Proposed Bans On Ritual Slaughter In The UK.

[Snowflake]

Proposed Bans

United Kingdom
The government of the United Kingdom has never introduced or passed any ban on ritual slaughter.


[edit] Proposals from animal welfare groups
Note: this section is duplicated from the similar "Modern Debates" subsection -- this is an open problem, see talk page
Since the mid-1980s, proposals have repeatedly surfaced from the animal welfare advocacy groups based on animal cruelty concerns.

Most recently, the debate was reignited by the findings of a 2003 report by the UK government funded Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). FAWC, which provides advice to the UK government on livestock animal welfare issues, says that the methods employed in Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter resulted in "severe suffering to animals" and recommended an end to the current exemptions in British law that permit religious slaughter.[1]

FACW concerned was based on their finding that cattle require up to two minutes to bleed to death when ritual slaughter is employed. Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, chairwomen of FACW, explained it to the BBC: "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."[1]

Compassion in World Farming, a European animal welfare organization, voiced support for FAWC's recommendation: "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."[1]

Peter Jinman, the president of the British Veterinary Association said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that veterinarians respected people's religious beliefs but also urged for respecting animals. He continued "We're looking at what is acceptable in the moral and ethical society we live in."[1]

Roy Saich, a spokesman for the Humanists movement, is quoted as saying:

"There is no imperative for Muslims or Judaists to eat meat produced in this manner [...] There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us."[1]
"But for the most part, British Jews believe their government when it stresses that this ban has been proposed with the sole intention of minimizing animal distress. But that doesn’t mean they agree with it."[15]


[edit] Consistent support of bans from anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic groups
The far-right National Front (NF) party, via offering support to the animal welfare groups in their opposition to the ritual slaughter of animals, was able to target Jews and Muslims.[16] An official NF publication at the time announced:

"All the Jews have to do is stop this barbaric and torturous murder of defenceless animals. When they cease the slaughter the NF will cease its campaign. Until then the NF campaign for animal welfare will continue."[16]
Similar support was offered to animal welfare groups in the mid-1990s by the successor to the National Front, the British National Party (BNP). A report on anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom from the Israel-based Stephen Roth Institute detailed the familiar tactics of the BNP:

"On the far right [...] the move by some activists into so-called animal rights and farmers' campaigns against central government, has led to a small but growing movement against shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter). In March 1998 [...] copies of a new BNP journal, British Countryman, were distributed. This contained an article entitled 'Stop the Real Cruelty,' which stated: 'Hundreds of thousands of animals die in terror and agony by having their throats slashed open without humane stunning. Halal and kosher ritual slaughter of fully conscious animals is a barbaric affront to the British tradition of livestock [...] Ritual slaughter is a deliberate torture!'" [17]
Searchlight, an anti-fascist magazine, wrote in February 2003, describing that the BNP again renewed its opposition to Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks. Searchlight gave this description of the party: "Today's BNP is as Islamophobic as it is antisemitic." [18]

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bans_on_ritual_slaughter

[KAding]

I think the ritual slaughter is somewhat gross and unethical. Surely it hurts nobody if the animal is stunned first? Who could possibly object to some simple measures to limit the suffering, like stunning before slitting the throat?

[Snowflake]

Actually an animal suffers more pain from being stunned then being killed by one swift swipe of a sharp blade. In studies carried out, it proved that in ritual slaughters an animal's brain hardly registered any activity due to pain.

Maybe someone has links relating to those findings.

[KAding]

Actually an animal suffers more pain from being stunned then being killed by one swift swipe of a sharp blade. In studies carried out, it proved that in ritual slaughters an animal's brain hardly registered any activity due to pain.

Maybe someone has links relating to those findings.

Hang on, are you saying sedation and stunning causes more pain than slitting a throat? I strongly disagree with that. With large animals it can in fact take as long as a minute before the animal loses consciousness.

The whole process is very cruel and that is exactly why virtually all animal rights group are campaigning against this method of slaughter.

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

[sonz]

Hang on, are you saying sedation and stunning causes more pain than slitting a throat? I strongly disagree with that. With large animals it can in fact take as long as a minute before the animal loses consciousness.

The whole process is very cruel and that is exactly why virtually all animal rights group are campaigning against this method of slaughter.

its true. the way muslims slaughter the animals is more humane than stunning.

see the research for urself

By Dr. Aisha El-Awady

Islam’s stance on what is permissible to eat and what is not is clear. There are strict rules when it comes to meat regarding what is allowed and what is forbidden.
In Surat Al-Maida (The Table) Allah says: "Forbidden to you [for food] are: Al-Maytatah (the dead animals -cattle-beasts not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and the meat of that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allah’s Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering, and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by the goring of horns - and that which has been [partly] eaten by a wild animal - unless you are able to slaughter it [before its death] * and that which is sacrificed (slaughtered) on An*Nusub[ (stone altars). [Forbidden] also is to use arrows seeking luck or decision, [all] that is Fisqun (disobedience of Allah and sin). This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination to sin [such can eat these above-mentioned meats], then surely, Allah is Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful."

