/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Dutch Consider Banning Religious Animal Slaughter



tw009
04-11-2011, 02:42 PM
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Toby Sterling, Associated Press – Fri Apr 8, 1:57 pm ET

AMSTERDAM – One of Europe's first countries to allow Jews to practice their religion openly may soon pass a law banning centuries-old Jewish and Muslim traditions on the ritual slaughter of animals.

In the Netherlands, an unlikely alliance of an animal rights party and the xenophobic Freedom Party is spearheading support for the ban on kosher and halal slaughter methods that critics say inflict unacceptable suffering on animals.

The far right's embrace of the bill, which is expected to go to a parliamentary vote this month, is based mostly on its strident hostility toward the Dutch Muslim population. The Party for the Animals, the world's first such party to be elected to parliament, says humane treatment of animals trumps traditions of tolerance.

Jewish and Muslim groups call the initiative an affront to freedom of religion.

"I can speak for the Dutch Jewish Community and I think for the wider Jewish world, that this law raises grave concerns about infringements on religious freedom," said Ruben Vis, spokesman for the Netherlands' CJO, an umbrella of Jewish organizations.

Abdulfatteh Ali-Salah, director of Halal Correct, a certification body for Dutch halal meat, said he felt the debate made Muslims in the Netherlands feel Dutch society is more interested in animal welfare than fair treatment of its Muslim citizens.

"If the law goes through now there's nothing else to do but protest," he said. "And that's what we'll do."

As in most western countries, Dutch law dictates that butchers must stun livestock — render it unconscious — before it can be slaughtered, to minimize the animals' pain and fear. But an exception is made for meat that must be prepared under ancient Jewish and Muslim dietary laws and practices. These demand that animals be slaughtered while still awake, by swiftly cutting the main arteries of their necks with razor-sharp knives.

Most Dutch favor a ban, but many centrist parties feel the issue is a distraction from the more serious issue of abuses at regular slaughterhouses. One of the two parties in the Cabinet, the Christian Democrats, opposes the law out of fear for damage to the country's international image as a haven of tolerance for religious minorities. The other, the pro-business VVD Party, has yet to say which way it will vote.

If the Netherlands does outlaw procedures that make meat kosher for Jews or halal for Muslims, it will be the first country outside New Zealand to do so in recent years. It will join the Scandinavian, Baltic countries and Switzerland, whose bans are mostly traceable to pre-World War II anti-Semitism.

Holland has proud traditions of tolerance and was one of the first countries in Europe to allow Jews to live openly with their religion in the 17th Century.

After years of campaigning unsuccessfully, the Party for the Animals won a seat parliament in 2006, the first time an animal rights party had entered a national parliament. Around the same time, the anti-Islam Freedom Party of maverick politician Geert Wilders was gaining strength. It finished third in national elections last year on an anti-immigration platform.

The Muslim population, built on a wave of migration in the 1990s, is now about 1 million in a country of 16 million. Dutch Jews number an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 after 70 percent of their community died in Nazi concentration camps.

The two political parties pushing hardest for the ban make for an odd couple, falling at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

"Religious freedom isn't unlimited," said Party for the Animals leader Marianne Thieme in an interview. She said the law will be "good news for the two million animals that are slaughtered (without stunning) each year in our country. It's not a small amount."

Wilders first brought the issue forward in 2007, when he heard that halal meat was being served at a public school in Amsterdam. "Muslims at our schools must adjust to Dutch norms and values and not the other way around," he wrote in a letter questioning government policy.

Wilders and the Freedom Party did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

The U.S.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor have both spoken out against the proposed ban.

"What's worse is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence that slaughter without stunning is more harmful or painful for animals," Vis of the CJO said.

Science surrounding animal slaughter is contentious. A 2009 study in New Zealand that monitored calf brain waves during ritual slaughter concluded the animals probably were aware of their pain. That led the country to ban the practice in 2010.

However, noted American animal welfare expert Temple Grandin of Colorado State University has criticized flaws in the New Zealand study, remarking in particular that the knife used was probably too short.

"The special long knife used in kosher slaughter is important," she wrote in a paper published on her website. In her experience "when the knife is used correctly on adult cattle, there was little or no behavioral reaction," she wrote — indicating that the animals did not show signs of suffering before falling unconscious.

The Royal Dutch Veterinary Association has come out in favor of banning the practice.

