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

All foods should be labelled 'halal' or 'haraam' watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SAK.A)
    Why would you not eat it?
    I don't like the idea of my meat being prayed over by a Muslim? Also...the whole humane aspect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iqbal007)
    Trust me it is, because some E numbers have animal in them, but the food is still labelled vegatarian :/
    Utter crap!

    Here is a list of all E numbers.
    Apart from cochineal tell me which have animal in them?
    http://www.ukfoodguide.net/enumeric.htm
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    Utter crap!

    Here is a list of all E numbers.
    Apart from cochineal tell me which have animal in them?
    http://www.ukfoodguide.net/enumeric.htm
    http://special.worldofislam.info/Food/numbers.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glee)
    Slaughtering is to be done from the front of the neck, between the throat and the head of the breast bone (Libba). The throat/oesophagus (Mirree), windpipe/trachea (Halkoom) and the two jugular veins (Wadijan) are cut in the neck without severing the spinal cord. This cut severes the arteries to the brain of the animal, thus depriving the brain of blood supply. As a result, the brain loses consciousness due to insufficient oxygen. This renders the animal unconscious, causing the animal the least amount of pain.

    The goal is to slaughter the animal, limiting the amount of pain the animal will endure.

    Additionally, Muslims are enjoined to slaughter their livestock by slitting the animal's throat in a swift and merciful manner, saying, “ Bismillah Allah-u-Akbar” "In the name of God, God is Most Great." This is in acknowledgement that the life of this creature if taken by God's permission to meet one's lawful need for food. The animal is then bled completely.

    source: http://www.ehalal.org/zabiha.html

    Hope this helped
    I should have put it differently, I understand what happens, but I don't get the point of it.

    Slaughter by slitting the throat and keeping the spinal cord intact would logically seem to cause the animal more suffering than regular methods. There is some time between the act and the animal losing consciousness. In this time the animal is suffering. Imagine having your throat cut while you are still alive. You will be trying to breathe, your body will be spasming, yet you won't be able to do anything about it, until eventually (after a good 10-20 seconds) you fall unconscious. The argument that it causes the animal less suffering just makes no sense whatsoever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And food companies should comply with this because...?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think we should poll 1000 people on each product and if 75% like something then have a good label on it, and if 75% dont' like it, put a crap label on it.

    that does a greater good for a larger portion of the population than halal/non-halaal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 8086)
    I should have put it differently, I understand what happens, but I don't get the point of it.

    Slaughter by slitting the throat and keeping the spinal cord intact would logically seem to cause the animal more suffering than regular methods. There is some time between the act and the animal losing consciousness. In this time the animal is suffering. Imagine having your throat cut while you are still alive. You will be trying to breathe, your body will be spasming, yet you won't be able to do anything about it, until eventually (after a good 10-20 seconds) you fall unconscious. The argument that it causes the animal less suffering just makes no sense whatsoever.
    This.
    Ritual slaughter is utter barbarism. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is a liar.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I purchased some bacon the other day because it did not state on the packet that it was not suibtable for vegitarians
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As a nut allergy sufferer I would like to say that it is difficult enough getting companies to put allergy advice on labels for genuine medical reasons - why should we force them to do due to a minority religion?

    I am of the opinion that the market will provide labelling in areas where it would increase custom. It shouldn't be compulsory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 8086)
    I should have put it differently, I understand what happens, but I don't get the point of it.

    Slaughter by slitting the throat and keeping the spinal cord intact would logically seem to cause the animal more suffering than regular methods. There is some time between the act and the animal losing consciousness. In this time the animal is suffering. Imagine having your throat cut while you are still alive. You will be trying to breathe, your body will be spasming, yet you won't be able to do anything about it, until eventually (after a good 10-20 seconds) you fall unconscious. The argument that it causes the animal less suffering just makes no sense whatsoever.
    All right, I'll try to elaborate. Also your mention about 10-20 secs, where was that written?