The Islamic practice of slaughtering animals by means of a sharp cut to the front of the neck has frequently come under attack by some animal rights activists as being a form of animal cruelty, the claim being that it is a painful inhumane method of killing animals. In the West, it is required by law to stun the animals with a shot to the head before the slaughter, supposedly to render the animal unconscious and to prevent it from reviving before it is killed so as not to slow down the movement of the processing line. It is also used to prevent the animal from feeling pain before it dies.

German Research Studies Pain

It therefore may come as a surprise to those who have made such acclimations to learn of the results of a study carried out by Professor Wilhelm Schulze and his colleague Dr. Hazim at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany. The study: ‘Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (halal, knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves’ concludes that Islamic slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal.

In the study, several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks. Some animals were then slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and the carotid arteries as well as the trachea and esophagus (Islamic method). Other animals were stunned using a Captive Bolt Pistol (CBP). During the experiment, an electroencephalograph (EEG) and an electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded the condition of the brain and the heart of all animals during the course of slaughter and stunning.

The results were as follows:

I – Islamic Method

1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.

2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.

3. After the above-mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.

4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving a maximum amount of blood from the body thus resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.

II - Western method by C.B.P. Stunning

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.

2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.

3. The hearts of animals stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Islamic method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.

Western-Style Slaughtering and Mad Cow’s Disease

Not only is this method of stunning animals before the slaughter severely painful as shown by the previous experiment, but there is also a rising concern that this method may be a factor in the spread of mad cow’s disease from cattle to humans as it was discovered in recent research carried out at Texas A&M University and by Canada’s Food Inspection Agency, that a method called pneumatic stunning (which is the firing of a metal bolt into the cow's brain followed by a pulverizing burst of 150 pounds of air pressure) delivered a force so explosive that it scattered brain tissue throughout the animal. This news is disturbing since the brain tissue and spinal cord are the most infectious parts of an animal with mad cow disease, which causes fatal Swiss cheese like holes in the brain of the infected animal. It is more disturbing to find out that around 30 to 40 percent of American cattle are stunned by pneumatic guns.

Islamic Regulations for the Slaughter

As one can see from the previous studies, Islamic slaughtering of animals is a blessing to both the animal and to humans alike. In order for the slaughtering to be lawful, several measures must be taken by the one performing the deed. This is to ensure the highest benefit to both the animal and the consumer.

In this regard, the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) said: "God calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter: sharpen your blade to relieve its pain".

The object used to slaughter the animal should be sharp and used swiftly. The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerves in the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain. The movements and withering that happen to the animal after the cut is made are not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles deficient in blood. The prophet (peace be upon him) also taught Muslims neither to sharpen the blade of the knife in front of the animal nor to slaughter an animal in front of others of its own kind.

The cut should involve the windpipe (trachea), gullet (esophagus), and the two jugular veins without cutting the spinal cord. This method results in the rapid gush of blood draining most of it from the animal’s body. If the spinal cord is cut, the nerve fibers to the heart might be damaged leading to cardiac arrest thus resulting in stagnation of blood in the blood vessels. The blood must be drained completely before the head is removed. This purifies the meat by removing most of the blood that acts as a medium for microorganisms; meat also remains fresh longer as compared to other methods of slaughtering.

Therefore accusations of animal cruelty should very rightly be focused on those who do not use the Islamic way of slaughtering but prefer to use those methods which cause pain and agony to the animal and could also very well cause harm to those consuming the meat.

Sources:

• -------------- slaughtering and hunting of animals Islamic laws.1997
• Corcoran, Leila Cattle stun gun may heighten mad cow risk Reuters news service.25/7/1997
• ECU Slaughter of ruminants-use of pneumatic stunning with air inject The European Commission 17/02/1998
• McAlister, Judith bib@tiho-hannover.de School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University.12/07/02
• Naik, Zakir Islamic way of slaughtering looks cruel Islamicvoice.com.09/1999

[S_87]

I think the ritual slaughter is somewhat gross and unethical. Surely it hurts nobody if the animal is stunned first? Who could possibly object to some simple measures to limit the suffering, like stunning before slitting the throat?

stunning is not easy on the animal. its extremely painful especially to chickens because they are stunned with high voltage and some of them even die from the shock of the stun.
thats putting them through torture before death

[IbnAbdulHakim]

He continued "We're looking at what is acceptable in the moral and ethical society we live in."

