Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

To people who dislike halal slaughter.

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Student Finance explained - on TSR from 2 - 3pm 17-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    you do too much maths bro...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Corinna*)
    there is no scientific evidence and common sense dictates that it does hurt so no, I don't think we should put animals through this process because of a stupid religious thing. If you have a problem with meat, don't eat it.
    I would expect nothing more ignorant to be said from the mouth of an atheist ...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawyer92)
    You go on youtube and find a video that supports your point. All other videos you see stating otherwise, you simply disregard.

    That is NOT halal meat, shown in your video. Look up on Islamic rules regarding on how an animal should be slaughtered. These types of people do not follow the right rules and therefore there food can't be halal (even if they claim to be).
    If there are lots of videos out there which show humane halal slaughtering and I am disregarding them then by all means post them, because I haven't been able to find any, all I've found is a procession of islamic clerics and 'scientists' who claim that it is humane.

    The slaughterhouses are licensed and accredited by both the FSA and HFA for using halal practices, so both a government department and islamic organisation certify they are slaughtering meat in accordance with islamic laws.

    Laws should not be waived because of a person's religion, laws should apply to all members of a society equally.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James82)
    If there are lots of videos out there which show humane halal slaughtering and I am disregarding them then by all means post them, because I haven't been able to find any, all I've found is a procession of islamic clerics and 'scientists' who claim that it is humane.

    The slaughterhouses are licensed and accredited by both the FSA and HFA for using halal practices, so both a government department and islamic organisation certify they are slaughtering meat in accordance with islamic laws.

    Laws should not be waived because of a person's religion, laws should apply to all members of a society equally.
    Your avoiding my question. Where does it say in any of the religious sources that this is the correct method of slaughter? Perhaps you have not been able to find any?

    My advice to you would be to read about Islam, find as much knowledge as possible on the topic in question. You speak out of ignorance and by just watching a video on youtube, you seem to be under the impression to have proved me wrong.

    Being from a religion, I have always believed that Religion should and will always prevail over science. From your perspective, its it is science will always prevail over religions. Both of our views are biased in a way. This argument will possibly go on endlessly. I've been foolish to have argued with someone who is not religious (please correct me if you are) as my arguments put forward to you have been wasted. The same can be said for yours, as I don't believe science is the answer to everything.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawyer92)
    Your avoiding my question. Where does it say in any of the religious sources that this is the correct method of slaughter? Perhaps you have not been able to find any?

    My advice to you would be to read about Islam, find as much knowledge as possible on the topic in question. You speak out of ignorance and by just watching a video on youtube, you seem to be under the impression to have proved me wrong.

    Being from a religion, I have always believed that Religion should and will always prevail over science. From your perspective, its it is science will always prevail over religions. Both of our views are biased in a way. This argument will possibly go on endlessly. I've been foolish to have argued with someone who is not religious (please correct me if you are) as my arguments put forward to you have been wasted. The same can be said for yours, as I don't believe science is the answer to everything.
    I have never read such an ignorant and foolish statement written in such an arrogant and condescending way. You are a contemptible human being and have my pity.
    • 42 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    It really says something about Islam's position on Halal slaughter when its only defense is the citation, ad nauseam, of a 34 year old study in which the author himself admitted may have been flawed (it was, actually, because more recent studies have completely contradicted his results):

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...slaughter.html

    Further, the Farm Animal Welfare Council published a report in 2003 which contained a substantial study on Halal slaughter methods. It can be found here:

    http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf

    The conclusion states:

    Overall, we have looked at slaughter without pre-stunning against the basic
    principles set out at the beginning of our report which aim to ensure the welfare of
    animals at slaughter (see Paragraph 8). We consider that at least two of these principles –
    pre-slaughter handling facilities that minimise stress and induction to a period of
    unconsciousness without distress – are not satisfactorily observed. Given that the
    exemption from pre-stunning is subject to the requirement that unnecessary suffering is
    not inflicted, we consider that the Government should take steps to repeal this exemption.


