Turn on thread page Beta

Netherlands set to ban halal/kosher slaughter without stunning watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    If you define Halal as "meat from animals that have been slaughtered in the prescribed way according to the shariah" than surely stunning the animal automatically means the meat is not strictly Halal?
    That's only the case if the animal dies before slaughter as a result of being stunned.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    That's good to hear.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Edit: Actually, just read it: The Party of Animals being non-vegetarian is actually a load of rubbish. It's impossible to consider that animals have rights and then eat them.
    I don't see the problem with giving animals some rights, even if we do eat them. Animals having rights doesn't necessarily mean they have the same rights as people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)

    Here here, though it probably is Islamaphobic propagandist, to my mind it benefits good cause, whether the chief proponents are veggies or not (why the **** should that matter Sally Mc.Simples!?)
    First of all an animal is being killed, So what difference does it make to how it's killed? Isn't killing it already giving animal the biggest suffering? Do the animals find it enjoyable getting stunned first than slaughtered?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Good. It's horribly cruel and horribly unethical.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Dustinthewind*)
    I have not actually seen any of these studies. Could you provide sources please?

    Also I said 'conclusively' in order to put across the point that small studies are not conclusive. They allow speculation, yes, but not a firm basis to validate people's claims.
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    Could you link me to some please?
    Ch0c0h0l1c was kind enough do this recently.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post30631087
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All these people talking about animal suffering are full of bullcrap.

    Either you make an animal suffer by killing it or you don't eat an animal at all.

    The whole argument is just a joke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Dustinthewind*)
    I have not actually seen any of these studies. Could you provide sources please?
    This quotes the recent study by Dr Craig Johnson.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD0Ve...&feature=feedu
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    Ch0c0h0l1c was kind enough do this recently.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...7#post30631087
    He hasn't linked to any sources
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4ttari)
    First of all an animal is being killed, So what difference does it make to how it's killed? Isn't killing it already giving animal the biggest suffering? Do the animals find it enjoyable getting stunned first than slaughtered?
    It's all about minimising pain. Isn't it OBVIOUS?
    Why is there no distinction between a painful death and a less painful death? Just because the animal is going to die doesn't mean that the method is irrelevant.
    I pray that this will triumph over the religious indignation. The whole point is that it infringes on their beliefs and practices. In a secular society, you have to abide by certain principles. Regardless of which deity you profess allegiance to.

    People die in wars. Soldiers will be killed. Does this mean that the manner of their death is irrelevant, that such accords as the Geneva Accords are fatuous? No, of course it doesn't - it prohibits grotesque and barbaric deeds, while also diminishing pain and humiliation in death. Of course, you could make the case that war should be banned anyway (ie. meat-eating should be banned too), but while there still is war (ie. meat-eating), it should be regulated and abide by some ethical conduct.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well no doubt muslims will be going round rioting and burning Dutch flags in the Arab countries, let's just hope the Dutch muslims stay peaceful. Islam says that if you choose to live in a country, you MUST respect ALL it's laws, as long as it allows freedom of religion. One could argue this constitutes a restriction of religious rights, but what muslims need to do is adapt to this whilst staying within Islamic principles. The stunning of an animal clots some blood in the area of contact. This is obviously inedible by muslims/jews since all the blood needs to be drained. The animal is alive, therefore can be decapitated and all the blood can be drained. As long as the piece where the blood clot has occured (or is likely to have occured) is removed, there shouldn't be any problem with the rest of the animal being edible.

    Also, another thing is, EU law stipulates (as far as I know) that all blood must be drained from an animal during slaughter. This doesn't go against any Islamic/Judaic guidline.
    Islam states that any meat slaughtered under the name of another god but Allah is rendered haraam, but in non-islamic slaughterhouses, it isn't slaughtered under anyone's name, let alone any god's. Therefore, technically it's not haraam, but it's not halal either. One should just pray on the meat before it's about to be eaten (Bismillah Allahu Akbar, AFAIK), which would make it halal.

    This isn't exactly a good thing happening here, I'm suspecting that if muslims weren't involved this law would not be passed, but it doesn't mean that any muslim/jew living in the netherlands must become vegetarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JAR12)
    It's all about minimising pain. Isn't it OBVIOUS?
    Why is there no distinction between a painful death and a less painful death? Just because the animal is going to die doesn't mean that the method is irrelevant.
    I pray that this will triumph over the religious indignation. The whole point is that it infringes on their beliefs and practices. In a secular society, you have to abide by certain principles. Regardless of which deity you profess allegiance to.
    I don't like beating round the bush. An animal doesn't like to die whether it halla'ld or stunned. Killing an animal is going against 'animal right's' so don't give me BS about stunning being less 'painful'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    those who claim that butchering halal/kosher way is, 'crueler', than stunning.. go get some facts before you can back that bull**** up.
    http://www.themodernreligion.com/mis..._slaughter.htm
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    He hasn't linked to any sources
    In the spoiler.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas...)
    Thank Allah for that!
    Yes. Just yes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 4ttari)
    First of all an animal is being killed, So what difference does it make to how it's killed?
    I'd love it if we could get by without feeling the need to kill anything, but being as we do, we may aswell try to minimise suffering no? If it must be done, if we fry their brains before their pain receptors have a chance to register owt methinks that's got to be a winner
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Good.

    It's always amusing to see the Islamists and apologists crawl out of the woodwork in threads like these to cough up some half-baked article on why Halal is no more cruel than normal slaughter, invariably written by a cleric 'Professor' with a name like Mohammad Al-Islam and hosted at a site like www.allahismighty.com.


    Edit: And as if by magic, whilst writing this post..

    (Original post by Humz7)
    those who claim that butchering halal/kosher way is, 'crueler', than stunning.. go get some facts before you can back that bull**** up.
    http://www.themodernreligion.com/mis..._slaughter.htm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    In the spoiler.
    It doesn't contain any hyperlinks. And if you expect me or anyone other TSR member to actively find everyone of those books to verify his claims your dreaming.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    Good.

    It's always amusing to see the Islamists and apologists crawl out of the woodwork in threads like these to cough up some half-baked article on why Halal is no more cruel than normal slaughter, invariably written by a c?l?e?r?i?c? 'Professor' with a name like Mohammad Al-Islam and hosted at a site like www.allahismighty.com.
    lol it would be better if they could find a source which wasn't Islamic or Jewish, in order to avoid the inevitable accusations of bias. Anyway do you have a source which does show that not stunning animals is more harmful?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.