Am i the only one who finds this a complete joke?
it doesnt matter that women prance around naked and the young are encouraged to commit all kinds of obsene acts due to the influence of media, it doesnt matter that the women that hold there shame as a invaluable jewel are looked down upon, this society is moral and ethical?

nice joke, nice !

[Skillganon]

Am i the only one who finds this a complete joke?
it doesnt matter that women prance around naked and the young are encouraged to commit all kinds of obsene acts due to the influence of media, it doesnt matter that the women that hold there shame as a invaluable jewel are looked down upon, this society is moral and ethical?

nice joke, nice !

I Guess the person who made the statement is lacking in sense of humour.

(Let's stay on-topic)

[Musaafirah]

:sl:
I personally thought that stunning the animal retains their blood, which then clots up. come on, who wants to consume meat with congealed blood? :uuh:
:w:

[Ninth_Scribe]

I think the ritual slaughter is somewhat gross and unethical. Surely it hurts nobody if the animal is stunned first? Who could possibly object to some simple measures to limit the suffering, like stunning before slitting the throat?

I don't know about that. My Sicilian great grand mother used to insist on picking her poultry while it was living (to ensure it was healthy) and she attended the slaughter so she could pray over it. She insisted this made all the difference in the world. She didn't live to see the scandal here about chicken coup abuses. To most people, the meat didn't taste any different, but there's another side that some will swear, makes all thedifference in the world... that old saying: You are what you eat... who'd want to consume all that misery?

Who knows? Maybe animal abuses would end if humans had to SEE how they impact the other species? And maybe that would lay off my case for not be happy about dinnner time?

Ninth Scribe

[Joe98]

Hang on, are you saying sedation and stunning causes more pain than slitting a throat?

He is. But as it is religious issue so there is no point debating.

[Joe98]

………and some of them even die from the shock of the stun………

……thats putting them through torture before death……….

:giggling: :giggling: :giggling:

[afriend]

:giggling: :giggling: :giggling:

She was refering to the ones that stay alive after the stun...

Funny, unless you know how to read between the lines, which I learnt in english and history lessons. Some people need to pay attention during class! Today's children seem to be getting thicker by the day.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Zabah

The ritual slaughter in Islam is termed as Zabah. Literally, the term Zabah means to purify as the purpose of Zabah is to purify the flesh of the animal from flowing blood. In Islam flowing blood is impure and prohibited for consumption. Among other reasons of flowing blood being impure, some are:

a) Flowing blood transfers nutrients to the tissue cells and returns with the waste products of the tissue cells. These waste products are harmful and are removed from the blood through the function of the kidneys.

b) Blood contains organisms which are responsible for various diseases.

c) The presence of flowing blood in flesh causes the flesh to putrefy.

It is therefore necessary to purify the flesh of the animal from the impure flowing blood, by extracting maximum blood.

In Islamic Jurisprudence, Zabah is to cut the neck in order to severe the two jugular veins, the gullet and windpipe. It will suffice if any three of the four blood pipes are severed. The spinal cord should not be severed as it maintains connection between the brain and the body which enables convulsion after slaughtering. Convulsion squeezes out the remaining blood in the body.

The Islamic procedure of Zabah enables maximum extraction of blood, within a close circuit. The purpose of extracting maximum blood has been explained. The purpose of rapid extraction of blood is to avoid blood clots. Both aspects, removing flowing blood as well as avoiding blood clots are equally important to health. To explain this further, I seek refuge in the verse of the Quran:

3)Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine -flesh. And that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the dead through beating, and the strangled, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of ) horns and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which have been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear ME! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin; (for him) lo! Allah is forgiving merciful.

4) They ask thee (O Muhammad) what is made lawful for them. Say (all) good things are made lawful for you. And those beasts and birds of prey which ye have trained as hounds are trained, ye reach them that which Allah taught you ; so eat of that which they catch for you and mention Allahs name upon it, and observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is swift to take account (Maaida verse 3 and 4)

Abominable acts in slaying during Zabah

i) It is abominable to first cast the animal down on its side and sharpen the knife afterwards, or to kill one animal in the presence of another.

ii) It is abominable to let the knife reach the spinal marrow or to cut of the head of the animal.

iii) It is abominable to perform Zabah with a dull instrument. The Prophet commanded that knives should be sharpened and should be concealed from the animal to be slain.