    This report, and the New Zealand study above, are what the RSPCA (those damn animal welfare bastards) uses to come to its conclusion that:

    The RSPCA is opposed to the slaughter of any animal without first rendering it insensible to pain and distress.

    But you have a 34 year old flawed study.Good for you.
    You can't trust RSPCA as they already have a biasness of things even before they started the study, hence you can't trust it. You can't seriously trust someone who carries out a study when they've already spoken about how they already see things.

    'May', it's a possibility, as with the RSPCA study which can also be flawed.

    The other major issues I don't get is how people cry out against halal slaughter, when the whole process is a lot fairer to animals in comparison to how everything else is done.

    Non-halal meat comes from a mixture of animals which have continuously since birth have suffered from being forced into small areas and fed so they are fat in awful conditions and all of a sudden a stun makes things more humane With stunning there is definite suffering, there is definite pain.

    WIth the halal method, the animal by practice is from a good environment and brought up in good condition and treated fairly........and is killed with a sharp knife to the jugular vein which kills them in seconds.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Being from a religion, I have always believed that Religion should and will always prevail over science. From your perspective, its it is science will always prevail over religions. Both of our views are biased in a way. This argument will possibly go on endlessly. I've been foolish to have argued with someone who is not religious (please correct me if you are) as my arguments put forward to you have been wasted. The same can be said for yours, as I don't believe science is the answer to everything.
    I'm not going to get into this argument as it has proved to be wasteful in the past, but I'll just say that it's an extremely narrow-minded view to say that religion absolutely prevails over science. In fact, there need not even be tension between the two except for a few nuts who insist that there be. To divide the world into those of science and those of religion is kinda crazy.

    Furthermore, your premise suggests that you believe so because "you are from a religion". Religion is not like a country, and even if your religion makes sense it does not mean all religion makes sense. I can guarantee you there is no ignorance to the fact that the act of killing an animal, Halal style (or, really, otherwise), is quite terrible.

    What do you define religion as? I am not a crusader for animal rights, but even if not to any great extent can I not define my own religion as preventing fully unnecessary cruelty? I think you got your whole thing wrong - this isn't about science vs. religion. It's about whether it's right or wrong.

    Furthermore, religion is not - in its own ecosystem - absolutely justifiable, whereas science and fact are. The Bible will never fully reconcile with the Koran or the Gita to create an ultimate force of religion - but the scientific process allows the tension between various arguments to, in the long run, form into a general scientific law.

    I am not saying that this means science is indefinitely better than religion, however I am suggesting that your way of approaching the question is rather silly.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    I have never read such an ignorant and foolish statement written in such an arrogant and condescending way. You are a contemptible human being and have my pity.
    Just because I don't share your views that the world was created by a 'big bang' :rolleyes: hmmm looks like I'm not the only ignorant one
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    You can't trust RSPCA as they already have a biasness of things even before they started the study, hence you can't trust it. You can't seriously trust someone who carries out a study when they've already spoken about how they already see things.

    'May', it's a possibility, as with the RSPCA study which can also be flawed.

    The other major issues I don't get is how people cry out against halal slaughter, when the whole process is a lot fairer to animals in comparison to how everything else is done.

    Non-halal meat comes from a mixture of animals which have continuously since birth have suffered from being forced into small areas and fed so they are fat in awful conditions and all of a sudden a stun makes things more humane With stunning there is definite suffering, there is definite pain.

    WIth the halal method, the animal by practice is from a good environment and brought up in good condition and treated fairly........and is killed with a sharp knife to the jugular vein which kills them in seconds.
    Does it really? So when the jugular vein (of which there are 2 types as far as I'm aware) is severed, the flow of blood to the brain ceases, all neural activity ceases, and the animal dies quickly with no idea that it's just had its throat sliced open?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arra)
    I'm not going to get into this argument as it has proved to be wasteful in the past, but I'll just say that it's an extremely narrow-minded view to say that religion absolutely prevails over science. In fact, there need not even be tension between the two except for a few nuts who insist that there be. To divide the world into those of science and those of religion is kinda crazy.

