Are people that are against Halal slaughter islamphobic? Watch

Nuba123
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 years ago
#21
Only people that have a reasonable argument against Halal slaughtering are those who are vegetarian or vegan otherwise, I shall proceed to send links of non-halal British slaughter houses and boy, is you going to feel sick - this is only if you want me to.


That moment you realise that non-Muslims are capable of evil things too.

-_-
3
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 years ago
#22
(Original post by Sternumator)
I think you should be able to slaughter animals however you want. I agree that there isn't much difference between halal and ordinary methods.

Much of the opposition is because it helps those who maintain the contradictory position of caring about animal welfare and eating meat feel better. I don't think they are being Islamophobic.

I wish more people would be like me and admit that they don't care about animals because if as a society we continue down the path of personifying animals then the only destination is veganism.
Just because we eat them for meat doesnt mean their lives have to be full of pain too.You can treat animals decently and still eat them.Its just the fact that it is so industralised.If a farmer rears his own animals and then slaughters one or two for meat occasionally there would be nothing wrong with that so long as the animals had good lives.And considering we're in the process of a sixth mass extinction you should probably care about animals a little bit.
0
reply
Nuba123
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 years ago
#23
(Original post by Robby2312)
Just because we eat them for meat doesnt mean their lives have to be full of pain too.You can treat animals decently and still eat them.Its just the fact that it is so industralised.If a farmer rears his own animals and then slaughters one or two for meat occasionally there would be nothing wrong with that so long as the animals had good lives.And considering we're in the process of a sixth mass extinction you should probably care about animals a little bit.
I agree, animals are suffering more because of industrialisation than halal-meat slaughtering. We eat more meat now than we ever have in the past! And it's not good, clearly this country has a problem with heart disease , cancer and obesity. Maybe regulating meat-consumption would be a better way forward. Also, it's not just the slaughtering that's cruel - have people even taken into account the conditons the animals live in?
0
reply
Applepiex3
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 years ago
#24
No, it's not islamaphobic.

Also, meat is delicious
0
reply
Sternumator
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 years ago
#25
(Original post by Robby2312)
Just because we eat them for meat doesnt mean their lives have to be full of pain too.You can treat animals decently and still eat them.Its just the fact that it is so industralised.If a farmer rears his own animals and then slaughters one or two for meat occasionally there would be nothing wrong with that so long as the animals had good lives.And considering we're in the process of a sixth mass extinction you should probably care about animals a little bit.
I can understand that it is better to treat animals as humanely as possible but it is a really marginal thing. Surely if you think animals deserve a good life, you think they don't deserve to get a bolt fired through its head? You are avoiding confronting the main issue by talking about the animals life.

Would you apply your logic to humans? Why is prison seen as a lesser punishment than the death penalty? Would it be more humane to send them on a nice holiday then hang them when they get back.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 years ago
#26
I'm not entirely in favour of halal slaughter or any religious slaughter, in the uk there are laws about how the slaughter of animals occur but certain people are excused from that in favour of religious slaughter and I don't agree with that the same law should apply to everyone.
2
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 years ago
#27
(Original post by Robby2312)
I was actually thinking more like a fish and a cow tbh.
I know you were. However I was pointing out that people are far more quick to criticise the halal slaughter of a chicken than the equally, if not more brutal manner of slaughtering fish. And sometimes this includes very large fish including swordfish and yellowfin tuna that can weigh hundreds of pounds each.

See the following article for the gruesome details: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-u...rcial-fishing/

Humans are animals and I'd like to think we are more concious of the world and have greater intelligence than a fish.Evidently then not all animals have the same level of conciousness.The point is not all animals are equal.
We might be more intelligent than other animals, but that's not the same thing as having the capacity to suffer. Even humans have varying degrees of intelligence amongst themselves, but that doesn't mean it's more acceptable to torture the less intelligent one compared to the more intelligent one. The capacity to suffer is a totally separate issue.