The organization said in a position statement it believes that during "slaughter of cattle while conscious, and to a lesser extent that of sheep, the animals' well-being is unacceptably damaged."

Scientists, animal rights groups and religious groups disagree about the amount of pain and suffering animals experience during slaughter under regular conditions — though all say violations of current law are widespread.

Ali-Salah predicted an outright ban would fail not only due to Dutch domestic political considerations, but also because it is not workable in practice.

"How are one million people going to obtain halal meat from a new source?" he said. "They are certainty not going to stop eating meat overnight."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/..._slaughter_ban
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ramadhan
04-12-2011, 01:17 AM
This is clearly another attack on religious practices.

While it has been proven in several studies that slaughtering animals is the best way to kill animal for food.

It is ridiculous and such a blatant hypocrisy that they are trying to ban slaughtering (to end the lives of) animals to eat, while in the meantime, they are allowing such widespread intense (many lifelong) cruelties of unimanigably much larger number of animals such as the sale of furs, the practice and sale of foie gras (where geese are force-fed and couldnt move -lifelong- to produce enlarged liver), battery -lifelong- chicken, etc. Those animals suffer much pain throughout their lives, but are they going to be banned? unlikely. and that's because muslims do not practice them.

Clearly this banning is another avenue to attack religious practices by an increasingly hostile europe towards religions.
Reply

Zafran
04-12-2011, 01:37 AM
salaam

How do they know stunning an animal creates less pain for the animal??? - Hope they ban scientists from testing on animals for research purposes as well.

peace
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
04-12-2011, 02:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by tw009
One of the two parties in the Cabinet, the Christian Democrats, opposes the law out of fear for damage to the country's international image as a haven of tolerance for religious minorities. The other, the pro-business VVD Party, has yet to say which way it will vote.

Oh ??
that was a surprise... they are yet to know that - their international image was already damaged long back..
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Ummu Sufyaan
04-12-2011, 04:57 AM
whats so wrong with slaughtering animals? its the most humane thing for both the human and the animal :hmm:
Reply

Trumble
04-12-2011, 06:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
whats so wrong with slaughtering animals? its the most humane thing for both the human and the animal :hmm:
Both methods are 'slaughtering', although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize any claim ritual slaughter is more the distressing to animals is dubious, to say the least.

As to your second point, the most humane thing for both is not to slaughter animals for food at all. In the 21st century there is just no need to do so, the alternatives are just as tasty and nutritious, often healthier, avoid any cruelty, and utilize agricultural land (in a world with a rapidly growing population) far more efficiently.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
04-12-2011, 12:44 PM
Both methods are 'slaughtering',
both methods of what?

although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize any claim ritual slaughter is more the distressing to animals is dubious, to say the least.
you're getting your sources from youtube?

As to your second point, the most humane thing for both is not to slaughter animals for food at all. In the 21st century there is just no need to do so, the alternatives are just as tasty and nutritious, often healthier, avoid any cruelty, and utilize agricultural land (in a world with a rapidly growing population) far more efficiently.
What differences does it make if there are healthier alternatives. 1) animals aren't just used for their meat . we also use animals for their wool to keep us warm etc, skins to make water bottles from, etc.

not everyone lives a comfortable lifestyle.

even if they are only used for their meat, there is still nothing wrong with slaughtering them....there is nothing inhumane about slaughtering. there should be no "bullying" into not slaughtering under the pretext of "avoiding cruelty."

take the proper precautions, and there should be no distress caused to the animal (or to the human for someone who doesn't know who to slaughter :hmm:) treat the animal right, use a sharp knife, dont slaughter the animal in front of other animals as to not cause them distress...what is the problem?
Reply

marwen
04-12-2011, 01:39 PM
That's really silly.
Another attempt to hide their anti-islam hostility.
Another way to say "We don't want to see islam practiced in our country". Though, it would be more respectful if they just said it frankly.
Why do they care too much if some one slaughters his own animal ?
Reply

Trumble
04-12-2011, 01:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
both methods of what?
Both ritual religious and the abbatoir (slaughterhouse) version of killing animals are both means of 'slaughtering' them.


you're getting your sources from youtube?
I could have linked to some videos of what happens in slaughterhouses if you like; I chose not to do so because I didn't think some of the kids here should see them. A simple search will suffice if you look. I was actually making the point that such slaughter is no more 'humane' than the religiously prescribed versions, so I'm not quite sure what your beef is. If you'll forgive the pun.


