Posted by dealer3
An American in Makkah
The Hajj experience of Muslim convert Michael Wolfe
I am a Muslim. I revere the same God as my Christian mother and my Jewish father. Allah is simply the Arabic word for the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. I find the absence of priests and rabbis attractive. Islam means acknowledging the oneness of God, surrendering to it, cooperating with the way things are. Being a Muslim, God is as near as the veins in my neck. During the Hajj each year, millions of faithful come to Mecca. The men and women wear simple lengths of unstitched cloth. The garments are a symbol. The person who wears them agrees not to harm plants and animals or fellow pilgrims. No arguments, no violence. We agree to keep the peace. The garments are a great leveler too. Who can tell rich from poor? Millions Descend on Mecca Here I join people from all over the earth, all these human beings drawn together by the call of an idea, by the oneness of God. We have left daily life behind and come to a place hardly belonging to this world, a place filled by the almost tangible presence of God. To preserve its sanctity and protect pilgrims, the sacred territory around Mecca is forbidden to all but Muslims. It lies hidden in the mountains of Saudi Arabia 50 miles from the Red Sea, a modern city of 1.2 million people. To walk around the block in Mecca is to walk around the world. I step out the door and for 15 yards, I’m in Indonesia. Down the street past a couple of stores and it’s Africa. Pakistan is just around the corner and then I’m in Bangladesh. A vast majority of the world’s one billion Muslims—80 percent—now live outside the Middle East. There are more than five million in the United States.
Muslims Perform Sacred Duties The duties of the Hajj are symbolic of the story and obligations of Islam. Before prayer, Muslims wash, representing ritual purity. The walk around the Ka’ba—the black stone block in the great mosque—is an expression of our desire to put God at the center of our lives. Pilgrims also make a journey to Mina and to the plain of Arafat, 13 miles outside of Mecca. Making our way on foot, we trade city streets and buildings for tents and carpets on the sand of the barren plain, giving up our usual comforts, getting back to basics. On the plain of Arafat, we perform the central obligation of the pilgrimage, to be here together from noon until sunset. There is no ceremony. We stroll, we pray, we meditate. The Hajj goes on inside the hearts and thoughts of each of us. This is a rehearsal for that day of judgment. How will we account for our acts? Have I injured anyone? Have I been grateful enough for the simple gifts of life, water, food, friends, family and the air I breath? Before leaving Mecca, we visit the Ka’ba one last time. For most of us, this will be our last glimpse of the shrine. There is an old proverb—before you visit Mecca, it beckons you. When you leave it behind, it calls you forever.
extracted from the source:
http://towardsislam.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=187&hl=
_________________
WHY? INTERPAL RESPECT Islam dealer3@hotmail.com
[ This Message was edited by: dealer3 on 2006-01-19 22:16 ]
[ This Message was edited by: dealer3 on 2006-01-20 18:20 ]
Posted by axxxr
This reminds me of Yvonne Ridley who was a Sunday Express reporter who got captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan she was held prisoner by the Taliban she was so impressed by Islam she converted upon her release,now you would think such an experience would put someone off Islam but no,she now works as an active ambassador for the faith..You can read her vonne Ridley interview or vist her site: www.yvonneridley.com
Posted by dealer3
yes, she was also a BBC reporter at the time of her capture...she had heard every evil thing you could hear about in regards to the taliban, but when she was captured, she was treated so well and taken care of, she couldnt understand why all these lies were being written and circuated amongst right-wing newspapers all over the world...she looked into Islam and now is a muslim...
she does a show called, 'the agenda', on sky digital channel 836...every morning i think...covers all the news etc etc...
brilliant person!
peace with you all...