If you are going to make that claim then why stop at fish? Spiders are animals.Is it morally wrong to kill them? So its clearly more acceptable to kill some animals than others.Nobody will care if you kill an ant but if you kill a great ape like a chimp you'll probably get a lot more flak and maybe jailtime.
Firstly we're not really talking about just killing animals, we're talking about causing unnecessary suffering to them. I agree that the reaction to someone torturing a spider might be different to one who tortures a dog, but the question is, is this actually justified? Does the spider not suffer just as much or feel as much pain? If you think it doesn't, do you have any evidence to support it?

No it is to do with the welfare of the animal.Religous people are getting an exception where they get to be more cruel to an animal simply because of their beliefs.Its not to do with religous hatred.Its just the recognition that their beliefs are not special and as such they should have to abide by the same animal welfare standards as the rest of us.
Again, that's exactly what I was saying. Rather than considering halal slaughter in isolation and simply saying that it's so cruel to the animal that it shouldn't be allowed, your issue seems mainly to be that it's different from what non-religious people are allowed to do. Your argument here is more so one of consistency between the rules that religious and non-religious people have to follow, rather than one about animal welfare itself.

(I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong, I'm just saying we should be clear about what the arguments are exactly).
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 years ago
#28
First point here is that the reasonable person does not have an objection to halal per se (I don't), merely to any slaughter of livestock animals without pre-stunning. Around 85% of halal in the UK is pre-stunned. Kosher is a far bigger issue as none of that is pre-stunned. Halal forbids the consumption of meat that was dead before the ritual process was carried out. The issue that some halal certification has is that once an animal has been stunned, the only way to be sure it is not dead is to let it recover from the stun, thus requiring another stun. However, most schools accept the industry data as indicitave of all instances (ie. if an animal recovers in tests then it is assumed to recover every time). A method of ensuring that the animal is aliveat the time of slaughter is to cut the animals throat and then stun immediately after the incision, which while not ideal, is better than nothing.

Secondary to the stunning issue, some people may have ideological or religious issues with ritually slaughtered meat, which involves labelling/serving in schools, etc issues. Also, there are interpretations of Sikh and possibly Hindu rules that forbid the eating of ritually slaughtered meat.

All available evidence (apart from one single study, in which the scientist admitted that the stunning equipment may not have been working properly) shows that stunned animals experience minimal or no pain and distress before unconsciousness compared to unstunned animals. Another myth perpetrated about halal is that it is more hygienic because all the blood drains out. This is exactly the same with conventional slaughter. In fact, studies have shown that the "thoracic stick" cut produces a faster and more efficient bleed-out and unconsciousness than the "neck cut" required by halal, as well as removing the issue of the slaughtered animal aspirating its own blood while still conscious.

I think that covers everything. This meta study references all the relevant literature.
http://www.dialrel.eu/images/veterinary-concerns.pdf
2
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 years ago
#29
(Original post by tgrue)
But you are for non-Halal slaughter. So why does one form of slaughter insult you but you happy with another form of slaughter? Is it because you're islamphobic?
I think formost people, the issue is about pre-stunning, not about the religious labelling.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 years ago
#30
(Original post by Someboady)
Halal hasn't been proven by science just yet
What does this mean? Halal simply means "permitted" and in this context describes a method of animal slaughter that renders the meat "permitted" for Muslims to eat.

If you are talking about the animal suffering, then it has been shown that animals suffer ain and disteress when they are killed without stunning. I know that some Muslims (and Jews) claim that with a really sharp knife and proper technique the animal feels nothing, but this simply isn't supported by the evidence. Which is why every animal welfare and veterinary organisation calls for mandatory pre-stunning.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 years ago
#31
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I wouldn't necessarily say they're Islamophobic. But of course there is a chance they could be, and only really opposing Halal slaughter because of its association with Islam.

