Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first. watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R Dragon)
    Perhaps, but your statement is not correct. Prayers precede the slaughter, not during it. Also, I assume you're referring to the jugular veins, but they're not the only blood vessel in the anterior triangle of the neck fyi
    im aware that the carotid is cut as well. and you dont understand the purpose of the islamic method id to get the animlsl heart to pump out all the blood (same as kosher) and therefore has zero to do with humane reasoning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    It's relevant as you mentioned welfare was not considered, which is false.
    In regards to hormones, etc Islamqa which generally give the stricter opinions state their views http://islamqa.info/en/149059 .
    No - i said that the method of slaughter ie zabiha there is no mention or consideration of humane treatment - the purpose of both islamic and jewish method is to have the blood pumped out during the animals death. so your assertion is false

    and what a website says about hormones is entirely irrelevant to islamic scripturally determined slaughter proceedures.


    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    The two biggest known halal certifiers HMC and HFA also have guidelines in place about hormones, etc on their websites. .
    so what, doesnt mean hornones are or arnt islamic. they are simply a part of the meat industry


    (Original post by Iqbal007)

    Its not western ideals, it only takes a google search to find numerous Quranic verses on treatment of animals and in hadith's which also talks about the consequences of mistreatment. .
    and yet islamic protocol calls for the bleeding out of animals without any rendering them unconscious in any way first - so its at odds with the idea of humane treatment.


    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Again whether stunning is acceptable or not is a result of difference of opinion between Muslims. Whereas for Kosher, there are no mopinions, it can't be stunned.
    both kosher and zabiha are completly unconcerned with animal welfare at slaughter - they were ideas introduced over 1000 years ago purley as a means to drain blood as there is adversion to blood in those cultures.

    the idea of stunning is a welfare driven idea that came from the west - and one the muslim community is slowly adopting inspite of islam, not becuase of it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ICF)
    No - i said that the method of slaughter ie zabiha there is no mention or consideration of humane treatment - the purpose of both islamic and jewish method is to have the blood pumped out during the animals death. so your assertion is false

    and what a website says about hormones is entirely irrelevant to islamic scripturally determined slaughter proceedures.
    Thats your opinion, many would state otherwise.....even animals suffer while being stunned so its not exactly pain free. Nor is their any consideration for the animals up bringing in large cases.

    animals being sick is not relevant to what i said, anti-bios and steroids/hormone are given to healthy animals in the 'halal' meat industry too
    You asked about the Islamic position, I answered.


    so what, doesnt mean hornones are or arnt islamic. they are simply a part of the meat industry
    Again read the view points, there are certain things that would make such additives no longer halal.

    and yet islamic protocol calls for the bleeding out of animals without any rendering them unconscious in any way first - so its at odds with the idea of humane treatment.
    Yet it provides a way to kill it as quickly as possible. Like stunning doesn't have its issues, both have issues if not done correctly to the rules.

    both kosher and zabiha are completly unconcerned with animal welfare at slaughter - they were ideas introduced over 1000 years ago purley as a means to drain blood as there is adversion to blood in those cultures.

    the idea of stunning is a welfare driven idea that came from the west - and one the muslim community is slowly adopting inspite of islam, not becuase of it.

    So what, blood is not allowed in either grouping to be eaten, etc.
    It has nothing to do with what the Muslim community, but rather availability of stunned and non-stunned meat.....many just take it as halal, however there are two opinions on it, one which accepts it in line with faith, the other doesn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Thats your opinion, many would state otherwise.....even animals suffer while being stunned so its not exactly pain free. Nor is their any consideration for the animals up bringing in large cases. .
    it is not opinion, its fact that an unconscious animal feels less pain than in traditional islamic slaughter . islamic traditon made no such consideration of the animals pain threshold to that extent - to repeat the ritual is simply to have the blood pumped out; in fact in the islamic method the animal sufferring and increased rate encourages this blood flow.

    the ideas surrounding stunning etc were introduced to muslim communities by the west, even then not all halal slaughterhouses have adopted it.
    .
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Thats your opinion, many would state otherwise.....even animals suffer while being stunned so its not exactly pain free. Nor is their any consideration for the animals up bringing in large cases. .
    it is not opinion, its fact that an unconscious animal feels less pain than in traditional islamic slaughter . islamic traditon made no such consideration of the animals pain threshold to that extent - to repeat the ritual is simply to have the blood pumped out; in fact in the islamic method the animal sufferring and increased rate encourages this blood flow.

    the ideas surrounding stunning etc were introduced to muslim communities by the west, even then not all halal slaughterhouses have adopted it.

    (Original post by Iqbal007)

    You asked about the Islamic position, I answered.
    no you made some pointless irrelevant statement. NOWHERE in islamic scripture is there a prohibition on using hormones antibios etc on livestock, which is why its also jsut as widespread

    (Original post by Iqbal007)

    Again read the view points, there are certain things that would make such additives no longer halal.
    based on what?


    (Original post by Iqbal007)

    Yet it provides a way to kill it as quickly as possible. Like stunning doesn't have its issues, both have issues if not done correctly to the rules. .
    im not saying it doesnt have issues- i said it was introudced 100%% for animal welfare , in contract to islamic slaughter, which does not kill 'as quickly as possible' fyi . In fact the muslims complaints about stunning is that it can in odd cases actually kill the animal instaneously, thereby not making it halal -ie they want the animal to die slower , does that make sense to anyone?