    Remember the only elements of the body that if harmed, will inflict pain on the individual are the spinal cord and if blood drains into the brain, in relation to this scenario specifically.

    I'm no scientist myself but this video will be of use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5aXZuOwtyE Have a watch from 1:42 to the end (the lectuurer also contradicts the often-fabricated misconception of the slaughter being a merciless kill).

    Luckily there is plentiful published scientific research done and information collected regarding slaughtering in Islam online. I'm not talking about unreliable sources.


    *source: http://www.themodernreligion.com/mis..._slaughter.htm
    Follow the link for experimental evidence.

    This is quoted from the listed link:
    Results and Discussion:

    I - Halal 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 a 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 maximum blood from the body: 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 the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood inthe meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.

    (Many thanks to Muslim Students Organization - University of Miami
    )

    Hope this helped. I've made sure I've sourced as well...that's important remember
    One more thing, its good to have a self-inquiring mind, Islam encourages muslims to question - it only reinforces our understanding. And the religion has nothing to hide. I'm enlightened.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hamesh)
    That I don't think his opinion matters. .
    I still don't see how that follows. It still has nothing to do with his pointing out that freedom of speech goes both ways.

    Equally? I'm not a particular well-read on this field, but it's quite clear that it is interpreted differently by various countries.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...s#Reservations

    However, my argument would be consistent for every country but atm, we're talking about halaal meat and the UK.
    By 'equally' I meant 'as well' - i.e. they're still subject to the same rules, even if not under the authority of the EU. In any case, seen as I still don't understand the substance of your argument, this is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glee)
    All right, I'll try to elaborate. Also your mention about 10-20 secs, where was that written?

    Remember the only elements of the body that if harmed, will inflict pain on the individual are the spinal cord and if blood drains into the brain, in relation to this scenario specifically.

    .... I'm enlightened.
    The 'science' behind this sounds suspicious, although I recently read an article in New Humanist magazine arguing Western slaughter may be less humane than we assume. Still, I'm suspicious of these because:
    a) Nadir has demonstrated a complete lack of intelligence, willingness to twist translations, and ignorance on matters scientific before, e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRs8XmzjqNc
    (the second claim, i.e. the moon one, is exceptionally idiotic, given the Ancient Greeks' knowledge of this)
    b) the equating of blood supply with neural sensation seems both simplified and tendentious - i.e. the evidence and knowledge on this might be ambiguous or incomplete, but because it supports the interpretation he wants, he announced that must be the truth
    c) The interpretation of the study you cite claims it is 'unhygenic' to eat blood. This is plainly a culturally-loaded statement (given that Westerners are rather fond of congealed pig's blood, i.e. black pudding), not a scientific judgment. If the evidence really were so clear-cut on the suffering in slaughter, I doubt the EU's agencies, whose standards for slaughter are entirely dictated by animal suffering rather than tradition, would continue to defy this truth.
    d) I can find no reference to the original study behind this, presumably ground-breaking, research. A google search reveals only references on websites aimed at promoting ritual slaughter. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this study was either non-existent, misinterpreted, or not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    e) I was unaware that a reliable way to measure other creatures' pain existed; I thought the lack of this was the very problem faced by those trying to prove one method of slaughter superior to another.

    It may well be that throat-cutting is more pleasant for the animal than stunning. The attempt to discover whether it is, however, is not helped by this kind of ideologically-driven 'proof'.