There are many examples of ways in which we make animals suffer far more than farm animals being slaughtered for food. For example when we catch fish, they're suffocated to death or subjected to repeated blunt forces to stop them from moving around too much while fully conscious. They're often brought up from deep within the ocean that the quick pressure changes result in their eyes or guts popping out from their bodies. When they're inside huge wire nets they often struggle for air or due to stress, and end up cutting themselves on the netting and bleeding to death extremely slowly. This is far more inhumane than a swift sharp cut to the neck of a farm animal which would immediately starve its brain of its oxygen and render it senseless.

But people are far more quick to condemn Halal slaughter than the standard, widespread methods of fishing, which would lead me to believe that the reason behind it is not purely one of animal welfare concern.

I also note that whenever this subject is discussed it's always "Halal" slaughter that's being mentioned. However, Halal slaughter does not actually prohibit the pre-stunning of the animal. In fact, the vast majority of Halal meat in the UK is pre-stunned, and from a non-religious point of view, is exactly the same as any other meat, just with a few prayers uttered over it. It is actually Kosher meat which must never be stunned from beforehand, and yet it's always the concept of Halal meat which is attacked first.
I think the difference between mammals and fish is one of sentience. We know that fish have far lower brain function and less developed nervous systems than large mammals and regulate accordingly. Which is why whale and dolphin hunting and eating is now almost universally considered to be uncivilised.

But I agree, in an ideal world we would minimise suffering to fish as well.
Just because we cannot reasonably prevent one group from suffering is no reason to allow another to suffer unnecessarily. Just because we can't cure everyone who has cancer, should we not try to save any?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 years ago
#32
(Original post by Someboady)
Yes, it can feel pain but the objective of any religious slaughter, at least with regards to Abrahamic religions, is to cause the least amount of pain to the animal.
And properly carried out, it was probably the best method of ensuring the best compromise of pain reduction and bleed-out. In he 7th century. But we are no longer in the 7th century, we are in the 21st century. The method that actually causes the least amount of suffering is to stun first and use the "thoracic stick" cut rather than the "neck cut".

Islam is also a semi-vegetarian religion,
Humans are "semi-vegitarian", or "omnivorous".

Muslims are discouraged from eating meat often.
Are they? Reference please.


The conditions of Halal:
  • No electric shock, bullet or any other means should be used before slaughtering.
  • This is not accurate. There are many halal certification bodies that permit electro-stunning.

Is it so barbaric?
If the animal is fully conscious when its throat is cut, then yes.

Simple question:
You are about to be killed by having your throat cut and bleeding to death.
Would you choose to be A) unconscious when the cut is made, or B) fully conscious?
If your answer is A, then there is no reason for not providing the same for animals slaughtered for food.
1
reply
NickAlex12
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 years ago
#33
A lot of them are islamophoboc, but some of them are genuinely concerned about the animals' wellbeing.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 years ago
#34
(Original post by QE2)
I think the difference between mammals and fish is one of sentience. We know that fish have far lower brain function and less developed nervous systems than large mammals and regulate accordingly. Which is why whale and dolphin hunting and eating is now almost universally considered to be uncivilised.
Regardless of how developed the nervous system of a fish is compared to a large mammal, I'm not aware of any evidence that would suggest that a fish would actually suffer less, particular when they tend to die such slow painful deaths compared to a farm animal that gets slaughtered with the swift cut of a sharp blade.

Additionally, I made another comparison in my previous post, between the extremely inhumane manner in which very large fish are slaughtered (including swordfish or yellowfin tuna potentially weighing hundreds of pounds) and the smaller chickens slaughtered using the Halal method. It's not quite so clear that the latter is a significantly greater breach of animal rights than the former, yet it's the issue of Halal slaughter that would get most of the attention.

I don't think there can be any denying that amongst most people (as I have noticed on TSR especially), there is an inflated level of publicity and outrage over the issue of animals slaughtered using the Halal method, as compared with any other instance of animal cruelty, including those which are equally, if not more inhumane. I suspect the reason is due to its association with religion, with non-religious people resenting their "exemption from the rules".

