[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by When you see it...)
Death = infinite loss.
Pain = finite loss.
Therefore:
Death + pain = infinite loss + finite loss.
Which is the same as:
Death + pain = infinite loss.
Therefore:
Death = Death + pain.
Therefore:
Normal slaughter = Halal slaughter.


Both barbaric and unnecessary IMO, but if you disagree you can't make exceptions and say that one is bad and the other is okay.

BTW I'm not trying to use maths notation to try to make my argument seem more valid, this is just a neat way of setting it out.

So what is your justification for eating meat but disliking halal meat?

EDIT:
Also, I'm not 100% sure that pain is involved, I just see this argument occasionally that it brings unnecessary pain to the animal.

this was nonsense by the second line.

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by Lawyer92)

The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerve of the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain. While dying, the animal struggles, writhers, shakes and kicks, not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles defecient in blood and due to the flow of blood out of the body.

Hate to break it to you but there is no "nerve of the brain responsible for pain".

[Lawyer92]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Hate to break it to you but there is no "nerve of the brain responsible for pain".

if you say so, I'll leave you to it. I can't believe how ignorant people are on this thread ... Have a nice day

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by Lawyer92)
if you say so, I'll leave you to it. I can't believe how ignorant people are on this thread ... Have a nice day

Sorry... Are you an anatomist? Or are you the ignorant one claiming there is this "pain nerve" which is cut? This nerve, that btw, doesn't exist.

Go and learn some neuroscience then come back and correct your statement.

[ch0c0h01ic]

(Original post by Lawyer92)
The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerve of the brain responsible for pain. Thus the animal does not feel pain.

There are two fundamental issues with this:

1) Cattle have vertebral arteries which are not severed during religious slaughter.

2) "False aneurysms" can develop when you attempt to cut the carotid arteries.

Both of these factors mean that it is possible for the blood supply to the brain to be maintained for several minutes following the carotids being cut, and with that pain sensation and consciousness.

Islamic slaughter is the only method that does not put the animal through any pain whatsoever. Unlike the method used by many, 'stunning'. Get your facts right.

I have studied meat science and animal welfare - there is little or no evidence that supports slaughter without stunning compared to slaughter with stunning.

I suggest that you go away, do some research and get your facts right rather than basing your arguments upon religious dogma.

EDIT: I would also recommend that you reference all of the material that you copy and paste off of Google rather than resorting to plagiarism.

[Lawyer92]

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
There are two fundamental issues with this:

1) Cattle have vertebral arteries which are not severed during religious slaughter.

2) "False aneurysms" can develop when you attempt to cut the carotid arteries.

Both of these factors mean that it is possible for the blood supply to the brain to be maintained for several minutes following the carotids being cut, and with that pain sensation and consciousness.



I have studied meat science and animal welfare - there is little or no evidence that supports slaughter without stunning compared to slaughter with stunning.

I suggest that you go away, do some research and get your facts right rather than basing your arguments upon religious dogma.

EDIT: I would also recommend that you reference all of the material that you copy and paste off of Google rather than resorting to plagiarism.

I came on to this source on google a while ago and yes I did copy it. However, I would never post something without checking its authenticy first. Having spoken to a few halal shops, they agree with this method, and believe it causes no pain upon the animal. Stunning, however, if you researched properly, causes the animal to go through a substantial amount of pain. Islamic slaughter, is pretty much the same as putting the animal to sleep.

I'm sorry, but I have came across many sources that believe that the animal is under pain when its stunned and few support your view. And none of these are based upon religion. I suggest you google it, and research properly, instead of finding a source that contrasts with what you believe, and just disregard it.

[James82]

(Original post by Lawyer92)
I came on to this source on google a while ago and yes I did copy it. However, I would never post something without checking its authenticy first. Having spoken to a few halal shops, they agree with this method, and believe it causes no pain upon the animal. Stunning, however, if you researched properly, causes the animal to go through a substantial amount of pain. Islamic slaughter, is pretty much the same as putting the animal to sleep.