    Furthermore, your premise suggests that you believe so because "you are from a religion". Religion is not like a country, and even if your religion makes sense it does not mean all religion makes sense. I can guarantee you there is no ignorance to the fact that the act of killing an animal, Halal style (or, really, otherwise), is quite terrible.

    What do you define religion as? I am not a crusader for animal rights, but even if not to any great extent can I not define my own religion as preventing fully unnecessary cruelty? I think you got your whole thing wrong - this isn't about science vs. religion. It's about whether it's right or wrong.

    Furthermore, religion is not - in its own ecosystem - absolutely justifiable, whereas science and fact are. The Bible will never fully reconcile with the Koran or the Gita to create an ultimate force of religion - but the scientific process allows the tension between various arguments to, in the long run, form into a general scientific law.

    I am not saying that this means science is indefinitely better than religion, however I am suggesting that your way of approaching the question is rather silly.
    This is getting rather pointless. If you want to talk to me about science v religion, that PM me. My religion was an important aspect in stating my views. There is a huge overlap over science and religion, but religion prevails over what science says, if it contrasts with those views. You say the Koran and Bible will never be alike. I fond that unusual, seeing the Bible and Koran are very much the same in terms of content (the old testament anyway). I think that you'll find that many things that have been proven scientifically, are already stated in religious texts. Your clearly an idiot if you believe otherwise. If you want to have this chat then message me, but not on this thread.
    • 42 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Does it really? So when the jugular vein (of which there are 2 types as far as I'm aware) is severed, the flow of blood to the brain ceases, all neural activity ceases, and the animal dies quickly with no idea that it's just had its throat sliced open?
    Well technically yes, if done correctly.........it requires a sharp knife and must be done in one strong cut. Don't like talking about blood, gives me goosebumps :/
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Well technically yes, if done correctly.........it requires a sharp knife and must be done in one strong cut. Don't like talking about blood, gives me goosebumps :/
    Yes to which bit?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    You can't trust RSPCA as they already have a biasness of things even before they started the study, hence you can't trust it. You can't seriously trust someone who carries out a study when they've already spoken about how they already see things.

    'May', it's a possibility, as with the RSPCA study which can also be flawed.

    The other major issues I don't get is how people cry out against halal slaughter, when the whole process is a lot fairer to animals in comparison to how everything else is done.

    Non-halal meat comes from a mixture of animals which have continuously since birth have suffered from being forced into small areas and fed so they are fat in awful conditions and all of a sudden a stun makes things more humane With stunning there is definite suffering, there is definite pain.

    WIth the halal method, the animal by practice is from a good environment and brought up in good condition and treated fairly........and is killed with a sharp knife to the jugular vein which kills them in seconds.
    1. It is not the RSPCA you need to discredit, it is their sources. When you have discredited the Farm Animal Welfare Council study or Craig Johnson's study, you'll have a ghost of a point.

    Again, the author of the study said 'may', science says 'definitely', as subsequent scientific studies have failed to replicate its results.

    2. Your point on stunning being painful and causing suffering is, quite simply, a bare-faced lie. From the article:

    Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.

    When conducted properly, stunning completely eliminates pain signals from nerves.

    3. The other crap about halal slaughter houses allowing animals to live in comfort while western slaughter houses are institutions of pain is a false dichotomy. Free range farms have existed for years and are on the rise. Further, do you have any evidence that halal slaughter houses treat animals akin to free range farms?

    4. 10 to 30 seconds of consciousness is a hell of a long period of suffering when you've had your neck sliced open. Painless and quick my ass.
    • 42 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Yes to which bit?
    what do you mean? You mean which vein?
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Does it really? So when the jugular vein (of which there are 2 types as far as I'm aware) is severed, the flow of blood to the brain ceases, all neural activity ceases, and the animal dies quickly with no idea that it's just had its throat sliced open?
    Ja, internal and external. You're most likely to cut the external though, not the internal (you'd have to keep sawing into the neck) and it's the internal that mainly drains the brain.