But I agree, in an ideal world we would minimise suffering to fish as well.
Just because we cannot reasonably prevent one group from suffering is no reason to allow another to suffer unnecessarily. Just because we can't cure everyone who has cancer, should we not try to save any?
If someone were genuinely concerned about animal welfare, it would be rather odd for their full focus to only go on one particular instance of animal cruelty and for all others to go ignored. There's a difference between groups like PETA or the RSPCA who look to eradicate all forms of animal cruelty wherever they're found, and the type of person who is primarily interested in opposing it where it has associations with religion, and stops being such an activist when other forms of animal cruelty are brought up.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to try to prevent one particular group from suffering. But from the particular groups they focus on you can often tell what their main motives for doing so are (which is the subject of the thread). It's quite clear to me that it's not purely an animal welfare issue.
0
reply
Nerry
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 years ago
#35
Have you heard about the murder of Sadie Hartley? shes the woman who was killed by a jealous rival and her friend.
Well people were already pretty horrified to hear about an innocent woman getting killed but when they found out that she was electrocuted with a cattle prod before being stabbed to death people said it made her death EVEN more horrifying.

Which just made me realise the irony of the halal vs normal butchering, people say its more 'humane' to stun the animal unconscious first but apparently if you do that to a human is more 'horrifying'... make up your mind
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 years ago
#36
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Regardless of how developed the nervous system of a fish is compared to a large mammal, I'm not aware of any evidence that would suggest that a fish would actually suffer less,
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/...e.03.11.15.pdf

particular when they tend to die such slow painful deaths compared to a farm animal that gets slaughtered with the swift cut of a sharp blade.
You cannot use "X experiences a painful death" as evidence if the question is "does X experience pain"!

Probably the primary reason for the difference in attitude is the appearance of the animals and their place in society. Children grow up with cuddly animal toys - sheep, cows, pigs. They are warm-blooded mammals like us. They have faces and eyes capable of expression and response. They are capable of interavtion with us. It is no surprise that people view them differently to fish and it is disingenuous to suggest that people should view them as the same. By extension, that argument implies that we should not treat an earthworm and our neighbour any differently.

But as I said, in a perfect world, we would harvest fish in an humane manner. Unfortunately this is not practical and given the evidence that they do not possess the same sentience and pain capacity as mammals, it is not regarded as a high priority by animal welfare groups or legislators. It is just a red herring () sometimes used by apologists for inhumane slaughter of mammals.

As I also said, just because we cannot save everyone, does that mean that we should save none? (I did actually intend for you to answer that question).
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 years ago
#37
(Original post by Nerry)
Have you heard about the murder of Sadie Hartley? shes the woman who was killed by a jealous rival and her friend.
Well people were already pretty horrified to hear about an innocent woman getting killed but when they found out that she was electrocuted with a cattle prod before being stabbed to death people said it made her death EVEN more horrifying.

Which just made me realise the irony of the halal vs normal butchering, people say its more 'humane' to stun the animal unconscious first but apparently if you do that to a human is more 'horrifying'... make up your mind
A "cattle prod" is not the same as "electro stunning".

A cattle prod is designed to deliver a painful electric shock to a large animal in order to control its behaviour and movement (a bit like a tazer). It is specifically designed to hurt!

Electro-stunning involves electrodes being placed on the head and an electric current passed through the brain causing instant unconsciousness. It is specifically designed to eliminate pain!

So yes, while a person being shocked with a cattle prod is horrifying - it has ablsolutely nothing to do with humane slaughter.
Hope this helped.
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 years ago
#38
(Original post by QE2)
Probably the primary reason for the difference in attitude is the appearance of the animals and their place in society. Children grow up with cuddly animal toys - sheep, cows, pigs. They are warm-blooded mammals like us. They have faces and eyes capable of expression and response. They are capable of interavtion with us. It is no surprise that people view them differently to fish and it is disingenuous to suggest that people should view them as the same. By extension, that argument implies that we should not treat an earthworm and our neighbour any differently.
I'm not saying I'm surprised that people view all these animals differently on an emotional level. I'm certainly more sad if my cat dies than if a spider does.