What differences does it make if there are healthier alternatives. 1) animals aren't just used for their meat . we also use animals for their wool to keep us warm etc, skins to make water bottles from, etc.
In some parts of the world that may be true, and indeed in a very few parts there is no alternative to eating meat as well due to the lack of land suitable for other agricultural uses. In most of the rest of the world, though, there are water bottles made of plastic and clothes made of synthetic fibres. I'd also point out that slaughtering animals farmed for wool is somewhat counter-productive!

even if they are only used for their meat, there is still nothing wrong with slaughtering them....there is nothing inhumane about slaughtering. there should be no "bullying" into not slaughtering under the pretext of "avoiding cruelty."
Frankly anyone who thinks slaughtering animals does not involve inflicting pain and suffering on them, however you choose to do it, is fooling themselves. That does not make it necessarily inhumane unless there is no justifiable reason to do it, in which case I don't see how it can be anything but. I don't disagree with the last phrase, assuming you mean ritual slaughter compared to other forms. My argument is that it is both unnecessary and inhumane to do it either way in most places. By the way, here's another one; BBC

Nitrogen pollution from farms, vehicles, industry and waste treatment is costing the EU up to £280bn (320bn euros) a year, a report says. The study by 200 European experts says reactive nitrogen contributes to air pollution, fuels climate change and is estimated to shorten the life of the average resident by six months. Livestock farming is one of the biggest causes of nitrogen pollution, it adds. It calls for changes in farming and more controls on vehicles and industry. The problem would be greatly helped if less meat was consumed, the report says.

Nitrogen is the most common element in the atmosphere and is harmless. It is the reactive form - mainly produced by human activity - that causes a web of related problems. The 600-page report relies on experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations. It estimates the annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe as being £55-£280bn. Dr Sutton said nitrogen pollution was a serious issue not just in Europe but also N America, China and India.

take the proper precautions, and there should be no distress caused to the animal (or to the human for someone who doesn't know who to slaughter :hmm:) treat the animal right, use a sharp knife, dont slaughter the animal in front of other animals as to not cause them distress...what is the problem?
The problem is that that story is only good for reassuring children wondering how that cute cow ends up between a bun in McDonalds, or even the halal steak on their plate. Of course the animals would be distressed; the only question is the matter of degree.


format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Why do they care too much if some one slaughters his own animal ?
You do need to remember that there is a very strong animal rights lobby in Europe before assuming this is 'anti-Islamic' (and indeed, presumably also 'anti-Jewish' come to that). Some extremists have even committed terrorist acts, particularly in regard to breeding animals for experiments, or battery poultry farming. Whose animal it is is simply not the issue, any more than it would be if somebody else was mistreating their pet dog or cat.
Reply

MSalman
04-13-2011, 12:44 AM
^*goes to build mini jungle in back yard - time to get all kinds of pet animals*
Reply

GuestFellow
04-15-2011, 06:01 PM
:sl:

Is Islamic Slaughtering Cruel to Animals?

^ Interesting article.

The Dutch should consider banning animal testing too.
Reply

Aadila
04-15-2011, 09:34 PM
The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.
Reply

Aadila
04-15-2011, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aadila
The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.
I type something wrong, meant to say animal instead of Allah, very very sorry.
Reply

Trumble
04-16-2011, 03:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aadila
The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.
Fortunately, increasing numbers all over the world are now realizing that that view has no basis other than ignorance, and extreme arrogance. I don't mean that personally.

We ARE animals, it's thinking that the 'wonderful' homo sapiens that is almost infinitely more destructive of itself, other species and the whole planet than any other species is somehow superior to them that is crazy.
Reply

aadil77
04-16-2011, 09:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Both methods are 'slaughtering', although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize any claim ritual slaughter is more the distressing to animals is dubious, to say the least.
That argument is not gonna flow, I have seen some truly 'distressing' videos of animals being stunned repeatedly because the captive bolt could not get them unconcious the first time
Reply

Trumble
04-16-2011, 01:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
That argument is not gonna flow, I have seen some truly 'distressing' videos of animals being stunned repeatedly because the captive bolt could not get them unconcious the first time
So have I. I'm afraid I must have been distracted when I wrote that as I actually agree with you, so apologies. What I meant to say was,

Both methods are 'slaughtering', although those with a stomach for watching a few Youtube videos will quickly realize claims ritual slaughter is the more distressing to animals are dubious, to say the least.


format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
The Dutch should consider banning animal testing too.
Sorry, missed that one before. Actually they have considered it; the matter has been subject to ongoing debate across the EU for many years. Testing of cosmetics on animals has been banned in Europe since 2004, and a further ban regarding ingredients used in manufacturing was introduced in 2009. A general ban has been rejected because the majority, if by no means unanimous, opinion is that medical experiments on animals with the end purpose of providing improved medical treatment for humans is morally justified. Such experiments can only be conducted if a license is obtained when necessary (*), following peer review of the researchers proposals and intended objectives.

