly ridiculous!
I have been to an abattoir, which specialised in slaughtering cattle. The process is as follows: 1) The animal (which is about to be killed) is led to a room segregated from the other animals. 2) A device (similar in principle to a pistol or revolver) is swiftly placed on its head and fired. 3) A steel bolt pierces the skull and brain of the animal. 4) The animal dies within milliseconds.
Even if your claim (which is purportedly: "...SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN..."), that "...the way halal meat is cut, its causes less pain to the animal than nearly all modern methods..." could be taken for fact, you neglect to consider the sentient qualities of an animal.
If you could provide evidence that all the pain receptors within the nervous system of the animal had somehow been disabled by way of the halal method of slaughter, I would be very interested (as would quite a large proportion of the international scientific community).
If we assumed that your postulation regarding the negation of pain caused to an animal slaughtered by halal methods was in in fact true, then you completely disregard the aforementioned sentient aspect of the creature. Whilst it may not feel pain, it would seem likely that it would experience that it was being killed, which in my mind would seem to be vastly distressing to any creature, be it human or bovine. A swift death would seem preferable.
A virtually instantaneous death is achieved by way of modern methods of animal slaughter. The prolonged process of death provided by halal slaughtering can never be preferred when considering the welfare of the animal (I realise that considering an animal's welfare in conjunction with its killing could seem paradoxical, however the suffering of the animal would be minimised by a swift death).
If your religion requires that animals be slaughtered in a certain way, then that is fine with me (to a certain degree). However, it is ridiculous to attempt to put this method of slaughter forward as a humane option.
[addsig] | |
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-30 02:19:46, london-uk wrote:
Your statement is plainly ridiculous!
I have been to an abattoir, which specialised in slaughtering cattle. The process is as follows: 1) The animal (which is about to be killed) is led to a room segregated from the other animals. 2) A device (similar in principle to a pistol or revolver) is swiftly placed on its head and fired. 3) A steel bolt pierces the skull and brain of the animal. 4) The animal dies within milliseconds. |
|
And your basically saying that a bullet through the head of the animal is not painfull for the creature?..from all the books ive read it says that death is painfull in all living creatures regardless of how quick it is..Maybe they do die in a milisecond or however long it takes for the creature to die,but i have read that animals which are slaughtered the Islamic or Jewish way suffer less aswell because the way the knife us used the blood drains away from the brain at a excellerated rate which in turn puts the animal into sleep and then death....somehow the idea of blowing the animals brains out with a automatic weapon does'nt seem like a painless and humane way to slaughter the creature.
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-30 02:53:57, axxxr wrote:
And your basically saying that a bullet through the head of the animal is not painfull for the creature?..from all the books ive read it says that death is painfull in all living creatures regardless of how quick it is..Maybe they do die in a milisecond or however long it takes for the creature to die,but i have read that animals which are slaughtered the Islamic or Jewish way suffer less aswell because the way the knife us used the blood drains away from the brain at a excellerated rate which in turn puts the animal into sleep and then death....somehow the idea of blowing the animals brains out with a automatic weapon does'nt seem like a painless and humane way to slaughter the creature.
|
|
A shot to the head, which induces death on a near instantaneous level will inherently cause less physical suffering to an animal than a slaughter method which lasts longer. The shorter the time span of the suffering for the animal the better.
Wrapping the bullet method in emotive language is disingeneous; I would very much doubt whether those working in slaughterhouses are treating the killing of animals in quite the gangster like terms you have portrayed. We had someone who has actually been to a slaughterhouse explain the process above and it sounds about as humane as we can hope for with the means we have.
An interesting point was raised about the sentience displayed by the animal. I am not a vet or a zoologist by any means, but I know that most animals (humans included) would likely be scared if someone were cutting them open with a knife whether they could feel pain or not. It would seem to me that that is also suffering and that if one can end the animal's life as quickly as possible then one will reduce both the physical suffering and the state of fear the animal may be experiencing.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 02:07 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
agree scots. another forgotten aspect about this debate: halal meat must also be killed by muslim and in muslim lands. Currently Australia exports meat live to muslim countries so that it can be killed "halal" way. The trouble is the animals are kept in appaling inhumane conditions for months while they travel overseas to their destination. It is much cheaper and more humane to kill an animal and transport it frozen, than to make it suffer for long months. Not only that the animals are sick and many die on the journey.
So where's the compasion of muslim countries that demand we transport the meat to them live? Because fundamentalists DEMAND that the meat must be slaughtered by the strick standards of halal, the animals suffer more than they need to.