    Why are we discussing veins? They drain blood not supply it.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    WIth the halal method, the animal by practice is from a good environment and brought up in good condition and treated fairly........and is killed with a sharp knife to the jugular vein which kills them in seconds.
    Not necessarily....ruminants such as cattle have a large secondary blood supply to the brain by the vertebral artery running through the spinal cord - a cut to the jugular won't kill them nearly as fast as it would kill us. I'm all for freedom of religion but that should not take priority over our animal welfare laws.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawyer92)
    This is getting rather pointless. If you want to talk to me about science v religion, that PM me. My religion was an important aspect in stating my views. There is a huge overlap over science and religion, but religion prevails over what science says, if it contrasts with those views. You say the Koran and Bible will never be alike. I fond that unusual, seeing the Bible and Koran are very much the same in terms of content (the old testament anyway). I think that you'll find that many things that have been proven scientifically, are already stated in religious texts. Your clearly an idiot if you believe otherwise. If you want to have this chat then message me, but not on this thread.
    I do believe otherwise, and I certainly don't consider myself an idiot for doing so. Let your religion be an important aspect in stating what you did. I could care less about your religion, though. The fact that you have faith in something is wonderful, but it doesn't convince me that it's right - and that is your burden of proof. I think you are the one making more extraordinary claims here, and should probably submit evidence to that effect. Religion might have suggested some truths that science has confirmed, but there is no "proof" to religion. Religion is fundamentally unscientific in that it relies, by definition, on some faith -- something inherently "unprovable" outside of one's own system and faith.

    Within you, religion might be entirely provable. However, proof has indeed come from the scientific method. I do believe in god, but I have no proof of that -- and I don't claim to. It is the way I feel, it is the faith I have, and I take comfort in that ambiguity. To state is not to prove.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonfacebear)
    Not necessarily....ruminants such as cattle have a large secondary blood supply to the brain by the vertebral artery running through the spinal cord - a cut to the jugular won't kill them nearly as fast as it would kill us. I'm all for freedom of religion but that should not take priority over our animal welfare laws.
    We have vertebrals too! Also, am pretty sure you'd have to cut the carotids to kill someone fast, even just the external jugular wouldn't quite do it as they mainly drain the facial veins.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ayshizzle)
    Ja, internal and external. You're most likely to cut the external though, not the internal (you'd have to keep sawing into the neck) and it's the internal that mainly drains the brain.

    Why are we discussing veins? They drain blood not supply it.
    That was more my point. They may sever the drainage, but the brain still has a supply from various arteries, so can still be aware of what's going on .
    • 42 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    1. It is not the RSPCA you need to discredit, it is their sources. When you have discredited the Farm Animal Welfare Council study or Craig Johnson's study, you'll have a ghost of a point.

    Again, the author of the study said 'may', science says 'definitely', as subsequent scientific studies have failed to replicate its results.

    2. Your point on stunning being painful and causing suffering is, quite simply, a bare-faced lie. From the article:

    Finally, they stunned animals 5 seconds after incision and showed that this makes the pain signal disappear instantly.

    When conducted properly, stunning completely eliminates pain signals from nerves.

    3. The other crap about halal slaughter houses allowing animals to live in comfort while western slaughter houses are institutions of pain is a false dichotomy. Free range farms have existed for years and are on the rise. Further, do you have any evidence that halal slaughter houses treat animals akin to free range farms?
    1. There is also numerous companies who gave evidence who are bias:
    Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    Vegetarians International Voice for Animals
    Animal Health Trust
    Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law Veterinary Association
    Food Standards Agency
    Halal Food Authority

    No evidence was given by a Halal abattoir which doesn't use any stunning.


    2. I said it can be, it's true, nor is it a lie......the suffering stronger among the large animals which take time to be stunned properly.

    3. Halal slaughter houses have to treat animals very humanely otherwise they fail to be halal, it's a condition to looking after animals and slaughtering them in Islam.
    The fact is that not all farms are free-range, there still exists many caged farms.....hence the meat you recieve especially in ones where you don't know where your meat has come from, is at odds with this stunning and killing humane concept.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 8, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.