As you might deduce from my previous post, I'm one of the dissenters on that issue. Arguments both ways, though, can be presented emotionally, with philosophical vigour, or frequently with both, and I can understand both points of view.

(*) I'm not sure of the exact criteria, but that would be in the case of dogs, monkeys, rabbits, etc. I doubt anyone many would be unduly bothered about experiments on amoebas or fruitflies, although if some arguments are followed to their logical conclusion they might well be....
Reply

Ansariyah
04-16-2011, 07:54 PM
Holland is the only country in the world that has legalized Drugs & Prostitution and they're 'worried' about how Muslims slaughter their meat? Which btw only 'Muslims' eat. Sick in the head.
Reply

Trumble
04-16-2011, 08:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yanoorah
Holland is the only country in the world that has legalized Drugs & Prostitution and they're 'worried' about how Muslims slaughter their meat?
Untrue on both counts, actually. Most countries have legal recreational drugs; the only differences are in which ones. Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people worldwide than cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Prostitution is legal in many countries. And both happen, often far more frequently, when they are actually illegal.

None of which is actually relevant as legal varieties of both activities, anyway, involve the consent of adults to activities which, while not harmless, are certainly rarely fatal. Slaughtering animals, oddly enough, invariably involves their death by having their throats cut. Are you really sure you have 'sick in the head' the right way around?
Reply

Ansariyah
04-16-2011, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Untrue on both counts, actually. Most countries have legal recreational drugs; the only differences are in which ones. Alcohol and tobacco kill far more people worldwide than cannabis, cocaine and heroin. Prostitution is legal in many countries. And both happen, often far more frequently, when they are actually illegal.

None of which is actually relevant as legal varieties of both activities, anyway, involve the consent of adults to activities which, while not harmless, are certainly rarely fatal. Slaughtering animals, oddly enough, invariably involves their death by having their throats cut. Are you really sure you have 'sick in the head' the right way around?
Holland is the "mecca" of legalized vices which is laughed at as a depraved society by others with morals, and simultaneously worshipped by the many degenerates who partake in these services and substances from around the world. If another country does same the as holland, it just means they are joining holland on the march to hell.

The halal way of slaughtering animals is painless and quick. Muslims are not allowed to make animals suffer. Actually, beating and trying to stun an animal is more painful. So you are wrong. This law is wrong.
Reply

GuestFellow
04-16-2011, 09:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
None of which is actually relevant as legal varieties of both activities, anyway, involve the consent of adults to activities which, while not harmless, are certainly rarely fatal.
Prostitution can be dangerous. You can get sexually transmitted diseases. There have been cases where prostitutes have been killed. As for drugs, you can get addicted to them.

I would say prostitution and drug dealing are more serious than religious animal slaughter.

Slaughtering animals, oddly enough, invariably involves their death by having their throats cut. Are you really sure you have 'sick in the head' the right way around?
No. Some people are not used to seeing animals being slaughtered. I personally do not get sick. It is not as painful as it looks: Source

I do feel sick when I hear about vulnerable young girls becoming prostitutes and sleeping with random men.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
04-16-2011, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aadila
The western world thinks Allah have same rights as human. That is crazy, animal is below us. Animal killing is not human killing, animal belong to human, let human do as they please.
Assalaamu alaaykum

Yes, but just because they're 'below' us, doesnt give us the right to treat them wrongly.
maybe i misunderstood something from your post. If we let human do as they please, then we would all never be at peace, world would be messed up exactly how it is today in some parts, sadly, and the fools still blame religion for it when they follow their own vain desires.
Reply

GuestFellow
04-16-2011, 09:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pєαяℓ σf Wιѕ∂σм

Assalaamu alaaykum

Yes, but just because they're 'below' us, doesnt give us the right to treat them wrongly.
maybe i misunderstood something from your post. If we let human do as they please, then we would all never be at peace, world would be messed up exactly how it is today in some parts, sadly, and the fools still blame religion for it when they follow their own vain desires.
:wa:

I remember when merchants were surprised to hear that Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) gave camel rights, basically, you cannot overload them. So Islam does provide rules for animals to be treated properly.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
04-16-2011, 09:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
:wa:

I remember when merchants were surprised to hear that Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) gave camel rights, basically, you cannot overload them. So Islam does provide rules for animals to be treated properly.
Assalaamu Alaaykum

Yes, all animals are given rights, even the Pig, just because we arent allowed to eat as muslims, doesnt mean we start beating it and what not. There is actually a vid on Youtube where they are beating one, because of being what is is, its really sad. and also much more disturbing videos of the massacre of animals, astagfirullaah it is upseting, these people have no morals, they need strong guidance. and may Allaah guide them to the path of mercy and kindness towards the innocent beings Ameen

Subhaan'Allaah
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-16-2011, 11:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yanoorah


Holland is the "mecca" of legalized vices which is laughed at as a depraved society by others with morals, and simultaneously worshipped by the many degenerates who partake in these services and substances from around the world. If another country does same the as holland, it just means they are joining holland on the march to hell.

The halal way of slaughtering animals is painless and quick. Muslims are not allowed to make animals suffer. Actually, beating and trying to stun an animal is more painful. So you are wrong. This law is wrong.
You might want to come down off your moral high horse and actually start showing evidence such as studies that show that halal methods of killing are less painful than "stunning" or other methods. I have no problem with halal slaughter ( and I think the the right wing in Holland is taking advantage of animal rights activists to push their agenda) but it needs to be shown that it is less painful.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-16-2011, 11:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Prostitution can be dangerous. You can get sexually transmitted diseases. There have been cases where prostitutes have been killed. As for drugs, you can get addicted to them.
Same thing can be said of chocolate. Prostitution can be practiced in a way that minimizes STDs and deaths though unionization, accreditation, and regulation as well as drug use can be not harmful to the person or even beneficial as well. The point isn't an advocacy of those things, but to show that the issue isn't between a "degenerate" cesspool and total prohibition.

I would say prostitution and drug dealing are more serious than religious animal slaughter.
Probably.

No. Some people are not used to seeing animals being slaughtered. I personally do not get sick. It is not as painful as it looks: [/URL]
However, the study notes that the "objective results presented for the captive bolt application in sheep (..) rather (..) indicates that the captive bolt device used is suspect" and that these initial "scientific findings and the results presented are only a very first contribution"
it was a preliminary study. I wouldn't mind if a full study showed that halal study was less painful than stun slaughtering but the study is the equivalent of an exploratory article.

I do feel sick when I hear about vulnerable young girls becoming prostitutes and sleeping with random men.
obviously, everyone does.
Reply

GuestFellow
04-17-2011, 12:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Prostitution can be practiced in a way that minimizes STDs and deaths though unionization, accreditation, and regulation
Right...do you have evidence to back this up? :p:

obviously, everyone does.
Actually I've met people that approve of it.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 02:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Right...do you have evidence to back this up? :p:
The theory behind it is obviously simple. As services become legalized they have more legal recourse, social responsibility, can unionize etc. That is why pharmaceutics companies don't go around shooting each other up but drug dealers do in spite of selling very similar products. The actual data behind it is very hit and miss with both pro legalization and anti legalization distorting statistics. For that reason, I can understand the theoretical position that prostitution can be practiced in a safe and healthy way, but I can't say with certainty that legalizing will automatically make things better.
Reply

GuestFellow
04-17-2011, 03:24 AM
^ I'll assume you have no evidence to back up your claims. All you presented was a theory.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 03:33 AM
You must have misread me. There are studies that show that the theory is true, but there are countervailing studies as well. To avoid a "this study says this, that study says that back and forth", I stated all the available information as it is known.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 03:46 AM
In the same way that I am not inclined to believe that ritualistic slaughter isn't some horrible protracted death for an animal because some studies show that it isn't, but I'm not inclined to believe that it is " the least painful and the best way to slaughter an animal".
Reply

Ramadhan
04-17-2011, 04:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
In the same way that I am not inclined to believe that ritualistic slaughter isn't some horrible protracted death for an animal because some studies show that it isn't, but I'm not inclined to believe that it is " the least painful and the best way to slaughter an animal"

What do you think is the best way to kill animals for food?
We also need to keep in mind that the animals will be eaten by humans, and so the health of humans who will eat it must also be taken into consideration, ie. the killing must eliminate as much possibilities for potential diseases as possible.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 05:19 AM
I think it is a toss up between stun killing and perhaps ritual slaughter as far as we know. I think this particular case is a case of a right wing bigoted party taking advantage of a animal rights group for its own end.
Reply

Ramadhan
04-17-2011, 05:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
I think it is a toss up between stun killing and perhaps ritual slaughter as far as we know. I think this particular case is a case of a right wing bigoted party taking advantage of a animal rights group for its own end.