    Also, as an aside: people claim this proves that the Qur'an is true, and wiser than modern standards, because Muhammad said one must always be merciful, so he cannot have recommended an unmerciful practice. However, if it were conclusively proven tomorrow that throat-slitting is far more painful than paralysis, would that affect your faith at all? Would you stick to your standards and say this casts doubt on your evidence-base for believing in the Qur'an; persist in your faith and believe science must be mistaken because the Qur'an disagrees; or would you accept that the Qur'an is a culturally-dependent text so that, e.g., for its time, it was progressive, but nowadays, paralysing is more merciful, so is what we should do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Yes, no-one in the UK should be allowed to eat foods that your religion bans, even though they don't follow your religion.

    idiot.
    Exactly!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't a Muslim country so no they shouldn't. Plus I'm sure most Muslims would know if they can eat certain foods or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niall c)
    The 'science' behind this sounds suspicious, although I recently read an article in New Humanist magazine arguing Western slaughter may be less humane than we assume. Still, I'm suspicious of these because:
    a) Nadir has demonstrated a complete lack of intelligence, willingness to twist translations, and ignorance on matters scientific before, e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRs8XmzjqNc
    (the second claim, i.e. the moon one, is exceptionally idiotic, given the Ancient Greeks' knowledge of this)
    b) the equating of blood supply with neural sensation seems both simplified and tendentious - i.e. the evidence and knowledge on this might be ambiguous or incomplete, but because it supports the interpretation he wants, he announced that must be the truth
    c) The interpretation of the study you cite claims it is 'unhygenic' to eat blood. This is plainly a culturally-loaded statement (given that Westerners are rather fond of congealed pig's blood, i.e. black pudding), not a scientific judgment. If the evidence really were so clear-cut on the suffering in slaughter, I doubt the EU's agencies, whose standards for slaughter are entirely dictated by animal suffering rather than tradition, would continue to defy this truth.
    d) I can find no reference to the original study behind this, presumably ground-breaking, research. A google search reveals only references on websites aimed at promoting ritual slaughter. It is hard to resist the conclusion that this study was either non-existent, misinterpreted, or not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    e) I was unaware that a reliable way to measure other creatures' pain existed; I thought the lack of this was the very problem faced by those trying to prove one method of slaughter superior to another.

    It may well be that throat-cutting is more pleasant for the animal than stunning. The attempt to discover whether it is, however, is not helped by this kind of ideologically-driven 'proof'.

    Also, as an aside: people claim this proves that the Qur'an is true, and wiser than modern standards, because Muhammad said one must always be merciful, so he cannot have recommended an unmerciful practice. However, if it were conclusively proven tomorrow that throat-slitting is far more painful than paralysis, would that affect your faith at all? Would you stick to your standards and say this casts doubt on your evidence-base for believing in the Qur'an; persist in your faith and believe science must be mistaken because the Qur'an disagrees; or would you accept that the Qur'an is a culturally-dependent text so that, e.g., for its time, it was progressive, but nowadays, paralysing is more merciful, so is what we should do?
    Hey. Sorry if you dont mind me asking what are your qualifications?
    Unfortunately, this is a forum. Even if it you are in a position to discuss your theories (assuming those theories when put to test would most probably be correct), I wouldnt trust you even so as you have nothing stopping you to put them forward. No lawsuits, no one really to contradict you.
    Predictions and theories fabricated on here arent going to published for the world and its scientists to deem right or wrong. I've quoted and sourced information that has been put to test, I havent seen anything contradicting it. So if I was to pick between your theories, or the (certified) research online (and if you explore this concept more, you'll find the explanation is more or less of the exactly the same content and therefore is constant and verified), arguing between the two would be rhetoric. I'm kind of not buying what you have to say now as a result.
    Now I'm not a scientist, so I cant accurately argue your points. However, in some time, I'll be in uni studying a science-based degree. I'll ask and discuss it with some of the non-racially motivated prof. and colleagues. Time will tell, but as for now, I'm decided.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the food at my college today was labelled halal, mostly the same people who would of eat it anyway eat it.. the non muslims generally didn't care and I don't think the muslims were really convinced.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glee)
    Hey. Sorry if you dont mind me asking what are your qualifications?
    Unfortunately, this is a forum. Even if it you are in a position to discuss your theories (assuming those theories when put to test would most probably be correct), I wouldnt trust you even so as you have nothing stopping you to put them forward. No lawsuits, no one really to contradict you.
    Predictions and theories fabricated on here arent going to published for the world and its scientists to deem right or wrong. I've quoted and sourced information that has been put to test, I havent seen anything contradicting it. So if I was to pick between your theories, or the (certified) research online (and if you explore this concept more, you'll find the explanation is more or less of the exactly the same content and therefore is constant and verified), arguing between the two would be rhetoric. I'm kind of not buying what you have to say now as a result.
    Now I'm not a scientist, so I cant accurately argue your points. However, in some time, I'll be in uni studying a science-based degree. I'll ask and discuss it with some of the non-racially motivated prof. and colleagues. Time will tell, but as for now, I'm decided.
    http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html