The procedure of Zabah and pain

Since the operation of Zabah is on an animal which cannot talk, we have to use our perception of pain to determine whether the animal feels pain in the procedure of Zabah or not. The procedure has four stages

a) cutting the skin
b) wound on the neck
c) bleeding
d) convulsion

1) A person who shaves, probably has the experience of cutting his skin sometime or the other, that is not painful.

2) Since the four blood vessels are cut, the animal becomes unconscious and does not feel pain.

3) Bleeding itself is not painful as can be understood by the contribution of a blood donor.

4) Convulsion is not painful as the animal is unconscious. This can be understood by the example of an epileptic. He does not feel any pain during epilepsy.

The Islamic procedure of Zabah collaborates with its literal meaning of Zabah purification. Purification in consumption is paramount importance for good health. Purification is half of faith.

[GARY]

Hang on, are you saying sedation and stunning causes more pain than slitting a throat?

Animals are not sedated, only stunned.
Two reasons for this are costs to sedate, and food laws prohibit administering such a drug prior to slaughter. The drug would end up in the animals tissues and be consumed by the consumer.

stunning is not easy on the animal. its extremely painful especially to chickens because they are stunned with high voltage and some of them even die from the shock of the stun.
thats putting them through torture before death

This actually depends on whether or not your stunner is set up properly. There is a optimum setting for each type of animal, and this setting will never kill the animal, and there is little pain as the stun is immediate - 'if' it is set up properly. Often they are not. I will say though, that it is rare that the setting would be left to actually kill the animal, this undesirable as the slaughterhouse needs the animal to bleed out. If the setting is killing them, this would be quickly corrected as they lose money if the animal is not bled properly.

:sl:
I personally thought that stunning the animal retains their blood, which then clots up. come on, who wants to consume meat with congealed blood? :uuh:
:w:

No. This is not true, the animal bleeds very well while stunned.

As for the arguement pain in one method or the other. Yes there have been some scientific studies, but it is unlikely they take into consideration all factors. The stun method can be immediate with very little or no pain provided that the stunner is properly set up. This often is not the case, it depends strictly on the technician responsible. As far as the amount of suffering without being stunned, well, it would depend on how sharp the knife, and how skilled the person was holding the knife. I imagine there is some room for error here.

In both cases I can say this. It is in the best interest of those that slaughter animals to keep the animals as calm as possible. Meat that comes from an animal that was excited or fearful at the time it was slaughtered is tough, and does not taste as good. Not to mention it is easier to slaughter the animal if it is calm. They do not suffer anguish as they usually do not know what is going to happen.

[afriend]

Well, I mean, we have been ordered in the Quraan to stay away from 'the meat of the dead animal', and what is under question here is 'Stunning kills the animal'.

If the stunning does not result in the death of the animal, then it is ok. Like Gary has put so nicely.

But Allah knows best.

[Woodrow]

Having been a farmer. I can say that a stunned animal will get up and run off if it is not properly killed within a minute after stunning.

But, I am not certain of any specific ruling on killing an unconcious animal.

[Joe98]

In Islam flowing blood is impure and prohibited for consumption.

It's just the same in the West.

The issue is how to kill the animal.

-

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Which we explained already my friend.

[Woodrow]

Something to consider. No matter what a non-Muslim thinks of our method of slaughtering animals. Stop and think these thoughts.

It makes it very difficult for some one to kill an animal for any purpose except for food. Sport hunting can not be done in a manner acceptable to Islam. Plus, the slaughtering takes considerable thought and is not simply a sanitized killing to provide meat for taste and not for nourishment. The value of a food animal is appreciated and slaughtering for food is not taken lightly.

[Muezzin]

All this talk of stunning cows reminds me of that crazy hitchiker in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre rambling about sledgehammers and headcheese.

I need sleep.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

lol i think u do, its gettin to u....:)

[Snowflake]

Stunning - The inhumane slaughter of animals.

see video of animals suffering after stunning.
Caution: images are disturbing :(


VIDEO http://www.awionline.org/farm/video/index.htm

The prophet Muhammed (PBUH) forbade slaughtering one animal in front of another. Now that's what I call animal welfare.

Widespread Animal Suffering at Slaughter

Ineffective stunning of animals is the most frequent violation of the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA) according to a General Accounting Office (GAO) Report released earlier this year. Slaughter of conscious animals, the most inconceivable of atrocities, was the third most common violation. HSA violations including dragging sick and/or disabled animals, excessive use of electric prods, improper stunning and the shackling and processing of conscious animals, were identified at nearly one-third of all slaughter plants in the US.