Posted by axxxr
Also have a read about \"John Walker Lindh\" the American who became a muslim and then joined the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The public has heard little about John Walker Lindh since the media frenzy over his capture in the winter of 2001.On January 19, John's father Frank Lindh delivered an address at The Commonwealth Club of California. Lindh explained that he and his family have avoided the press for nearly four years; he now wants the public to understand the truth about his son, who he says didn't stand a chance of getting a fair trial in the emotional days following 9/11. Immediately characterized as a \"terrorist\" by the press and politicians, Lindh faced a jury in Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Pentagon. The trial date scheduled by the judge was the anniversary of 9/11. Initially facing 11 criminal counts most relating to terrorism the only charge that John Lindh was found guilty of was violating economic sanctions by supporting the Taliban government, for which the 20-year-old was sentenced to 20 years in prison. FULL ARTICLE
Posted by dealer3
very intresting...i think it is typical...of goverments like America, so-called 'democracies'...to be just and fair in anyway...they are simply harsh to scare/deter other people from doing anything aginst them...or even thinking about anything against them...even if it is just and non-violent! but now they are worried...because they are begining to find that people are not afraid...not even of death...people will start to do the right thing...even if it means they will be punished..."no fear"..."stand up and speak up"...is the way to move forward...most definately!
Posted by amnesia
I went to Yvonne's site, saw this picture.
It really shows you that those US's Army guys are fighting blindly!
Posted by max99
i dnt see the point of soo many similar threads about this topic, like trying to prove stuff
Posted by solidsingh
i think its good that everyone wears the same so you cant tell who is rich/poor because in todays society everyone is judged by how big there wallet is which shouldnt be the case
"The person who wears them agrees not to harm plants and animals or fellow pilgrims" muslims kill animals in the halal way? im pretty sure thats harming animals no offence
Posted by amnesia
dont look too deep into things, he was sharing something to those who care.
Plus I didn't see any thread that was about the same topic.
Sorry if it offends you.
@solid, it means harm for no reason or in a way that could be considered torture.
There are numerous points in the Quraan that says we should eat animals (except pork) if we want. And that point in that article is saying that during that time period when you go to Mecca you should be sure to not harm anything, but it wasn't pertaining to food. (is that understandble? sorry if my explanation was off)
_________________
iPod Shuffle for Sale, brand new. Freedom of speech anyone? The Cheapest UK Contracts Guaranteed!
[ This Message was edited by: amnesia on 2006-01-29 15:51 ]
Posted by solidsingh
i think i understand
the quran says halal is not harming?
Posted by amnesia
well, it's like I said before, Halal is killing in the name of God and when killing the animal for food, it is killed with the minimum amount of pain as possible. (or at least as we think is possible).
Like in some Animal processing plants, they hang sheep by the legs and slit their throats to let them bleed to death, Islam is against that, an animal would be killed with one swift movement.
To vegetarians, they might say its still killing an animal, but from an objective point of view, at least it's an attempt to cause the minimal amount of harm, for those who are meat eaters.
Posted by dealer3
halal meat...is not just any old meat cut in any old way...
ask ur butcher how they kill the animal to sell to you...today in the 21st century...there are many methods of slaughtering animals...commonly they may just shoot the poor thing, they may catch it and bleed it to death, or most commonly today they may electricute it...electricuting is probably the most common, and science has showed that the poor animals brain explodes internally due to the power of the electricution...this to me is cold blooded murder!
today it is a scientifically proven fact...i am not making it up...u can research and find out for yourself...
when meat is halal, it is cut in a special kind of way...the usual stuff, but the place where the animal is cut from...is usually just below the neck...or somewhere thereabouts...scientific facts, scientific research has showed that by cutting from this place, the animal loses it feeling of pain...therefore the rest of the process is absoloutly not hurting the animal in anyway...so overall the animal feels less pay cutting the 'halal' way than any other way...
remember this is all scientifically proven...
if u wanna to learn more about this concept or anyother...
http://www.aswatalislam.net/D[....]leID=2054&TitleName=Zakir_Naik
this speaker is great...listin to words...if u go slightly down the page...theres alot of stuff on meat or being vegeterian and so on...worth a listen if u got time...
kindest regards
Posted by scotsboyuk
I would have thought that the most humane way of killing an animal for food these days would be to shoot it in the head, resulting in near instantaneous death. Furthermore I would have said that it would also be humane to only kill the necessary number of animals that are required instead of killing more than are required and thus having meat go to waste and hence cause suffering and death to animals unnecessarily.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-29 17:18 ]
Posted by dealer3
i agree that animals should not ever be put into pain and/or suffering...
im not sure about shooting an animal at its head...but it is A SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN fact that the way halal meat is cut, its causes less pain to the animal than nearly all modern methods...