However if someone is genuinely interested in animal welfare as a whole, I would expect that they'd campaign for better treatment of animals in all instances and not just focus on one particular issue. I gave fish farming as one example but there are so many others in which we cause or allow animals to suffer tremendously.

On the other hand if someone were simply anti-religion but had no particular care for animals, I would be totally unsurprised to see them present the issue of Halal slaughter as an animal rights violation, whilst remaining indifferent to all other instances of animal cruelty.

But as I said, in a perfect world, we would harvest fish in an humane manner. Unfortunately this is not practical and given the evidence that they do not possess the same sentience and pain capacity as mammals, it is not regarded as a high priority by animal welfare groups or legislators. It is just a red herring () sometimes used by apologists for inhumane slaughter of mammals.
It might not be regarded as high priorty by the general public or by legislators (who would need to act if there was more outrage by the general public), but welfare groups certainly consider methods of fish harvesting to be of concern.

As I also said, just because we cannot save everyone, does that mean that we should save none? (I did actually intend for you to answer that question).
I don't think we should save nobody, just because we can't save everybody.

However, as I said, I think the fact that people would focus on Halal slaughter to a disproportionately great extent compared to every other instance of animal cruelty that have come to be considered more "normal" says something about their motives.
0
reply
quasa
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 years ago
#39
(Original post by tgrue)
Religion before suffering.
surprised no-one ever mentions kosher slaughtering as it is essentially the same method.

but regarding the question: im mid-left and dont consider it being islamaphobic. if anything, Id think your concerned about the way an animal is slaughtered or a veggie.

conversly, if I was a bit cynical, I would say something along the lines of "who cares how you eat it: if its dead, its dead" but to each person they own view i guess
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 years ago
#40
(Original post by tazarooni89)
I'm not saying I'm surprised that people view all these animals differently on an emotional level. I'm certainly more sad if my cat dies than if a spider does.

However if someone is genuinely interested in animal welfare as a whole, I would expect that they'd campaign for better treatment of animals in all instances and not just focus on one particular issue. I gave fish farming as one example but there are so many others in which we cause or allow animals to suffer tremendously.
But you just explained yourself why we don't view every event in the same light. You get more sad about your cat than a spider, others are more concerned about the suffering of lambs than fish. It's human nature to put a higher value on something we have a closer association to.

People aren't "genuinely interested in animal welfare as a whole", they are more interested in those things that thehy connect to more readily.

I think you'll find that most people who are concerned about the welfare of livestock animals are also concerned about zoos, circuses, etc. And if you asked them if they would like to see an end to unnecessary, avoidable suffering for all animals, I'm sure they would say yes.

On the other hand if someone were simply anti-religion but had no particular care for animals, I would be totally unsurprised to see them present the issue of Halal slaughter as an animal rights violation, whilst remaining indifferent to all other instances of animal cruelty.
I'm sure that there are people who look at it that way, but how does that affect the concerns of those genuinely interested in animal welfare?

It might not be regarded as high priorty by the general public or by legislators (who would need to act if there was more outrage by the general public), but welfare groups certainly consider methods of fish harvesting to be of concern.
I am also concerned about some methods of fish farming and harvesting, but I see the implementation of the law on pre-stunning to be of greater importance. Once there are no livestock animals being slaughtered without stunning, we can address another issue.

Remember that this is not some anti-religious campaign to get the law changed. The law forbidding non-stunned slaughter already exists, it's just that those few people who get around the law do so on the basis of religious exception. That is merely a coincidence. If they were claiming exception to the law on national, race or gender grounds, I would still oppose it.

I don't think we should save nobody, just because we can't save everybody.
Good. So you agree that removing religious exemption (or any other kind) from the existing law on livestock slaughter is a small but important step.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

906

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (220)
12.48%
Excited (165)
9.36%
Worried (308)
17.47%
Terrified (389)
22.06%
Meh (182)
10.32%
Confused (38)
2.16%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.84%
Impatient (217)
12.31%

Watched Threads

View All