I'm sorry, but I have came across many sources that believe that the animal is under pain when its stunned and few support your view. And none of these are based upon religion. I suggest you google it, and research properly, instead of finding a source that contrasts with what you believe, and just disregard it.

If you have come across these 'many sources' perhaps you could enlighten us and provide them here for us to see.

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by Lawyer92)
Having spoken to a few halal shops, they agree with this method, and believe it causes no pain upon the animal.

Oh yes, because shops that make money out of selling Halal meat are so unbiased and impartial aren't they? Great research you've done there.

Stunning, however, if you researched properly, causes the animal to go through a substantial amount of pain. Islamic slaughter, is pretty much the same as putting the animal to sleep.

I suggest you watch some videos that show Halal slaughter on YouTube. I don't think I can post them here because they'll get taken off by the mods for being too gorey. There's one from Belgium that is particularly graphic though. Halal slaughter is not like putting the animal to sleep at all.

I suggest you google it, and research properly, instead of finding a source that contrasts with what you believe, and just disregard it.

Google is filled with Islamic apologists and general ignorance, so I don't think that would be a good solution to this.

And the latter part of your comment is exactly what you're doing; disregarding everything that does not fit your views.

[detinus]

(Original post by When you see it...)
I can't think of any valid argument as to why animals should be killed in the first place, hence I don't see why people are okay with normal slaughter but not halal slaughter. Nobody who holds this view has given me a reasonable justification yet.

It's natural for omnivores to kill animals for food. Is that reasonable enough for you?

[Hello:D]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
Oh yes, because shops that make money out of selling Halal meat are so unbiased and impartial aren't they? Great research you've done there.



I suggest you watch some videos that show Halal slaughter on YouTube. I don't think I can post them here because they'll get taken off by the mods for being too gorey. There's one from Belgium that is particularly graphic though. Halal slaughter is not like putting the animal to sleep at all.



Google is filled with Islamic apologists and general ignorance, so I don't think that would be a good solution to this.

And the latter part of your comment is exactly what you're doing; disregarding everything that does not fit your views.

Islam was the religion that contributed the most to the nature of the human and animal body, and medicine in general. Obviously, it is not general ignorance. Many medical practices have originated from Islam, and are followed by the majority of the world today (including the UK). A few videos that you come across on youtube, cannot be generalised to say that they are practised by all Halal slaughter houses. I suggest that you research Islamic contribution to the world of medicine.

Whether an animal does or does not feel pain by Islamic slaughter, is a questions that has NOT been answered properly, and there is no reliable evidence to both support and go against that view.

However, it can be said that it is widely accepted by scientific evidence, that stunning, does in fact, involve the animal to go though a significant amount of stress and torture.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by detinus)
It's natural for omnivores to kill animals for food. Is that reasonable enough for you?

What a load of BS.

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by Hello:D)
Islam was the religion that contributed the most to the nature of the human and animal body, and medicine in general. Obviously, it is not general ignorance.

I never said it was. If you notice, I actually said "Islamic apologists AND general ignorance." I was refering to the lack of knowledge of people in general on the internet, not specifically that of Muslims. That is why I never get my interpretations/information on religious texts from the internet. I prefer to speak to real people in the real world, who I know to be knowledgeable.

Oh and I contend your bold initial statement. Firstly, I don't know whether that's true or not. Secondly, the scientific research would have been done by people who were Muslims, but that doesn't mean Islam did it. Saying that Islam did it would imply that it's all in the Qur'an, which it clearly isn't.

You can't say that Muslims are on the forefront of science right now, because that isn't true;

"OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] countries have 8.5 scientists, engineers and technicians per 1,000 population as compared to 40.7 of world average and 139.3 for OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries. The contribution of Muslim countries to world science literature is also meagre. Forty-six Muslim countries contribute 1.17 percent to world science literature as compared to 1.66 percent by India and 1.48 percent by Spain. Twenty Arab countries contribute 0.55 percent as compared to 0.89 percent by Israel alone."
(Anwar, M.; Abu Bakar, A. (1997-09-09) - Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world - Scientometrics Volume 40, Number 1, 23-44, DOI: 10.1007/BF02459260)

Many medical practices have originated from Islam, and are followed by the majority of the world today (including the UK).