The abysmal failure of industry to comply with the HSA was first exposed by Gail Eisnitz in her landmark book, Slaughterhouse, in 1997. In April 2001 following its own investigation, The Washington Post ran a dramatic front-page series reporting that animals at slaughter plants across the country continued to be skinned, scalded and dismembered while still conscious. The GAO has confirmed that the plight of cattle, pigs, sheep and other animals continues unabated.

source: http://www.awionline.org/pubs/quarte...53-2/532p4.htm

[Trumble]

Am i the only one who finds this a complete joke?
it doesnt matter that women prance around naked and the young are encouraged to commit all kinds of obsene acts due to the influence of media, it doesnt matter that the women that hold there shame as a invaluable jewel are looked down upon, this society is moral and ethical?

nice joke, nice !

All those those things just cause 'offence', usually to very few people. There is absolutely no comparison to an act that causes physical pain and suffering to person or animal. And where are all these women "prancing around naked", outside the odd strip joint, anyway?

I can't really comment on the main point. There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.

[Keltoi]

All those those things just cause 'offence', usually to very few people. There is absolutely no comparison to an act that causes physical pain and suffering to person or animal. And where are all these women "prancing around naked", outside the odd strip joint, anyway?

I can't really comment on the main point. There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.

I would tend to disagree that eating animals is unhealthy. Yes, red meat has been found to be a culprit in some heath issues...at least till next week when they change their minds and blame it on something else. A vegetarian diet lacks some very important nutrients that are found in meat, including amino acids, Vitamin B12, calcium, iron, zinc, etc. Granted, one can purchase these nutrients from a vitamin store to make up for their lack, but most people don't have the money or the interest in doing so. This may be off topic, but I just don't agree that a pure vegetarian diet is the way to go for health reasons. The more realistic approach would be to limit the amount of meat one eats and obviously eat more vegetables and fruit.

[Trumble]

I A vegetarian diet lacks some very important nutrients that are found in meat, including amino acids, Vitamin B12, calcium, iron, zinc, etc.

No it doesn't, if a little care is taken. A vegan diet also supplies all important nutrients with the exception of vitamin B12.

[snakelegs]

i try to eat as little meat as possible because of the greed-motivated cruelty with which they are raised, which is inexcusable.
dairy cows are also raised under horrible conditions - but i find it very hard to eliminate dairy products.
i am curious - what does islam say about how food animals should be raised?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

You can open that in new a thread if you'd like, InshAllah. It might go off topic :)

[Muezzin]

I don't see why everyone's getting so hot and bothered. It's a proposal by a pressure group, not law. I find it faintly amusing that a vegetarian is telling Jews and Muslims how to slaughter animals.

And before anyone pounces on me, I do not tolerate cruelty to animals, and I have nothing against vegetarians - indeed their diet is very healthy. I just found the situation ironic.

[snakelegs]

You can open that in new a thread if you'd like, InshAllah. It might go off topic :)

yeah, i maybe i will.
i have learned (here) that islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.
ok back to topic....

[Muezzin]

I'm somewhat confused by this. How is it ironic? Wouldn't it rather be ironic if 'secular' industrialized slaughters in the West criticized Muslims and Jews on this? If anyone is IMHO in a position to criticize it is vegetarians, since they, so to speak, have no blood on their hands.

Well, to me it's like 'Hey, meat is murder, but if you're gonna murder, at least do it humanely!'

I'm not criticising vegetarians, I'm just trying to articulate why I found it somewhat amusing.

I don't know. I'm weird.

EDIT: Um... you made a double post, so I attempted to merge them. I must have made a mistake because now they have disappeared altogether. I didn't delete them, they weren't inappropriate or anything, I just made a mistake, so you can repost what you wrote if you like. My apologies.

EDIT 2 (The George Lucas Special Edition sans Ewok Yub-Yub Song): found 'em! I seem to have merged them into another thread like a plonker. I'll renistate them here:

I am totally unconvinced by the arguments in favor of cutting an animals throat for slaughter. At the very least there is considerable doubt on the issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm

The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.

Quite frankly, call me a cynic but Muslims have a reason to present it as a humane and gentle way of killing an animal. Animal rights activist do not have a similar motive to present it as unnecessarily cruel. Like many things in Islamic law, I think it probably was as good as was possible 1400 years ago, but now-a-days we must strive to do better

I find it faintly amusing that a vegetarian is telling Jews and Muslims how to slaughter animals. <snip> I just found the situation ironic.

I'm somewhat confused by this. How is it ironic? Wouldn't it rather be ironic if 'secular' industrialized slaughters in the West criticized Muslims and Jews on this? If anyone is IMHO in a position to criticize it is vegetarians, since they, so to speak, have no blood on their hands.