just to clear confusion/misunderstanding...
halal meat...is not a special type of meat or anything....
if meat is halal it means the animal in question has been cut in an ethical way...which will cause the animal the least amount of pain possible...
this is the reason why muslims only eat (or are suppose to eat) halal meat...because most other ways hamr the animal more...
islam is a way of life...which has the utmost respect for everything...everything that is islamically wrong, is generally morally and ethically wrong...
kindest regards
Posted by axxxr
And just for those who don't know,Halal Meat for muslims and Kosher for jewish people is sacrificed in the exact same ways as described in the Quran and the Torah and both religions have allowed consumption of each others meat and all food products.
Posted by london-uk
| Quote: |
|
Your statement is plainly ridiculous!
I have been to an abattoir, which specialised in slaughtering cattle. The process is as follows: 1) The animal (which is about to be killed) is led to a room segregated from the other animals. 2) A device (similar in principle to a pistol or revolver) is swiftly placed on its head and fired. 3) A steel bolt pierces the skull and brain of the animal. 4) The animal dies within milliseconds.
Even if your claim (which is purportedly: "...SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN..."), that "...the way halal meat is cut, its causes less pain to the animal than nearly all modern methods..." could be taken for fact, you neglect to consider the sentient qualities of an animal.
If you could provide evidence that all the pain receptors within the nervous system of the animal had somehow been disabled by way of the halal method of slaughter, I would be very interested (as would quite a large proportion of the international scientific community).
If we assumed that your postulation regarding the negation of pain caused to an animal slaughtered by halal methods was in in fact true, then you completely disregard the aforementioned sentient aspect of the creature. Whilst it may not feel pain, it would seem likely that it would experience that it was being killed, which in my mind would seem to be vastly distressing to any creature, be it human or bovine. A swift death would seem preferable.
A virtually instantaneous death is achieved by way of modern methods of animal slaughter. The prolonged process of death provided by halal slaughtering can never be preferred when considering the welfare of the animal (I realise that considering an animal's welfare in conjunction with its killing could seem paradoxical, however the suffering of the animal would be minimised by a swift death).
If your religion requires that animals be slaughtered in a certain way, then that is fine with me (to a certain degree). However, it is ridiculous to attempt to put this method of slaughter forward as a humane option.
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
And your basically saying that a bullet through the head of the animal is not painfull for the creature?..from all the books ive read it says that death is painfull in all living creatures regardless of how quick it is..Maybe they do die in a milisecond or however long it takes for the creature to die,but i have read that animals which are slaughtered the Islamic or Jewish way suffer less aswell because the way the knife us used the blood drains away from the brain at a excellerated rate which in turn puts the animal into sleep and then death....somehow the idea of blowing the animals brains out with a automatic weapon does'nt seem like a painless and humane way to slaughter the creature.
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
A shot to the head, which induces death on a near instantaneous level will inherently cause less physical suffering to an animal than a slaughter method which lasts longer. The shorter the time span of the suffering for the animal the better.
Wrapping the bullet method in emotive language is disingeneous; I would very much doubt whether those working in slaughterhouses are treating the killing of animals in quite the gangster like terms you have portrayed. We had someone who has actually been to a slaughterhouse explain the process above and it sounds about as humane as we can hope for with the means we have.
An interesting point was raised about the sentience displayed by the animal. I am not a vet or a zoologist by any means, but I know that most animals (humans included) would likely be scared if someone were cutting them open with a knife whether they could feel pain or not. It would seem to me that that is also suffering and that if one can end the animal's life as quickly as possible then one will reduce both the physical suffering and the state of fear the animal may be experiencing.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 02:07 ]
Posted by max_wedge
agree scots. another forgotten aspect about this debate: halal meat must also be killed by muslim and in muslim lands. Currently Australia exports meat live to muslim countries so that it can be killed "halal" way. The trouble is the animals are kept in appaling inhumane conditions for months while they travel overseas to their destination. It is much cheaper and more humane to kill an animal and transport it frozen, than to make it suffer for long months. Not only that the animals are sick and many die on the journey.