    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    So what, blood is not allowed in either grouping to be eaten, etc.
    It has nothing to do with what the Muslim community, but rather availability of stunned and non-stunned meat.....many just take it as halal, however there are two opinions on it, one which accepts it in line with faith, the other doesn't.
    stunning is essentially 'non-islamic' but then that shouldnt mean all slaughter houses should be forced to adhere to law. cases like today will ensure more vets etc ar paced permantley at halal slaughterhouses to ensure they dont abuse animals or their methods arnt uncessarrily cruel - sooner the better
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ICF)
    it is not opinion, its fact that an unconscious animal feels less pain than in traditional islamic slaughter . islamic traditon made no such consideration of the animals pain threshold to that extent - to repeat the ritual is simply to have the blood pumped out; in fact in the islamic method the animal sufferring and increased rate encourages this blood flow.

    the ideas surrounding stunning etc were introduced to muslim communities by the west, even then not all halal slaughterhouses have adopted it.
    .
    it is not opinion, its fact that an unconscious animal feels less pain than in traditional islamic slaughter . islamic traditon made no such consideration of the animals pain threshold to that extent - to repeat the ritual is simply to have the blood pumped out; in fact in the islamic method the animal sufferring and increased rate encourages this blood flow.

    the ideas surrounding stunning etc were introduced to muslim communities by the west, even then not all halal slaughterhouses have adopted it.



    no you made some pointless irrelevant statement. NOWHERE in islamic scripture is there a prohibition on using hormones antibios etc on livestock, which is why its also jsut as widespread



    based on what?




    im not saying it doesnt have issues- i said it was introudced 100%% for animal welfare , in contract to islamic slaughter, which does not kill 'as quickly as possible' fyi . In fact the muslims complaints about stunning is that it can in odd cases actually kill the animal instaneously, thereby not making it halal -ie they want the animal to die slower , does that make sense to anyone?





    stunning is essentially 'non-islamic' but then that shouldnt mean all slaughter houses should be forced to adhere to law. cases like today will ensure more vets etc ar paced permantley at halal slaughterhouses to ensure they dont abuse animals or their methods arnt uncessarrily cruel - sooner the better
    Plenty of research done into both, both highlighted problems in regards to when done incorrectly, yet both are perfectly fine when done correctly. The focus should be practices being done correctly to ensure they are done properly.

    Not the "West", but the HSA....however again stunning is limited to Europe, Americas, rather than Muslim majority nations. Some do and some dont because of differences in opinions.

    Did you bother to read my link, no where did it say it was completely prohibited, depending on the source and it's affects on the animal and humans.

    It wasn't completely for that purpose, but another related reason is to make the slaughter easier. They can die Islam prohibits the eating of dead animals which have not be slaughtered correctly, died by stunning or natural causes,nothing to do with the animal dying slower.

    Scholars have spoken, if you follow the opinion which allows it then they'll eat it, but their are two camps, one who rather have HMC halal over HFA.
    If you bothered to read the story, they were supposed to have a vet of sorts there in line with regulation. Its already in place, secondly its one example, why the focus on halal and not ensuring wide spectrum regulation on all abbatoirs, abuses occur across the board.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...?utm_hp_ref=uk

    considering how barbaric these people are this is just one more that makes me increasingly against Islamic culture. And i used to defend it staunchly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Plenty of research done into both, both highlighted problems in regards to when done incorrectly, yet both are perfectly fine when done correctly. The focus should be practices being done correctly to ensure they are done properly.

    Not the "West", but the HSA....however again stunning is limited to Europe, Americas, rather than Muslim majority nations. Some do and some dont because of differences in opinions. .
    which is basically the west. stunning is not fully widespread here, but getting there. its is almost non-existent in muslim communities outside the west; it is only muslims here that have been compelled to try it on humane grounds, but even that is challenged by the islamic argument

    when both done 'properly' as you say, still making an animal unconscious at slaughter is far more humane than drawing out their death so blood can flow out fully as in islamic tradition

    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Did you bother to read my link, no where did it say it was completely prohibited, depending on the source and it's affects on the animal and humans. .
    you are confused - again Nowhere is it prohibited in any islamic scripture - therefore it is acceptable in islam.

    (Original post by Iqbal007)

    It wasn't completely for that purpose, but another related reason is to make the slaughter easier. They can die Islam prohibits the eating of dead animals which have not be slaughtered correctly, died by stunning or natural causes,nothing to do with the animal dying slower. .
    no, i said that where an animal died of stunning , it would be instant, but this wouldnt satisfy the' islamic' requirement to die by being bled out - which makes the animal die much slower. in that respect it is an inhumane method in comparison

    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Scholars have spoken, if you follow the opinion which allows it then they'll eat it, but their are two camps, one who rather have HMC halal over HFA.
    If you bothered to read the story, they were supposed to have a vet of sorts there in line with regulation. .
    they did have vets there , but not permanently based, he jsut made the odd visit, and they probably altered their behaviour when he came not to get in trouble. hidden filming showed the halal slaughtermen had no regard for the welfare of animals during the process, they were abusing them. this is a case for more stringent scrutiny of these places and hopefully legally enforced stunning also.

    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Its already in place, secondly its one example, why the focus on halal and not ensuring wide spectrum regulation on all abbatoirs, abuses occur across the board.
    maybe, but i still maintain that the focus of halal slaughter is not humane treatment of the animal anyway. this case is an extreme example, but the principle is flawed. if humane treatment was the most important factor for islam, mohammed would have told muslims to use stunning methods , instead of copying tribal arabs ritual
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Both stunning and slitting are painful and inhumane, you can't possibly condemn one and not the other, if you have an issue with slaughtering of animals just go veggie
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 14, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.