How about the issue of health?
Stun killing does not drain the blood of the animals as fully as halal/kosher slaughter does. And most of parasites are carried in the blood of the animal.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 05:54 AM
Seems like you can never be sure. Better ban halal and stun killing and just leave kosher. Dry bland meat it is.
Reply

Trumble
04-17-2011, 07:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Prostitution can be dangerous. You can get sexually transmitted diseases. There have been cases where prostitutes have been killed. As for drugs, you can get addicted to them.
Of course. But the primary argument for legalization of prostitution (I'm not advocating it, just stating it) is that it is prostitution is less dangerous if legalized and regulated to include regular health checks, licensed brothels rather than prostitutes hanging around street corners and so forth. Legalization of some narcotics (again, I'm not advocating, just stating) can be justified on the grounds that controlled availability helps prevent poisoning from impurities, infections (including HIV) from dirty needles etc, and that it would reduce both organized crime and associated violence (dealers) and petty crime (addicts). In the case of hard drugs, availaibility is only suggested for existing addicts. In both cases, the essential point is that legal or not, both will happen anyway.

I would say prostitution and drug dealing are more serious than religious animal slaughter.
Like most moral issues, that's one of opinion. I wouldn't necessarily disagree if the second referred to the method of slaughter. I would if talking about slaughter period.

No. Some people are not used to seeing animals being slaughtered. I personally do not get sick.
I think you have missed the point here. Neither of us were referring to physical 'sickness'!


I do feel sick when I hear about vulnerable young girls becoming prostitutes and sleeping with random men.
As do I. But, again, the argument would be that regulated legalization in fact protects such girls. Let's not stray further off topic, though. This one is about killing animals, not prostitution or drugs.
Reply

Ramadhan
04-17-2011, 07:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Seems like you can never be sure. Better ban halal and stun killing and just leave kosher. Dry bland meat it is.

Why ban halal but allow kosher? The method of killing in halal and kosher ways are extremely similar, the exception is only where muslims say "bismillah" or "allahu akbar" when slaughtering animals, while the jews intend to slaughter also in the name of God (I dont know the exact phrase they say in hebrew).
Or did you not know this?

Another thing: stunning does not make the animals fully subconscious, hence it is you actually add distress and torture the animals by stunning it.

As I said in my previous post, this ban is nothing but attack on Islam specifically.
Had muslims eat foie gras as part of halal dietary, you can be sure that the europeans would have banned it on the basis of torturing the geese (which is exactly what it is).
Had Islam prescribed for wearing fur and killing the furry animals sadistically, you can be sure that fur would have been banned long time ago on the basis of cruelty (which is exactly what it is).
You can see there are many many common european practices which are actually sadistic and torture towards animals, but are allowed.

But when Islam prescribe the method of treating and killing animals for food in the most humane way that actually minimize animals distress and suffering and best way to guarantee cleanliness of the meat, the europeans call it animal torture, while the alternative that they offer (stunning) is actually adding to more sufferings and provide environment for parasites to stay and grow (which becomes health issue).

Any way you look at it, there is no way that it is not intentional Islamophobe at practice.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 09:20 AM
Kosher drains more blood out of the animal than does halal on average, but in reality I don't care.

Another thing: stunning does not make the animals fully subconscious, hence it is you actually add distress and torture the animals by stunning it.
Things like this make me leery. Usually it is based on a chain mail or on some preliminary evidence as has already been shown in this thread. When it comes to slaughtering animals and if they can feel pain or not some testing would be required.
Reply

aadil77
04-17-2011, 09:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Kosher drains more blood out of the animal than does halal on average, but in reality I don't care.
Sorry I'd like to see some proof for that statement, as far as I know the method is the same
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 09:49 AM
Nikkur in the Jewish tradition drains more blood from the hind quarters. Personally I don't care if Muslims and Jews slaughter animals in any particular way as long as it can be shown not to be cruel. I like my meat bloody and juicy though.
Reply

سيف الله
04-17-2011, 09:59 AM
Salaam

Yes I agree with the sentiment that this is another 'cloaked' attack on Islamic practices. :hmm:

Its just a suggestion but couldnt a compromise be found? Like a modernised version of halal slaughter:confused:

If worst comes to the worst, another possible solution is to import halal meat from abroad.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
04-17-2011, 10:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Kosher drains more blood out of the animal than does halal on average, but in reality I don't care.
If you dont care, then whats up with the discussion?