Once again, the originated from Muslims, not Islam.

I have no problem with accepting that Muslims have contributed a lot to science (if what you say is true), but it doesn't make sense to say that Islam did it.

The inventor of fibre optics was a Sikh (Narinder Singh Kapany), but I wouldn't say that Sikhism invented it. One of the major pioneers of cosmic ray nuclear physics was a Sikh (Piara Singh Gill), but I wouldn't say that Sikhism invented it. Hargobind Singh Khorana, the man who won a Nobel Prize for discovering how protein synthesis is related to DNA, was a Sikh, but I wouldn't say that Sikhism invented it.

In the same way you shouldn't claim that Islam invented/discovered these things. It was down to Muslims, not Islam. (Besides, you still haven't told me what amazing things they discovered....)

There is little evidence that shows that Islam caused these scientific development. There was no research conducted by Muslims during Muhammad's time (when you'd expect it to be at its peak if Islam was so scientific), and it took many decades after Muhammad's death for the Arabs to become interested in science. Do you not think that, in light of the evidence, there were some other factors involved in this?

A few videos that you come across on youtube, cannot be generalised to say that they are practised by all Halal slaughter houses.

I've seen a lot of videos, even ones from Mecca on Eid-Al-Adha, and they're all exactly the same.

However, it can be said that it is widely accepted by scientific evidence, that stunning, does in fact, involve the animal to go though a significant amount of stress and torture.

But that doesn't negate the position that halal slaughter causes pain, hence it's pointless to bring that up. Unless you are trying to divert people's attention of course.

[Algorithm69]

(Original post by Hello:D)
Whether an animal does or does not feel pain by Islamic slaughter, is a questions that has NOT been answered properly, and there is no reliable evidence to both support and go against that view.

However, it can be said that it is widely accepted by scientific evidence, that stunning, does in fact, involve the animal to go though a significant amount of stress and torture.

Those questions have been answered, and they're the opposite of what you're ignorantly claiming. Halal slaughter does cause pain and suffering, and animals stay conscious for up to half a minute, while stunning instantly destroys nerve signals.

[Hello:D]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
I never said it was. If you notice, I actually said "Islamic apologists AND general ignorance." I was refering to the lack of knowledge of people in general on the internet, not specifically that of Muslims. That is why I never get my interpretations/information on religious texts from the internet. I prefer to speak to real people in the real world, who I know to be knowledgeable.

Oh and I contend your bold initial statement. Firstly, I don't know whether that's true or not. Secondly, the scientific research would have been done by people who were Muslims, but that doesn't mean Islam did it. Saying that Islam did it would imply that it's all in the Qur'an, which it clearly isn't.

You can't say that Muslims are on the forefront of science right now, because that isn't true;

"OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] countries have 8.5 scientists, engineers and technicians per 1,000 population as compared to 40.7 of world average and 139.3 for OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries. The contribution of Muslim countries to world science literature is also meagre. Forty-six Muslim countries contribute 1.17 percent to world science literature as compared to 1.66 percent by India and 1.48 percent by Spain. Twenty Arab countries contribute 0.55 percent as compared to 0.89 percent by Israel alone."
(Anwar, M.; Abu Bakar, A. (1997-09-09) - Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world - Scientometrics Volume 40, Number 1, 23-44, DOI: 10.1007/BF02459260)



Once again, the originated from Muslims, not Islam.

I have no problem with accepting that Muslims have contributed a lot to science (if what you say is true), but it doesn't make sense to say that Islam did it.

The inventor of fibre optics was a Sikh (Narinder Singh Kapany), but I wouldn't say that Sikhism invented it. One of the major pioneers of cosmic ray nuclear was a Sikh (Piara Singh Gill), but I wouldn't claim that Sikhism invented it. Hargobind Singh Khorana, the man who won a Nobel Prize for discovering how protein synthesis is related to DNA, was a Sikh, but I wouldn't say that Sikhism invented it.