So where's the compasion of muslim countries that demand we transport the meat to them live? Because fundamentalists DEMAND that the meat must be slaughtered by the strick standards of halal, the animals suffer more than they need to.
I agree that halal started off as a means of painless killing, in the days before modern technology had reliable quick means of death. But the muslim halal tradition is stuck in the past. Because of religious fundamentalism, muslims won't update the halal method, so animals must suffer more than necessary.
I have nothing against open minded muslims, but fundementalism is not about faith but about dogma. I don't like it and I think it's wrong that they won't allow the meat to be killed prior to transport. It's disgusting and narrow minded.
Posted by scotsboyuk
@max_wedge
With respect let's not bandy around terms like 'fundamentalism' and 'narrow minded' as generalisations please. Observing religious practices does not necessarily make one a fundamentalist.
The religious belief should not be the issue here since it is looking to minimise suffering. That isn't a bad thing and many Muslims will likely be in favour of halal because of that; it seeks to lessen the suffering of the animal being killed for food.
Where I would question the halal method is if there is a viable alternative that causes less suffering to the animal. The transportation issue is important though since it too can cause suffering; the suffering of the animal is not just in the final moments of its life.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 04:10 ]
Posted by amnesia
@max.. hmm I think at the end of the day it comes down to the company exporting and not the Muslim's wants.
They could just as easily ask a Muslim person to come over and slaughter there and then freeze the food and send it as you said.
Posted by solidsingh
halal/ slaughtering / slitting throats im sorry guys but it all means the same to me no offence. at the end of the day your still killing it when you dont need to
Posted by scotsboyuk
@solidsingh
One needs to eat, animals provide a source of food. I don't see killing an animal as being any different to killing a plant for food, they are both living beings with as much right to exist as any other living being and they are both part of a natural cycle which involves some creatures eating others. Our bodies are designed to injest both meat and vegetation; that is how nature intended us.
Posted by max_wedge
@scots, I don't see religious dogma the same as genuine spiritual needs. What I'm getting at is that the purpose of halal has been over the years forgotten and replaced with rigid rules. If the purpose of halal is to prevent suffering, then causing more suffering to prevent suffering doesn't make sense. Obviously something about the practice of halal needs looking at. I'm not saying the concept of halal is false, but that the original purpose has been replaced with human politics and no longer fullfills the true spiritual purpose of halal. Shouldn't a muslim who cares about the spiritual requirement of halal, be interested in ensuring it is still practiced true to that spiritua principle?
Regarding the transportation, they are prepared to buy our suffering livestock. If they were interested in spirituality and not economics, they would not accept our livestock. BTW, there are moves here to ban the companies responsible from transporting livestock in such appalling conditions, but again economics (aka greed) resist those efforts. It's too expensive to transport them humanely, which would mean we would lose the market.
So a combination of greed amongst business people and governments, both muslim and western, ensures the barbarous transport conditions continue.
I'm not against any religious practice, but if it contradicts itself then I believe it's not unreasonable to claim that the practice has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists (who are in bed with business interests) and no longer represents the true spiritual purpose.
I believe it's anyone's right to hold traditional religous view points, but when traditions become irelevant, the youth of society will cast them aside. Doing so doesn't mean they are abandoning their religion or faith, it just means they are deciding to have faith in their own moral compass. If a religous practice is changed in response to social and technological change (for example to use newer technology to lessen suffering even more than possible through traditional halal), then the practice retains it's purity, if it is not changed it becomes dogmatic and irrelevant. I'm not prejudiced in this regard. I believe the same thing about all religions, beliefs and social structures.
Posted by max_wedge
| Quote: |
|
Actually no. The meat has to land live on muslim soil.
But I agree about the Australian companies exporting the meat. They should provide the meat at a price that incudes the cost of humane transport. Unfortunantly neither they nor the muslim buyers are interested in this solution....
However, in doing some research I have found out that the there are other reasons for halal also:
Quote:
"Islam has introduced the concept of slaughter, whereby a naturally halal animal would have to be properly slaughtered prior to consumption. The act of slaughtering is to ensure the quality of meat and to avoid any microbial contamination. For example, a dead but unslaughtered animal is normally associated with disease. Most disease originate from animal's blood, therefore, slaughtering is mandatory to ensure that complete drainage of blood from the animal's body - thus, minimizing the chance of microbial infection. This is compatible with the overall concept of cleanliness that is always emphasised in Islam."