Again, I apologise for this little disaster.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I dont see why they can tell us we shouldnt do it? their vegetarians for a reason and we're meat eaters for a reason.

[snakelegs]

for more on islam's position on treatment of animals:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...m-animals.html

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Lol i forgot about that thread! guess u dont need to start one lol.

[Umar001]

for more on islam's position on treatment of animals:
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...m-animals.html

Mashallah, thanks for the thread snake with legs ;)

[KAding]

Again, I apologise for this little disaster.

I forgive you for this ;).

I don't forgive you for making me the author of one of Trumble's posts though :p.

http://www.islamicboard.com/564314-post.html

[GARY]

There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.

All I can say is, read my signature.

[SirZubair]

Hang on, are you saying sedation and stunning causes more pain than slitting a throat? I strongly disagree with that.

If chickens could speak, they'd tell you a different story.

I know a bloke who works at one of these factorys, he has seen many many chicken go through Torture before they die.

Part of the procedure is that they stick the Chickens head into the WATER which ELECTRICUTES them. This bloke has seen MANY chicken sticking their heads UP, which results in the chicken NOT BEING SHOCKED, and when it gets to the next stage ( De-feathering.. )

Result?

So yes, Stunning can be very very bad :)

yeah, i maybe i will.
i have learned (here) that islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.
ok back to topic....

Snakelegs, that is where you are wrong :)

Fear God, in treating dumb animals and ride them when they are fit to be ridden and get off them when they are tired.

An adultress passed by a dog at a well; and the dog was holding out his tongue from thirst, which was near killing him, and the woman drew off her boot, and tied it to the end of her garment, and drew water for the dog, and gave him to drink; and she was forgiven for that act.

A woman was punished for a cat which she tied till it died from hunger. She gave the cat nothing to eat, nor did she set it at liberty so that it might find some food.

"Are there rewards for doing good to quadrupeds, and givng them water to drink?" Muhammad said, "Verily there are heavenly rewards for any act of kindness to a live animal."

Verily God hath one hundred loving kindnesses; one of which he hath sent down amongst man, quadrupeds, and every moving thing upon the face of the earth: by it they are kind to each other, and forgive one another; and by it the animals of the wilds are kind to their young; and God hath reserved ninety-nine loving kindnesses by which he will be gracious to His creatures on the last day.

A young man came before the Rasul with a carpet and said, "O Rasul! I passed through a wood and heard the voices of young birds; and I took and put them into my carpet; and their mother came fluttering around my head, and I uncovered the young, and the mother fell down upon them, then I wrapped them up in my carpet; and there are the young which I have." Then the Rasul said, "Put them down." And when he did so, their mother joined them: and Muhammad said, "Do you wonder at the affection of the mother towards her young? I swear by Him who hath sent me, verily God is more loving to His creatures than the mother to these young birds. Return them to the place from which ye took them, and let their mother be with them."

[snakelegs]

sir z,
i think you misread my post.
i said islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.

[ژاله]

The Best Way Of Slaughtering An Animal Is That Practised By The Holy Prophet Saw N His Pious Companians

[ژاله]

The Best Way Of Slaughtering An Animal Is That Practised By The Holy Prophet Saw N His Pious Companians IT SHOULD BE FOLOWED BY EVERYONE

[Muslim Thinker]

I dont get this...


Does it really matter how painful slaughtering is??? YOU'RE GONNA EAT THE MEAT ANYWAYS.

[Trumble]

I find it faintly amusing that a vegetarian is telling Jews and Muslims how to slaughter animals.

And before anyone pounces on me, I do not tolerate cruelty to animals, and I have nothing against vegetarians - indeed their diet is very healthy. I just found the situation ironic.

I'm not sure why. Speaking for myself (only), my vegetarianism is a purely personal decision; I'd recommend it but not preach about it. An awful lot of people eat meat, and an awful lot drink, smoke and take drugs but there's not an awful lot I can do about it.

With that in mind, I don't understand what is so ironic about vegetarians being concerned with ways of rearing and killing the animals to be eaten. Obviously we would like to see both done as humanely as possible - something that is hardly unique to vegetarians. Many meat eaters don't the like idea of factory farming either, and don't eat meat that has been reared in those conditions. As to slaughtering, I have an open mind on which method is the most humane... I think both methods have evidence in their favour. If further research did in fact reveal that ritual slaughter did cause more suffering, I think it should be banned... or on the other hand if it was 'kinder' its use should be made universal. Again, though, if you don't kill them at all, you don't have to worry about the best way of doing it.

BTW, is there anything in the Qur'an that states muslims have to eat meat?