Surely there must be something. You have not brought any evidence as far as i can see from your posts.

I do however, sincerely advice that you do your research on the Islamic slaughtering i.e how an animal is slaughtered according to Islaam.

.. peace ..
Reply

GuestFellow
04-17-2011, 11:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Of course. But the primary argument for legalization of prostitution (I'm not advocating it, just stating it) is that it is prostitution is less dangerous if legalized and regulated to include regular health checks, licensed brothels rather than prostitutes hanging around street corners and so forth. Legalization of some narcotics (again, I'm not advocating, just stating) can be justified on the grounds that controlled availability helps prevent poisoning from impurities, infections (including HIV) from dirty needles etc, and that it would reduce both organized crime and associated violence (dealers) and petty crime (addicts). In the case of hard drugs, availaibility is only suggested for existing addicts. In both cases, the essential point is that legal or not, both will happen anyway.

Like most moral issues, that's one of opinion. I wouldn't necessarily disagree if the second referred to the method of slaughter. I would if talking about slaughter period.

I think you have missed the point here. Neither of us were referring to physical 'sickness'!

As do I. But, again, the argument would be that regulated legalization in fact protects such girls. Let's not stray further off topic, though. This one is about killing animals, not prostitution or drugs.
Right, I understand.

format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Nikkur in the Jewish tradition drains more blood from the hind quarters. Personally I don't care if Muslims and Jews slaughter animals in any particular way as long as it can be shown not to be cruel. I like my meat bloody and juicy though.
You need to state where your getting your information from and present it here if you can. For example, did you learn that from a website or a book? If it is a website, post it here so members can see it for themselves...
Reply

Trumble
04-17-2011, 12:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
As I said in my previous post, this ban is nothing but attack on Islam specifically.
As it also effects Jews, it cannot be an attack on Islam specifically.

Had muslims eat foie gras as part of halal dietary, you can be sure that the europeans would have banned it on the basis of torturing the geese (which is exactly what it is).
Had Islam prescribed for wearing fur and killing the furry animals sadistically, you can be sure that fur would have been banned long time ago on the basis of cruelty (which is exactly what it is).
You can see there are many many common european practices which are actually sadistic and torture towards animals, but are allowed.
All of those are subject to ongoing debate. Fur farming is already banned in Austria, the UK and Croatia and regulations in Switzerland are so strict that despite not being technically illegal, there are no fur farms. There are strong movements for the same in other EU countries. Veal crates are already illegal in many countries, and being voluntarily withdrawn elsewhere. Battery/factory farming are also huge issues, consumers have switched en masse to 'free range' eggs and battery poultry farming is shortly to be banned in the UK. In all cases these are considered animal rights issues. Where bans have not occurred it is because of resistance due to certain so-called 'cultural' issues (much like Japanese whaling or Spanish bullfighting), but opponents of such things are so because of the cruelty involved, not the 'culture'. If Spaniards want to prance about dressed as clowns waving cape and sword about that's fine - it's just slowly torturing the bull to death people have issues with. The trend, albeit not as fast as many would like, is invariably towards the end of all such mistreatment of animals.

I know some of you find it hard to believe, but that is how ritual slaughter of animals is perceived as well, NOT as an 'attack' on Islam or Judaism.