As far as that goes, they are actually claiming biological reasons, not religious. The cleanliness reasoning relates to a time in muslim history before there was a full understanding of the nature of disease and biological processes, combined with the harsh heat and environments often found in Mulim countries. In other words, they could only ensure food was safe by observing halal. With modern food storage techniques it is safe not to observer halal fully. Again, it comes down to dogma versus original purpose.
Posted by JK
I read somewhere once about the the difference of killing an animal in the head compared to cutting its throat.
If I remember correctly its got to do with the drainage of blood like Maxs post said, the easiest way of doing that is by cutting the 3 main veins and allowing all the blood to flow out...
There was also something along the lines when an animal is shot in its head, the brain is shut down all the organs shut down after, but slower and can cause rupturing of the organs within the animal making it poisonous and also uncomfortable to the animal...
Posted by scotsboyuk
@max
Perhaps that is true, but is is true for everyone who practices halal? I don't know enough about the issue to make a definite statement on the matter, but I would imagine that it is possible for there to be people who do not see/practice halal in terms of dogma. Having said that if there is a method of killing an animal that causes less suffering than halal (whether it is practiced through dogma or otherwise) then I think that should be used instead.
As for the issue of transportation some people may have no choice but to accept such animals if they have no other means of acquiring animals for food. They may not approve of the transportation methods, but if they have no control over such things then there is little they can do if they need those animals to keep their jobs, etc. One has to remember practical considerations here; someone who has a family to feed and needs his job will likely accept the animals rather than risking his family's livliehood by taking a moral stand.
I agree that economics should not dictate how much suffering an animal endures. If those who do have control over transportation methods are also advocates of halal then that does raise questions, especially if they are advocating halal as a means of reducing the animals' suffering. Irrespective of what beliefs the people deciding such matters hold animals should be trasported with as much care for their wellbeing as possible. They may be killed for food, but that is no reason to inflict unnecessary suffering upon them.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-01-30 14:20 ]
Posted by max_wedge
| Quote: |
|
Absolutely agree. I'm not coming from an Either/Or position. I definitely believe that's probably true for the majority, who are probably unaware of the background of animal suffering that occurs (and of course not all halal food meat comes from these transports). Also, most of us aussies are unaware of how poorly these animals are treated in transport. But if any moderates in muslim society try to raise the issue, the minority fundementalists try to shout them down and accuse them of being disrespectful of Islam.
As I've said I'm not against the practice of halal, just the practice of dogma
Posted by dealer3
max...some points u made are utterly wrong...
who said to have halal meat u have to cut in a muslim country...
as far as i remmeber england is not a muslim country...
halal meat is cut here...
as for the peole who are sayin its stupid to slaughter animals...erm...theses animals are not killed for fun...they are simply to eat...not to kill andleave on the side for nothing...
people need to get facts right before saying things...
and by the way...ill get u a SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION of whhy slaughtering animals the halal way...is the best way for the animal and the consumer...verified by doctors and scientific research...by people who are more educated than some people will ever be...
Posted by axxxr
Here's a good explaination of Halal on Wiki:Halal Meat
The halaal method of slaughtering all animals excluding fish, known as Thabiha, is to cut through the large arteries in the neck with one swipe of a nonserrated blade and drain all blood and impurities from the animal, because as noted above, the consumption of blood itself is forbidden. During the draining of the blood, the animal is not handled until it has fully died. The action of slaughtering an animal is a ritual religious act that is preceded by the words "In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful" (bismillâh, i-rahman, i-rahîm). It is also common for the words "Praise be upon Him who has made you suitable for slaughter [for the purpose of consumption] ("Sibhana man halalaka lil dabh") to be spoken immediately before slaughter instead.