In the same way you shouldn't claim that Islam invented/discovered these things. It was down to Muslims, not Islam. (Besides, you still haven't told me what amazing things they discovered....)

There is little evidence that shows that Islam caused these scientific development. There was no research conducted by Muslims during Muhammad's time (when you'd expect it to be at its peak if Islam was so scientific), and it took many decades after Muhammad's death for the Arabs to become interested in science. Do you not think that, in light of the evidence, there were some other factors involved in this?



I've seen a lot of videos, even ones from Mecca on Eid-Al-Adha, and they're all exactly the same.



But that doesn't negate the position that halal slaughter causes pain, hence it's pointless to bring that up. Unless you are trying to divert people's attention of course.

The Quran formed a foundation, for many Muslims to base their work of medicine on. Although they may contribute very little to society today, you have completely missed by point I was trying to make. It was well after the prophet's time, that the development occured. They formed a basis, for the research that is conducted today by the majority of medical researchers. For example, the Quran said that pig should not be eaten, as it is a dirty animal. This has been scientifically proven and many agree. Pigs have no sweat bland, which will not let them get rid of toxins by sweat. They will eat pretty much anything, ranging from their own waste. Also, food that it consumes, is digested really quickly. Food goes in and comes out, put simply, which does not allow pigs to keep the healthy nutrients in its body. Another example is the benefits on honey, revealed in the Quran, found in the belly of the bee. Around 300 years ago (approximately), this was proven. I have to admit that I don't know the exact date that was, but was revealed well after the time of the prophet. There are many examples, but I think you get the point. If you wish to find out more, read the Quran.

Regarding whether animals feel or not feel pain, when slaughtered in an Islamic way, I do not know. There is no answer that has been provided, that proved to satisfactory. It is an ongoing debate.

[Florrick]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
I never said it was. If you notice, I actually said "Islamic apologists AND general ignorance." I was refering to the lack of knowledge of people in general on the internet, not specifically that of Muslims. That is why I never get my interpretations/information on religious texts from the internet. I prefer to speak to real people in the real world, who I know to be knowledgeable.

Oh and I contend your bold initial statement. Firstly, I don't know whether that's true or not. Secondly, the scientific research would have been done by people who were Muslims, but that doesn't mean Islam did it. Saying that Islam did it would imply that it's all in the Qur'an, which it clearly isn't.

You can't say that Muslims are on the forefront of science right now, because that isn't true;

"OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] countries have 8.5 scientists, engineers and technicians per 1,000 population as compared to 40.7 of world average and 139.3 for OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries. The contribution of Muslim countries to world science literature is also meagre. Forty-six Muslim countries contribute 1.17 percent to world science literature as compared to 1.66 percent by India and 1.48 percent by Spain. Twenty Arab countries contribute 0.55 percent as compared to 0.89 percent by Israel alone."
(Anwar, M.; Abu Bakar, A. (1997-09-09) - Current state of science and technology in the Muslim world - Scientometrics Volume 40, Number 1, 23-44, DOI: 10.1007/BF02459260)



Once again, the originated from Muslims, not Islam.

I have no problem with accepting that Muslims have contributed a lot to science (if what you say is true), but it doesn't make sense to say that Islam did it.

In history, we saw the Golden Age occurred in Muslim lands for five centuries before it was destroyed, note Islam was introduced in the 7th century (and over the years rapidly spread through the Middle East) and the Golden Age occurred a century later, from mid 8th century all the way to the mid 13th century. The Caliphate clearly inspired intellectual breakthroughs in sciences, philosophy, medicine and education, without the Islamic empire such great minds wouldn't have been allowed to flourish and co-operate with each other with such ease. This is corroborated by historians who are not Muslim and even Stephen Fry (), so it's not as if Muslims have got the blinkers up.


Oh and the OIC is the worst representative of Islam- ever. Corrupt hypocritical leaders. Basically Islam right now is going through a tough break. In history, the Mongols sacked Baghdad and almost destroyed Islam (this was much worse than what is seen in the muslim world today, bear this in mind) but the muslims regrouped, refocused and they returned. Insha'Allah, things will get there.

