No warning about halal food in Britain

[ParadigmShifter]

Sir, the implication of your post is sacrilegious to the memory of Mustafa Kemal.

And Abrakebabra?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think that there is a difference between stunning a cow and then quickly killing it, rather than letting it bleed to death whilst prayers are said over its still-living form.

Science disagrees as noted a site before. Though my gut had told me the same.

Then again, battery eggs offend me, bearing in mind the horrible conditions that the chickens are forced to endure to produce such eggs, so I'm sure I'll instantly get lumped into the "animal rights wacko" category.

Seriously, someone who sees some bad battery farm and is not at least a little disgusted by this is an animal himself.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

You get 72 virgins when you die if you obey. What's not to like?

They all play World of Warcraft.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I love LAN parties!

 

[The Imp]

Oh I don't know.. Killing and eating an animal is pretty much suffering to them...
Poor fishes, all gasping for air...

I don't think there is such a thing as zero or even little suffering when we kill and eat animals... And in any case, stunning them or slitting their throat both seem to have some scientific backing that they reduce pain to the animal.



True, but my point was how it was shortsighted of SS-18 ICBM to quickly dismiss the source just because it came from a Pro-Islamic origin.
If the German Courts find this an acceptable piece of evidence to use in their laws, then they must certainly have some weight to them and are not immediately "obviously bias", just because it comes from a pro-Islamic source.

Which is why I am a vegetarian. I win.

 

[The Imp]

Have you ever considered that what animal rights activists consider best practices aren't necessarily so?

... huh?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I can go and make myself a bacon sandwich, I win.

 

[warpus]

I can go and make myself a bacon sandwich, I win.

Indeed

 

[Traitorfish]

I can go and make myself a bacon sandwich, I win.

You have been one-upped, my friend!

 

[Squonk]

I ran across this, and thought it's interesting, although it only influences one of the islamic denomination

Fatwas from Leader's Office in Qom

Question:

Our today�s question is related to the situation of slaughtering animals in an Islamic way to get halal meat in a Nonmuslim country. As you know in Europe we have some problems in this regard. Can you send us some fatwas about this issue? Especially following questions are relevant for us:

1. According some countries rules the slaughtering of animals is forbidden, if the animal is not intoxicated (anesthetized) before slaughtering (for example in Switzerland). Is this method of slaughtering permitted for Muslims and is such a meat "halal"?
2. If the method of question one is not permitted for muslims, but the countries rules do not allow slaughtering in an Islamic way (and import is not possible), should Muslims than live without meat?
3. We know, that the rules of the country, in which we live, have to be respected in this regard, is a vegetarian life in such cases acceptabel or what other possibilities do muslims than have?

Answer:

1) There is no objection in doing so as long as the animal is alive during slaughtering.

2&3) It is obligatory to slaughter according to shar`i (legal) conditions and it has been mentioned that mere anaesthetization would not harm its permissibility (benign halal).

Wallahul`Alim.

http://www.khamenei.de/fatwas/further.htm

wouldn't that solve the problem that animal rights activists have with halal slaughter? I mean, if the animal is anaesthetised, and it feels no pain, there should be no problem (unless one thinks that animals shouldn't be slaughtered in any way).

 

[Onionsoilder]

1) There is no objection in doing so as long as the animal is alive during slaughtering.

Well that's important, I guess. I would hate for my butcher to kill dead animals.

 

[Squonk]

they phrased it very badly, true

 

[Maimonides]

I ran across this, and thought it's interesting, although it only influences one of the islamic denomination

Fatwas from Leader's Office in Qom

Question:

Our today�s question is related to the situation of slaughtering animals in an Islamic way to get halal meat in a Nonmuslim country. As you know in Europe we have some problems in this regard. Can you send us some fatwas about this issue? Especially following questions are relevant for us:

1. According some countries rules the slaughtering of animals is forbidden, if the animal is not intoxicated (anesthetized) before slaughtering (for example in Switzerland). Is this method of slaughtering permitted for Muslims and is such a meat "halal"?
2. If the method of question one is not permitted for muslims, but the countries rules do not allow slaughtering in an Islamic way (and import is not possible), should Muslims than live without meat?
3. We know, that the rules of the country, in which we live, have to be respected in this regard, is a vegetarian life in such cases acceptabel or what other possibilities do muslims than have?

Answer:

1) There is no objection in doing so as long as the animal is alive during slaughtering.

2&3) It is obligatory to slaughter according to shar`i (legal) conditions and it has been mentioned that mere anaesthetization would not harm its permissibility (benign halal).

Wallahul`Alim.

http://www.khamenei.de/fatwas/further.htm

wouldn't that solve the problem that animal rights activists have with halal slaughter? I mean, if the animal is anaesthetised, and it feels no pain, there should be no problem (unless one thinks that animals shouldn't be slaughtered in any way).

That's interesting. Kosher also forbids carrion.

I've seen various meat packing operations & been in the business for many years, but I've never heard of anesthetizing animals before slaughter. By "anesthesia" they are referring to the various methods that are used to render animals unconscious such such as electrical stunning, blunt force to the head, nails driven into the skull, etc. before the animal is finally dispatched. They are not talking about the anesthesia used in human medicine.

Kosher does not permit those forms of "anesthesia" because they cause more & needless suffering. It's interesting that the Muslim fatwa allows, for example, electrical stunning before slaughter. It's my impression that halal slaughter is more concerned with thankfulness to G-d than alleviating animal suffering. In Judaism, the thankfulness part comes before & after eating the meat, not at the time of slaughter.

It looks like that fatwa does indeed solve this issue for Muslims. Jews who observe kashrut in the UK are still screwed though if they change the laws.

 

[Masada]

wouldn't that solve the problem that animal rights activists have with halal slaughter? I mean, if the animal is anaesthetised, and it feels no pain, there should be no problem (unless one thinks that animals shouldn't be slaughtered in any way).

Eh, Shia. Would be a reasonable work around though to be honest.

 

[Squonk]

that's why I said it only concerns one of islamic denominations: ayatollah's opinion will not influence the opinion of sunni muslims much.

 

[Arwon]

A Jordanian princess, Alia, is quite involved in campaigning for more humane interpretations of halal slaughter - in particular, for stunning prior to slaughter. Google should provide some information - Here's one article she's written.

 

[aronnax]

Oh, so pointing out possible bias means immediately dismissing a study. Good to know. Also, what do lawmakers know about criticizing scientific studies?

Link to the study, but to a translation done by someone obviously biased about the issue. Wonderful.

If this doesn't sound like dismissal, don't know what does. But since you didn't dismiss it, I'll retract my statement.

Second Part: The whole point of Scientific Studies is so that even people outside the field of science can learn from it too. Lawmakers, who analyse evidence for a living to prove their cases, will obviously not take the study at face value and of course, see if it has weight. If they didn't, then they are pretty bad judges