Prior to the slaughter, the animal's eyes and ears are checked to ensure that the animal is healthy and suitable for slaughter. If the animal is deemed to be healthy, it is first given water to drink (in order to quench its thirst) and is then pointed towards Mecca to be slaughtered. Muslims consider this method of killing the animal to be cleaner and more merciful to the animal. Some animal rights groups contend that this causes unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal when compared to modern methods of animal slaughter, which involve stunning the animal before killing it. Islamic groups assert that the Islamic method of slaughter is the fastest method and causes the least pain to the animal, since the neck is severed immediately causing the animal not to feel pain afterwards. Stunning is forbidden in Islam since halaal slaughter requires the animal to be conscious and not contaminated by anaesthetics or intoxicating materials.
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2006-01-30 21:06 ]
Posted by joebmc
Could the animals not be put to sleep, like what vets do, seemed very peaceful and painless when my dear old cat got put down. Or would this method containment the meat?
Posted by axxxr
In an ideal world don't we all wish their was no suffering be it animal or human but we do all need to eat and meat is important,humans are not like sheep and cattle that we can survive chewing on grass and vegatables...like as with a lot of carnivorous animals meat is a staple diet ( try feeding your cat or dog some carrots).call it religious belief or evolution but we as humans do need to eat meat.
A lot of people are mentioning islam and muslims but no ones is mentioning jews who eat Kosher and sacrifice the animal exactly the same way as muslims.
Religious laws,Jewish and Islamic law forbid the animal be slaughtered any other way other than the methods described in the Torah and Quran.In an ideal world animals would be put to sleep as you described but unfortunately we dont live in such a world.
Posted by joebmc
| Quote: |
|
Well if this is the most painless way then surly it must be enforced, if your/there god wants animals killed in a painless way then surly this is it and normal halal way needs to be updated otherwise your going against gods will aren’t you?
_________________
Nokia 3210-->Nokia 3310-->Nokia 8210-->Panasonic GD67-->
T68m(i)-->T610-->k700i-->P800 -->Moto Razr v3 (black)-->Nokia 6030--> S700i
my ebay items
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2006-01-31 17:03 ]
Posted by dealer3
the laws of islam...if anyone was to follow them...totally...they would have a complete and peaceful life...everything we have been told is for a reason...God knows more than all the scientists in this world, for he created the scientists...the common sense/knowledge some of you have is not comparable to God...overall the way the meat is slaughtered at eaten...from begining to end is far more efficient in evvery way than any other method...
let me just say...im not talkin about 1 part of the production line... im talking about from the begining from choosing animal to the end...consuming...
this is the problem today...u cant look at one aspect and say...o this is wrong with that...this is wrong with this...u have to look at the whole process and you will see...economically, nutricienally every way u could possibly look at it u will see...
whether u use the method 1400 years ago or in the 21st century...God knows all...what has happened in the past and what is going to happen in the future...u will not get a more complete and perfect way of life...like it or not...
if you analyse looking at authentic unbias scientific facts, i can garuntee you wil not find a single contradiction in the Qur'aan or what islam teaches...however if u look at any other religion and any other method in anything...i garuntee one time or another you wil find a flaw...
you examine urself using unbias, authentic, scientific facts and you will see for youself
Posted by joebmc
| Quote: | |||
| |||
Anyone got any answer on my question?
Posted by dealer3
islam is perfect...but muslims may not always be perfect
islam does not need mordernising...
islam does not need updating...
islam is the perfect way of life...whether you follow the law 2000 years ago or whther you follow the laws today in the 21st century or whether u follow the laws 2000 years from now...
god knows the past god knows the future...
it is because today in the 21st century people think they are clever, and think they know more than god....they change what they believe in and try something else...but those who are steadfast thos who are patient will always be successful over those who are not...thats garunteed
Posted by joebmc
Umm… right…? So killing animals in a harmful way is ok because it was done this way 1500 years ago and was thought less hurtful then. Yet today as we’ve advanced medical and we know less harmful ways of killing but that doesn’t matter because it was presumed less harmful many moons ago?
| Quote: |
|
But he didnt know about dinosaurs
(just kidding)
_______
Nokia 3210-->Nokia 3310-->Nokia 8210-->Panasonic GD67-->
T68m(i)-->T610-->k700i-->P800 -->Moto Razr v3 (black)-->Nokia 6030--> S700i
my ebay items
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2006-01-31 17:29 ]
Posted by amnesia
"halal way needs to be updated otherwise your going against gods will aren’t you? "
I'll answer that. The thing about the Quaraan is that it is unchanged and unmarked scripture, no Muslim (even the highest elder) can change the Quraan. We are not going against God's will because we are following the techniques God passed down. (I.e. killing the Halal way)
In relation to actually putting the animal to sleep. Think of it this way, it'll be expensive, which will raise prices, which will cause some people not to be able to afford the meat. So it seems your argument is with countries governments and not with religion.