[Muslim Thinker]

BTW, is there anything in the Qur'an that states muslims have to eat meat?

Nope. I know plenty of vegetarian Muslims, I am considering becoming one myself.

[Muslim Thinker]

Are all Buddhists vegetarians??

[Malaikah]

Does it really matter how painful slaughtering is??? YOU'RE GONNA EAT THE MEAT ANYWAYS.

Er yes of course it matters. When we eat it its already dead. IT CANT FEEL ANYTHING! But when you are killing it, its not dead yet so it can still feel pain and suffer. Would you want to die a slow, painful death?

[Muslim Thinker]

Er yes of course it matters. When we eat it its already dead. IT CANT FEEL ANYTHING! But when you are killing it, its not dead yet so it can still feel pain and suffer. Would you want to die a slow, painful death?

How does that matter?? Killing is killing....it's gonna die and be eaten. If u worry about the pain shouldnt u be giving up the killing to begin with??

[SirZubair]

sir z,
i think you misread my post.
i said islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.

So you did... so you did. :giggling: ;D :okay:

Kheir, someone had to post those quotes anyway, so by misreading your post, i have made your comment a tad bit stronger by providing proof... :playing:

[Trumble]

Are all Buddhists vegetarians??

The vast majority, although as with most things in Buddhism, there is no compulsion. You just need to consider the karmic consequences.

About the only exception I know of on the cultural scale is some areas around the Himalayas where meat is eaten out of practicality; there simply is no suitable vegetarian alternative available.

[Malaikah]

How does that matter?? Killing is killing....it's gonna die and be eaten. If u worry about the pain shouldnt u be giving up the killing to begin with??

We have a God given right to eat meat. We also have a God-given duty to kill them in the way he told us to kill them and to treat them well and casue them as little suffering as possible.

Just because they are gonna die anyway, doesnt mean we can make it painful. Otherwise we could say the same thing about any human too. "Hey you there, I'm going to oppress you and be evil to you, how cares if you suffer because you are going to die one day anyway". I dont think so.:rollseyes

p.s. I know a buddist who eats meat. Shes not very 'practising', I think she said that herself.

[Muezzin]

I'm not sure why. Speaking for myself (only), my vegetarianism is a purely personal decision; I'd recommend it but not preach about it. An awful lot of people eat meat, and an awful lot drink, smoke and take drugs but there's not an awful lot I can do about it.

With that in mind, I don't understand what is so ironic about vegetarians being concerned with ways of rearing and killing the animals to be eaten. Obviously we would like to see both done as humanely as possible - something that is hardly unique to vegetarians. Many meat eaters don't the like idea of factory farming either, and don't eat meat that has been reared in those conditions. As to slaughtering, I have an open mind on which method is the most humane... I think both methods have evidence in their favour. If further research did in fact reveal that ritual slaughter did cause more suffering, I think it should be banned... or on the other hand if it was 'kinder' its use should be made universal. Again, though, if you don't kill them at all, you don't have to worry about the best way of doing it.

You're absolutely right. I was just in a weird mood and the so-called logic I was using was something along the lines of the guy in the article saying 'Hey, I'm a vegetarian, I think meat is murder, but if you're going to murder at least do it humanely!' Ironic was the wrong word.

And animals should not suffer, you're right.

BTW, is there anything in the Qur'an that states muslims have to eat meat?

Nope. Muslims are just supposed to stay away from things which are forbidden.

[Pygoscelis]

i have learned (here) that islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.
....

Hadn't heard that before. That is a huge positive for the religion in my view.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

It is very much a sin. If u free and animal when its tied up, for example, theres a reward even in that :)

[starfortress]

I can't really comment on the main point. There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.

I wonder whether a human biology capacity would allowed it to being vegetarian in North Pole,sea voyages,dry desert etc,be able to warming and generate energy from their body by eating only a palnts...seriously they need to eat frequantly than usually they do.

Regarding with the original issue i don't have any coments for this moment.

[Snowflake]

How does that matter?? Killing is killing....it's gonna die and be eaten. If u worry about the pain shouldnt u be giving up the killing to begin with??

Maybe the spuds you eat are screaming for mercy too? Read below.

BAD NEWS FOR VEGETARIANS:PLANTS FEEL PAIN

It has come to our attention at THE UNCOVEROR that something startling has been discovered by Dr. Bill Williams, a botanist at The Helvetica Institute. If his preliminary findings turn out to be true, they will prove that killing plants for food is no less cruel than killing animals for food. "Plants are aware," says Dr. Williams, "and they feel pain!"