[Hello:D]

(Original post by Algorithm69)
Those questions have been answered, and they're the opposite of what you're ignorantly claiming. Halal slaughter does cause pain and suffering, and animals stay conscious for up to half a minute, while stunning instantly destroys nerve signals.

I'm sorry my friend, but it seems you are the ignorant one. You cannot simply just claim that, when there is scientific evidence to support and go against your view.

[Algorithm69]

(Original post by Hello:D)
I'm sorry my friend, but it seems you are the ignorant one. You cannot simply just claim that, when there is scientific evidence to support and go against your view.

What scientific studies support the case that halal slaughter is painless? Apart from the seriously flawed and outdated one already discussed of course.

[ch0c0h01ic]

(Original post by Lawyer92)
I came on to this source on google a while ago and yes I did copy it. However, I would never post something without checking its authenticy first. Having spoken to a few halal shops, they agree with this method, and believe it causes no pain upon the animal.

Two fundamental issues:

1) Your "source" does not contain any references to scientific studies supporting its claims.

2) "Agreeing" and "believing" are simply opinions, they are not proof of your argument.

Stunning, however, if you researched properly, causes the animal to go through a substantial amount of pain. Islamic slaughter, is pretty much the same as putting the animal to sleep.

I'm sorry, but I have came across many sources that believe that the animal is under pain when its stunned and few support your view. And none of these are based upon religion.

Which scientific studies are you referring to before we take things any further? When I say this I do not count random people giving their opinion on whether they believe or think that it is painless as a "source".

I have only come across one "good" study supporting Halal slaughter (Schulze et al. 1979) and unfortunately for you it is very out of date and nobody has been able to replicate it's findings. Other supporting studies are even older and focus on subjective assessments or purely public opinion both of which are irrelevant.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by Hello:D)
The Quran formed a foundation, for many Muslims to base their work of medicine on. Although they may contribute very little to society today, you have completely missed by point I was trying to make. It was well after the prophet's time, that the development occured. They formed a basis, for the research that is conducted today by the majority of medical researchers. For example, the Quran said that pig should not be eaten, as it is a dirty animal. This has been scientifically proven and many agree. Pigs have no sweat bland, which will not let them get rid of toxins by sweat. They will eat pretty much anything, ranging from their own waste. Also, food that it consumes, is digested really quickly. Food goes in and comes out, put simply, which does not allow pigs to keep the healthy nutrients in its body. Another example is the benefits on honey, revealed in the Quran, found in the belly of the bee. Around 300 years ago (approximately), this was proven. I have to admit that I don't know the exact date that was, but was revealed well after the time of the prophet. There are many examples, but I think you get the point. If you wish to find out more, read the Quran.

Regarding whether animals feel or not feel pain, when slaughtered in an Islamic way, I do not know. There is no answer that has been provided, that proved to satisfactory. It is an ongoing debate.

Yeaaa,the medical benefits of honey were known before the Qur'an.

[ch0c0h01ic]

(Original post by Hello:D)
They formed a basis, for the research that is conducted today by the majority of medical researchers. For example, the Quran said that pig should not be eaten, as it is a dirty animal. This has been scientifically proven and many agree.

Two fundamental problems:

1) Opinion (ie; whether someone agrees with you or not) does not equal fact.

2) Pigs are not "scientifically proven" to be "dirty animals". In actual fact they are one of the few animals that will deliberately defecate away from their lying area.

Pigs have no sweat bland, which will not let them get rid of toxins by sweat.

Irrelevant.

A lot of animals don't sweat (eg; chickens). Sweating has a very minor role in "detoxification", your liver and kidneys are much more important.

They will eat pretty much anything, ranging from their own waste.

Irrelevant.

Pigs are omnivores, like us, so they can eat both plants and animal products. Given the choice most pigs will root around for tubers, grains and insects.

They will only eat their own faeces if they are given no other choice (ie; food deprivation/starvation).

Also, food that it consumes, is digested really quickly. Food goes in and comes out, put simply, which does not allow pigs to keep the healthy nutrients in its body.

Nonsense.

In actual fact they have a very similar digestive system to our own.