Posted by joebmc
@amnesia
Thanks.
So it is discribe in the Quran on how to kill livestock then?
Posted by max_wedge
| Quote: |
|
The jury is out amongst scientists on whether it is in fact more humane or not. There is no scientific proof that they suffer less this way. I sure as shit know that whether I feel pain or not, I'd be scared stupid and suffer intense emotional trauma if my blood was spilling out in front of my eyes and I was losing control of my bodily functions. The view that halal method causes no suffering presupposes that the animal is not a conscious being - that it's consciousness is not capable of self awareness. Many animal studies show this to be demonstrably untrue. Animals are aware of death and their own mortality. It doesn't take much intelligence to understand mortality - when members of your pack die it's rather obvious that the same thing can happen to you.
Now here's why I think the halal ritual is outdated - the understanding that was held until fairly recently by most cultures and religions of the world, with regard to animals, was that they have no self-awareness and no significant emotional responses. But now this view has been largely discredited by SCIENTISTS conducting animal studies. So it leads me to think that the original intentions of halal, established by political leaders hundreds of years ago responsible for the health of their people, has over time become enshrined in rigid ritual and dogma.
I have utmost respect for all people's views, but I don't necessarily have to believe them myself. The practice of halal goes against my personal convictions about the treatment of animals. So I can't help but disagree with it. God didn't write the Koran, humans did. Those humans were very spiritual, but as you say dealer3, humans aren't perfect, and they don't always interpret the visions God gives them the way God intended.
Because of the imperfection of men, I can't believe that all scriptures perfectly represent the will of God. They are an approximation at best, to be used as guidance and not LAW. Law should be based on science, fact, and the common good It should not in my view be based on religious writings from hundreds of years ago.
If every religion adhered rigidly to every statement in their holy books, the world would continually be at war....oh yeah that's right it pretty much has been, hasn't it? Or rather, politcal leaders desirous of power have utilised fundamental religious belief to justify their empire building. Even George Bush does it - he thinks a world war would be a good thing due to his belief in the rapture....or is it just a handy justification for his politcal aims? In God We Trust?
Regarding the transportation of livestock to meet the demands of halal, it is the muslim countries who demand the stock arrive on their shores living. I have no idea why they won't allow it to be killed halal style in Australia. Infact I know for a fact that halal meat is prepared and sold in Australia, so I'm at a complete loss.
Posted by joebmc
Another thing if these scripts are the “word” of god, and god can apparently see in the future then should he/she/it not of said “kill animals the halal way up until the 20th century when people will develop less painful ways of killing.” Or something like that?
Posted by london-uk
| Quote: |
|
Max, I completely agree with you on this point.
As for axxxr, who replied to my previous post as follows:
"And your basically saying that a bullet through the head of the animal is not painfull for the creature?..from all the books ive read it says that death is painfull in all living creatures regardless of how quick it is..Maybe they do die in a milisecond or however long it takes for the creature to die,but i have read that animals which are slaughtered the Islamic or Jewish way suffer less aswell because the way the knife us used the blood drains away from the brain at a excellerated rate which in turn puts the animal into sleep and then death....somehow the idea of blowing the animals brains out with a automatic weapon does'nt seem like a painless and humane way to slaughter the creature."
First of all I was not campaigning against the slaughter of animals for food. I eat meat, and I completely recognise that animals have to be killed in order for meat to be available. I just don't agree with the unnecessary suffering of animals in the process. I was trying to put across the distaste to which I feel when encountering the practice of halal butchering. When you say "blowing the animals brains out with a [sic] automatic weapon", I really feel that you don't know what you are talking about. The animals to which I was previously referring were cattle. When killing a cow, a metal rod is fired directly into the front of its skull. Thus, the metal rod disrupts all activity in the brain within milliseconds (i.e. there is no longer consciousness). Death is virtually instantaneous.