Dr. Williams, and his team were doing experiments on talking to plants. He had set out to prove that this helped them only because it blows carbon dioxide over their leaves. He had one team speak lovingly to the plants, and another threaten and verbally abuse them. To the surprise of all involved, the plants that were lovingly spoken to thrived, producing large, lovely flowers. Their growth rates were off the charts! The plants that were verbally abused and threatened never bloomed. Some even withered and died.

His team then connected EEG electrodes to several plants, and measured their responses to various stimuli. "They definitely felt it when we pricked them with needles. One of my staff even burned one with a lighter. Not only did its EEG go off the charts, but so did every plant in the same room!" Dr. Williams is submitting his findings to other scientists for further review. He told me that plants not only seem to be aware and to feel pain, it looks like they can even communicate. They may even be sentient beings.

He told me, "I hadn't thought of it until now, but how does a fruit tree know how to make a sweet attractive fruit that animals will eat when it drops off, and spread the seeds? How do flowers know how to attract bees with sweet, fragrant nectar, and get their pollen spread about, assuring a next generation? They may be doing this consciously!" Maybe Disney will make a cartoon about a happy little vegetable. He will be called Buddy the Carrot. He'll lose his mother to the farmer when he picks her, and eats her. That could do to vegetables what Bambi did to meat! Carrots may in fact be more intelligent than deer. Who knows for sure? You read it here first at THE UNCOVEROR.

Originally Posted by snakelegs
i have learned (here) that islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.
....

The prophet also forbade killing one animal in front of another to prevent distress to the one watching.

[Muezzin]

Is the Uncoverer a sister publication of TheOnion.Com? Man that site's hilarious.

[Pygoscelis]

Hmmm well I've always thought it was unfair to eat meat. I mean, at least animals have a chance to get away. Vegetarians are truly sadistic and not sporting at all. ;D

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Maybe the spuds you eat are screaming for mercy too? Read below.

BAD NEWS FOR VEGETARIANS:PLANTS FEEL PAIN

It has come to our attention at THE UNCOVEROR that something startling has been discovered by Dr. Bill Williams, a botanist at The Helvetica Institute. If his preliminary findings turn out to be true, they will prove that killing plants for food is no less cruel than killing animals for food. "Plants are aware," says Dr. Williams, "and they feel pain!"

Dr. Williams, and his team were doing experiments on talking to plants. He had set out to prove that this helped them only because it blows carbon dioxide over their leaves. He had one team speak lovingly to the plants, and another threaten and verbally abuse them. To the surprise of all involved, the plants that were lovingly spoken to thrived, producing large, lovely flowers. Their growth rates were off the charts! The plants that were verbally abused and threatened never bloomed. Some even withered and died.

His team then connected EEG electrodes to several plants, and measured their responses to various stimuli. "They definitely felt it when we pricked them with needles. One of my staff even burned one with a lighter. Not only did its EEG go off the charts, but so did every plant in the same room!" Dr. Williams is submitting his findings to other scientists for further review. He told me that plants not only seem to be aware and to feel pain, it looks like they can even communicate. They may even be sentient beings.

He told me, "I hadn't thought of it until now, but how does a fruit tree know how to make a sweet attractive fruit that animals will eat when it drops off, and spread the seeds? How do flowers know how to attract bees with sweet, fragrant nectar, and get their pollen spread about, assuring a next generation? They may be doing this consciously!" Maybe Disney will make a cartoon about a happy little vegetable. He will be called Buddy the Carrot. He'll lose his mother to the farmer when he picks her, and eats her. That could do to vegetables what Bambi did to meat! Carrots may in fact be more intelligent than deer. Who knows for sure? You read it here first at THE UNCOVEROR.

lol i was gunna bring up something similar to this :)

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

The wielder of the knife, whilst taking the name of the Almighty', makes an incision through the jugular veins, leaving all other veins and organs intact.
This causes the death of the animal by a total loss of blood from the body, rather than an injury to any vital organ.
If the organs, for example the heart, the liver, or the brain were crippled or damaged, the animal could die immediately and its blood would congeal in its veins and would eventually permeate the flesh. This implies that the animal flesh would be permeated and contaminated with uric acid and therefore very poisonous; only today did our dieticians realize such a thing

[Pygoscelis]

I have long believed that dietary laws of various religoins have some rational foundation, often long forgotten after being turned into cultural taboos and spiritualized into religious commandments (at which point the rational reasons are lost and the tradition will likely carry on even after the initial reason is obsoleted). I suspect that eating pork was dangerous for one reason or another back in the day as well.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

A pig only excretes 2% of its Uric Acid and the rest 98% remains in the body. How disgusting! Which is why it is haraam(forbidden).