    Read this and try again. Your attitude is precisely the opposite of the scientific one you extol. Scientists do not 'decide' if something is 'right or wrong'.

    I put my arguments out on no authority but their own; it is a central tenent of Western thought, you may have noticed, that people should be able to decide of their own accord on their opinions. It's nothing to do with you 'trusting' my opinion; man up and start thinking for yourself.

    I'll try to spell out the core problem I have with your argument: you cannot provide the original study in question. I have searched, and only found several Muslim, pro-halal sites citing it (presumably copying each other; the fact that they all agree in every detail actually undermines the credibility of their conclusion, contrary to what you assume); I cannot find a copy of the original study. You have therefore not sourced information that has been 'put to the test'; nor have you provided 'certified' evidence. This is suspicious. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would be aware that someone saying a study says something proves nothing. If it's not been peer-reviewed, any number of methodolgical flaws and biases could undermine its conclusions. Even if it were, it would have to be considered in the context of other studies on the same area. It is precisely unscientific to jump on a single, as-yet unsourced study, and claim this proves that this or that scientific theory is correct.

    Further, contrary to your question about choosing between my 'theory' and this supposed study's, I have put forward no theories whatsoever. I have merely suggested reason that we should doubt the so-called research you are citing. It's called scepticism; look it up. Once again, if you had the slightest acquaintance with science or statistics, you would be aware that scientific theories do not rest on one study; a subject is not tested once and then the eternal answer declared; science is messier than that.

    The onus is now on you to, firstly, find the original study and, secondly, read up a little on science before you attempt to lecture me on why your dogmatic misunderstanding of the subject disproves everything anyone else says.

    And excuse me, what precisely is the insinuation in your comment 'non-racially motivated prof. and colleagues'?

    P.S. - thanks for the neg, I really care about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In terms of the population overall, you'd get a bit of tabloid stink (nothing new there) and silly people bearing it, a big collective sigh of annoyance from the food industry, and a whole new argument and endless committees about what standard of Halal to assume. No biggie either way, but at the end of the day, you still might not have much faith in the end result in terms of packaging given the controversies described.

    (Statement of personal bias: non-religious, not in the food industry, generally not affected.)

    Incidentally, the last trustworthy numbers we have on the religious make-up of the UK population are sadly from the 2001 census (although more up to date answers should be in once they've processed the returns from this one). At that point, 2.8% of the British population described themselves as Muslim (compared to 71.8% Christian, 15.1% no religion, 7.8% religion not stated - a good proportion of whom would have stuck something silly down, 1% Hindu, 0.6% Sikh, 0.5% Jewish etc.). Doubtless the number of Muslims in the UK has increased in the last ten years, but still, I'd agree with prior posters that it's probably not more than 5%.

    Which means that this may be unlikely to get through even if useful, because the Muslim population aren't really large enough to form much of a voting block, nor (I believe) do they have a great deal of representation in parliament.

    I can see the frustrations of the OP with the voluntary approach. But I'm really not sure that legislation is the answer here; nor, even if it were beneficial, do I think it's a realistic prospect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What about my own religion, which tells me to eat only meat, supermarket should label everything that isn't or does not contain meat, as vegetarian.

    That's as reasonable as your post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'm from Ilford too x

    only difference is that i'm white
 
 
 
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.