An animal which is slaughtered by means of the halal method of butchery will in essence bleed to death (and even if you claim that the incision prevents pain, this is a cruel practice. You completely ignore the fact that a sentient being is being bled to death). This is a cruel practice, no matter how you qualify it.
Posted by amnesia
@joe, yes they are mentioned in the Quraan how to kill livestock.
Here are a few verses.
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/islamicpage/halalhealthy/quranhadith
in relation to the quoted
"Another thing if these scripts are the “word” of god, and god can apparently see in the future then should he/she/it not of said “kill animals the halal way up until the 20th century when people will develop less painful ways of killing.” Or something like that? "
But as said, the way that you kill 'the Halal way' is the best way of harming an animal the least amount. Again, not all people can afford putting an animal to sleep, not all people would have this sleeping drug with them (lets say in a less developed area) and so on, so at the end of the day it's up to large corporations to aid in providing the sleeping drugs.
The world of God or any God for that matter, is never going to be too specific, actually it's more realistic.
I could simply say, study hard until there is a way to be smart without studying. Doesn't mean I foresaw the future, it simply means that I'm implying that the day might be possible.
So until then might as well try to not harm the animal as much as possible until the government or corporations stick their heads in and say, hey, lets give these people incentives for using sleeping pills.
Posted by JK
I dont see anything wrong with cutting the animal, Iv cut a couple times and there wasnt much suffering from the animal as far as i could see, he kicked and stuff but in a couple of seconds it was all over...
I for some reason see it to be more inhumane by just shooting the thing with a metal rod!! WTF... maybe im just wierd...
Posted by axxxr
Yes exactly i agree,I just can't see shooting the animal in the brains is any less humane than cutting with a knife.
Posted by scotsboyuk
The quickest means of killing the animal that causes the least pain is the most humane. I would have thought that a shot to the brain would be fairly quick and that that death would be almost instantaneous thus not giving the animal any time to feel anything.
Posted by JK
Well if want to play Terminator and just go shooting animals like that.. thats not humane to me... sorry.
But thats the way we do it, the way the jews do it, and the way it will always be done!
So all you SPCA wannabes and your love and faithulness to your beloved animals can stuff it! Lifes about pain.
The whole food chain and shit.
Deal with it!!!!!!!
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
Who's to know if death is less painfull that way?...no one can really quantify death in any way,so we really don't know if instant death has no pain involved..maybe pain is slow and lingering even affter a shot to the brain?..or maybe it is instant and the animal feels nothing,its a difficult one.
Posted by leeboy13
I'D say a shotgun to the head would probably be the quickest way, as the brain will (or head) will probably be in quite a few pieces.....
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
Apart from sounding like a complete ass you also demonstrate a lack of understanding of the concept of hypocrisy. Let's just examine this for a second; you consider shooting an animal to be barbaric, yet you don't consider slicing an animal open and allowing it to bleed to death to be? It may very well be a religious matter, but one can equally couche it in the same absurd terminology that you have employed (and I haven't done that hear in case you are wondering).
Why exactly is it that you would choose to liken the slaughter of animals for food to a futuristic cyborg programmed to kill? Clearly you are aiming to create a comparison of barbarity and inhumanity. The killing of animals for food is not done through a desire to kill or for a political motive, it is done simply to provide food. Clearly you feel threatened by the implication that the method of slaughter you advocate is not the most humane available and so you seek to denigrate a different method in the hopes of casting aspertions on the humanity of that method. Unfortunately you go about it in completely the wrong way. By choosing a rediculous and tenebrous analogy you only serve to make your case look peurile.
You are either extremely naive or remarkably uninformed. I eat meat as part of my diet, that does not mean to say that I have any desire to inflict anymore suffering upon an animal than is absolutely necessary to obtain that meat. I would advocate the buying of meat from sources where the well being of the animals has been attended to and where the animals have not suffered unnecessarily.
Your last comments seem to indicate that you are not concerned with the well being of animals. Perhaps I am wrong, but the miasma of incongruity which permeates your post seems to suggest otherwise.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-02-02 11:45 ]