But when Islam prescribe the method of treating and killing animals for food in the most humane way that actually minimize animals distress and suffering and best way to guarantee cleanliness of the meat, the europeans call it animal torture, while the alternative that they offer (stunning) is actually adding to more sufferings and provide environment for parasites to stay and grow (which becomes health issue).
That is your claim. It is not a matter of fact, and many experts and laymen alike dispute it. It was certainly not the intention of the 'industrial' process to inflict greater cruelty.
Reply

Ramadhan
04-17-2011, 04:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
All of those are subject to ongoing debate. Fur farming is already banned in Austria, the UK and Croatia and regulations in Switzerland are so strict that despite not being technically illegal, there are no fur farms. There are strong movements for the same in other EU countries. Veal crates are already illegal in many countries, and being voluntarily withdrawn elsewhere. Battery/factory farming are also huge issues, consumers have switched en masse to 'free range' eggs and battery poultry farming is shortly to be banned in the UK. In all cases these are considered animal rights issues. Where bans have not occurred it is because of resistance due to certain so-called 'cultural' issues (much like Japanese whaling or Spanish bullfighting), but opponents of such things are so because of the cruelty involved, not the 'culture'. If Spaniards want to prance about dressed as clowns waving cape and sword about that's fine - it's just slowly torturing the bull to death people have issues with. The trend, albeit not as fast as many would like, is invariably towards the end of all such mistreatment of animals.
You might be pleased to know that Islam through qur'an and sunnah already prescribed for animal rights 1,400 years ago. In ahadeeth, there's story how people go to hell because neglecting/torturing animals and people go to paradise because helping animals in distress. Europe is merely catching up.

Also, fur farming is extremely small fraction of the existing animal cruelty that is part of everyday europe.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I know some of you find it hard to believe, but that is how ritual slaughter of animals is perceived as well, NOT as an 'attack' on Islam or Judaism.
If it is not directed towards muslims and jews, then why is religious-sanction slaughter of animals for food is to be made illegal?
And why is it to be banned when there is no exhaustive studies conducted that shows why it is unacceptable?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
That is your claim. It is not a matter of fact, and many experts and laymen alike dispute it. It was certainly not the intention of the 'industrial' process to inflict greater cruelty
Many more experts and laymen also dispute that stunning animals is the acceptable way of killing animals. The facts also show that industrial slaughter put animals at great distress and torture them. Here's some samples of many findings:
the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the EU say that when the cardiac arrest stunning method is used, 'a considerable proportion of animals are either inadequately stunned or require a second stun. This is mainly because of poor electrode placements and bad electrical contacts. Measures shall be taken to avoid these practices. Otherwise, when using method 2, the animals could suffer a potentially painful cardiac arrest.' (17)
The strength of the electrical current has risen in recent years - with the aim of ensuring that birds suffer a cardiac arrest and die when they enter the waterbath. The Meat Hygiene Service report that in 1997/8 the average electric current applied to chickens stunned in an electric waterbath was 157 mA. However not all birds will suffer a cardiac arrest and scientific papers show that there are serious flaws with the waterbath system (see part 7: Poultry Slaughter - The Electric Waterbath).
As I said, unless you are very biased against Islam (or unless meat-eating is made illegal and hence all killings of animals are made unlawful), there's no justified reason why halal-slaughter should be banned.
Reply

Verdetequiero
04-17-2011, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pєαяℓ σf Wιѕ∂σм

If you dont care, then whats up with the discussion?

Surely there must be something. You have not brought any evidence as far as i can see from your posts.

I do however, sincerely advice that you do your research on the Islamic slaughtering i.e how an animal is slaughtered according to Islaam.

.. peace ..
well part of the discussion was to look up the study that was done that many have cited as evidence of the least painful method of slaughter and find that it was a preliminary study done in Germany and not an in depth study. That isn't to say that its findings are incorrect, but it isn't the proof that implicitly or explicitly gets cited. The information that stun slaughtering is painful to the animal comes from the same study as well but the caveat that the stunning method used, while legal, wasn't the best possible stunning method.

The other part was a discussion on the actual event in which the right wing Dutch party who normally don't care about animal rights teamed up with animal rights groups to further their own bigoted agenda. Personally I think, as long as it can be shown to be relatively painless to the animal, that any method could be used, and people should have the choice on how they want their meat from bloody to completely dry.
Reply

Ğħαrєєвαħ
04-17-2011, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Verdetequiero
Personally I think, as long as it can be shown to be relatively painless to the animal, that any method could be used, and people should have the choice on how they want their meat from bloody to completely dry.
Indeed!

But what if the choice is given to people whether they want it bloody or dry, it will either be stunned or slaughtered in halal or kosher way.

Islamically, it is not man who created the law of how to slaughter the animal in the halaal way, it is the creator of man. And the halaal ways is one of the ways that an animal is slaughtered without this disgusting cruelty. I understand that you feel people should have their choice, but sometimes, we as humans arent the smartest in our ways or at making choices we do need guidance.


.. peace .
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!