I agree that halal started off as a means of painless killing, in the days before modern technology had reliable quick means of death. But the muslim halal tradition is stuck in the past. Because of religious fundamentalism, muslims won't update the halal method, so animals must suffer more than necessary.
I have nothing against open minded muslims, but fundementalism is not about faith but about dogma. I don't like it and I think it's wrong that they won't allow the meat to be killed prior to transport. It's disgusting and narrow minded.
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@max_wedge
With respect let's not bandy around terms like 'fundamentalism' and 'narrow minded' as generalisations please. Observing religious practices does not necessarily make one a fundamentalist.
The religious belief should not be the issue here since it is looking to minimise suffering. That isn't a bad thing and many Muslims will likely be in favour of halal because of that; it seeks to lessen the suffering of the animal being killed for food.
Where I would question the halal method is if there is a viable alternative that causes less suffering to the animal. The transportation issue is important though since it too can cause suffering; the suffering of the animal is not just in the final moments of its life.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 04:10 ] |
amnesia
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Doha, London, Tokyo, Shanghai
PM, WWW
|
@max.. hmm I think at the end of the day it comes down to the company exporting and not the Muslim's wants.
They could just as easily ask a Muslim person to come over and slaughter there and then freeze the food and send it as you said.
|
solidsingh
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: india
PM |
halal/ slaughtering / slitting throats im sorry guys but it all means the same to me no offence. at the end of the day your still killing it when you dont need to
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@solidsingh
One needs to eat, animals provide a source of food. I don't see killing an animal as being any different to killing a plant for food, they are both living beings with as much right to exist as any other living being and they are both part of a natural cycle which involves some creatures eating others. Our bodies are designed to injest both meat and vegetation; that is how nature intended us.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
@scots, I don't see religious dogma the same as genuine spiritual needs. What I'm getting at is that the purpose of halal has been over the years forgotten and replaced with rigid rules. If the purpose of halal is to prevent suffering, then causing more suffering to prevent suffering doesn't make sense. Obviously something about the practice of halal needs looking at. I'm not saying the concept of halal is false, but that the original purpose has been replaced with human politics and no longer fullfills the true spiritual purpose of halal. Shouldn't a muslim who cares about the spiritual requirement of halal, be interested in ensuring it is still practiced true to that spiritua principle?
Regarding the transportation, they are prepared to buy our suffering livestock. If they were interested in spirituality and not economics, they would not accept our livestock. BTW, there are moves here to ban the companies responsible from transporting livestock in such appalling conditions, but again economics (aka greed) resist those efforts. It's too expensive to transport them humanely, which would mean we would lose the market.
So a combination of greed amongst business people and governments, both muslim and western, ensures the barbarous transport conditions continue.
I'm not against any religious practice, but if it contradicts itself then I believe it's not unreasonable to claim that the practice has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists (who are in bed with business interests) and no longer represents the true spiritual purpose.
I believe it's anyone's right to hold traditional religous view points, but when traditions become irelevant, the youth of society will cast them aside. Doing so doesn't mean they are abandoning their religion or faith, it just means they are deciding to have faith in their own moral compass. If a religous practice is changed in response to social and technological change (for example to use newer technology to lessen suffering even more than possible through traditional halal), then the practice retains it's purity, if it is not changed it becomes dogmatic and irrelevant. I'm not prejudiced in this regard. I believe the same thing about all religions, beliefs and social structures.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-30 04:13:26, amnesia wrote:
@max.. hmm I think at the end of the day it comes down to the company exporting and not the Muslim's wants.
They could just as easily ask a Muslim person to come over and slaughter there and then freeze the food and send it as you said.
|
|
Actually no. The meat has to land live on muslim soil.
But I agree about the Australian companies exporting the meat. They should provide the meat at a price that incudes the cost of humane transport. Unfortunantly neither they nor the muslim buyers are interested in this solution....
However, in doing some research I have found out that the there are other reasons for halal also:
Quote:
"Islam has introduced the concept of slaughter, whereby a naturally halal animal would have to be properly slaughtered prior to consumption. The act of slaughtering is to ensure the quality of meat and to avoid any microbial contamination. For example, a dead but unslaughtered animal is normally associated with disease. Most disease originate from animal's blood, therefore, slaughtering is mandatory to ensure that complete drainage of blood from the animal's body - thus, minimizing the chance of microbial infection. This is compatible with the overall concept of cleanliness that is always emphasised in Islam."
As far as that goes, they are actually claiming biological reasons, not religious. The cleanliness reasoning relates to a time in muslim history before there was a full understanding of the nature of disease and biological processes, combined with the harsh heat and environments often found in Mulim countries. In other words, they could only ensure food was safe by observing halal. With modern food storage techniques it is safe not to observer halal fully. Again, it comes down to dogma versus original purpose.
|
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
I read somewhere once about the the difference of killing an animal in the head compared to cutting its throat.
If I remember correctly its got to do with the drainage of blood like Maxs post said, the easiest way of doing that is by cutting the 3 main veins and allowing all the blood to flow out...
There was also something along the lines when an animal is shot in its head, the brain is shut down all the organs shut down after, but slower and can cause rupturing of the organs within the animal making it poisonous and also uncomfortable to the animal...
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@max
Perhaps that is true, but is is true for everyone who practices halal? I don't know enough about the issue to make a definite statement on the matter, but I would imagine that it is possible for there to be people who do not see/practice halal in terms of dogma. Having said that if there is a method of killing an animal that causes less suffering than halal (whether it is practiced through dogma or otherwise) then I think that should be used instead.
As for the issue of transportation some people may have no choice but to accept such animals if they have no other means of acquiring animals for food. They may not approve of the transportation methods, but if they have no control over such things then there is little they can do if they need those animals to keep their jobs, etc. One has to remember practical considerations here; someone who has a family to feed and needs his job will likely accept the animals rather than risking his family's livliehood by taking a moral stand.
I agree that economics should not dictate how much suffering an animal endures. If those who do have control over transportation methods are also advocates of halal then that does raise questions, especially if they are advocating halal as a means of reducing the animals' suffering. Irrespective of what beliefs the people deciding such matters hold animals should be trasported with as much care for their wellbeing as possible. They may be killed for food, but that is no reason to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 14:20 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-30 14:59:00, scotsboyuk wrote:
@max
Perhaps that is true, but is is true for everyone who practices halal? I don't know enough about the issue to make a definite statement on the matter, but I would imagine that it is possible for there to be people who do not see/practice halal in terms of dogma.
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 14:20 ]
|
|
Absolutely agree. I'm not coming from an Either/Or position. I definitely believe that's probably true for the majority, who are probably unaware of the background of animal suffering that occurs (and of course not all halal food meat comes from these transports). Also, most of us aussies are unaware of how poorly these animals are treated in transport. But if any moderates in muslim society try to raise the issue, the minority fundementalists try to shout them down and accuse them of being disrespectful of Islam.
As I've said I'm not against the practice of halal, just the practice of dogma 
|
dealer3
Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: London
PM |
max...some points u made are utterly wrong...
who said to have halal meat u have to cut in a muslim country...
as far as i remmeber england is not a muslim country...
halal meat is cut here...
as for the peole who are sayin its stupid to slaughter animals...erm...theses animals are not killed for fun...they are simply to eat...not to kill andleave on the side for nothing...
people need to get facts right before saying things...
and by the way...ill get u a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION of whhy slaughtering animals the halal way...is the best way for the animal and the consumer...verified by doctors and scientific research...by people who are more educated than some people will ever be...
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Here's a good explaination of Halal on Wiki:Halal Meat
The halaal method of slaughtering all animals excluding fish, known as Thabiha, is to cut through the large arteries in the neck with one swipe of a nonserrated blade and drain all blood and impurities from the animal, because as noted above, the consumption of blood itself is forbidden. During the draining of the blood, the animal is not handled until it has fully died. The action of slaughtering an animal is a ritual religious act that is preceded by the words "In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful" (bismillâh, i-rahman, i-rahîm). It is also common for the words "Praise be upon Him who has made you suitable for slaughter [for the purpose of consumption] ("Sibhana man halalaka lil dabh") to be spoken immediately before slaughter instead.
Prior to the slaughter, the animal's eyes and ears are checked to ensure that the animal is healthy and suitable for slaughter. If the animal is deemed to be healthy, it is first given water to drink (in order to quench its thirst) and is then pointed towards Mecca to be slaughtered. Muslims consider this method of killing the animal to be cleaner and more merciful to the animal. Some animal rights groups contend that this causes unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal when compared to modern methods of animal slaughter, which involve stunning the animal before killing it. Islamic groups assert that the Islamic method of slaughter is the fastest method and causes the least pain to the animal, since the neck is severed immediately causing the animal not to feel pain afterwards. Stunning is forbidden in Islam since halaal slaughter requires the animal to be conscious and not contaminated by anaesthetics or intoxicating materials.
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2006-01-30 21:06 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-01-30 02:19
