Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
A Muslim believes that halal slaughter is better than stunning. No surprises there...

Whilst the article linked to was written by a Muslim, the Hanover study it refers to was conducted by Dr William Schulze and Dr Hazim, at the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Hanover. I find the evidence compelling and have yet to see a study which disputes the Hanover findings. If you have reason to doubt the methodology of the study, or its findings, please tell us your concerns, or at least bring a comparable study which disputes the findings of the Hanover team.

Here is my take on this Halal debate.

Yes, I'm a Muslim, I only eat Halal meat, though I must admit that I eat a meal which contains meat perhaps once a week, this is what comes of having a vegetarian wife.:-)

If I had problems with animals being slaughtered for my eating pleasure, I'd be a vegetarian. Anybody who complains about any part of the meat production industry and who still eats meat is being intellectually dishonest about the way meat is farmed and transported today.

Just because you go to the supermarket and buy some super-clean meat in flashy packaging, doesn't mean that the animal did not suffer during its life or during transport to slaughter, or during the actual slaughter process. Don't tell me you have never seen pictures of battery hens, or chickens squashed into a shed with little or no light, with beaks clipped so they don't peck each other to death in an artificial process designed to make them grow faster and be profitable for farmers, but which actually leads to an awful life for the animal.

I think animals should be free range and organic, should have a good life and be well treated. All the things which lead to less profit for the meat industry But when it comes to slaughtering, I'm sorry, but nothing is going to sugarcoat it. Killing an animal is killing an animal. Yes, it should be as humane as possible, and the life of the animal should be respected, but at the end of the day, it is being killed so that we can eat.

If you think Halal meat is unacceptable but then go of and eat a big-mac and fries you are a hypocrite of the highest order. If you think animals should not suffer so that humans can eat, become a vegetarian, like Bardot, as this is the only logical and tenable position to hold if you so hate the thought of an animal suffering.

Personally, I like chicken stir-fry too much to become a vegetarian, but I respect vegetarians very much for their honesty.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
I think animals should be free range and organic, should have a good life and be well treated. All the things which lead to less profit for the meat industry But when it comes to slaughtering, I'm sorry, but nothing is going to sugarcoat it. Killing an animal is killing an animal. Yes, it should be as humane as possible, and the life of the animal should be respected, but at the end of the day, it is being killed so that we can eat.

basically agree with you as far as how animals should be treated whilst alive. But to believe this and then to accept ritual slaughter is nonsensical.

Point 1 - Various slaughtering methods and 'clean/unclean' foods were proscribed due the conditions and health isues at the time of the writing of the books. Any 'god' worth the name would accept that things have moved on.

Point 2 - If all animals were "free range and organic, should have a good life and be well treated" would it still be OK to kill by ritual slaughter? If yes, then your beleifs about animal slaughter are competely out of kilter with your beliefs about how the animals should live. If no, then why is ritual slaughter OK right now?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by C_steam:
basically agree with you as far as how animals should be treated whilst alive. But to believe this and then to accept ritual slaughter is nonsensical.

Point 1 - Various slaughtering methods and 'clean/unclean' foods were proscribed due the conditions and health isues at the time of the writing of the books. Any 'god' worth the name would accept that things have moved on.

Hi. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Here you make the common assumption that 'Halal' meat begins and ends in the slaughterhouse. It does not.

The article linked to previously made the specific point that:-

Originally Posted by :
Allah says in the Qur’an, “There is not an animal on the earth nor a bird that flies, but that they form communities like you.” This implies that the animals in our care must be allowed to live out their full animal natures and social behaviour patterns, and not simply be reduced to components of a meat production process.

The animals for slaughter must be well fed and watered, must not see the knife, nor the signs of previously slaughtered animals. The slaughterman should face the Qibla, and must utter the words, Bismillah Allahu Akbar as he slaughters. These words are an important confirmation that the animal is being killed in the name of Allah, but the words are not just for us; the animal has the right to know that it has been slaughtered in the name of Allah.

The Halal Journal

So, the first point you make is not germane to this debate. Regardless of the clean/unclean arguments at the time of revelation of the Qur'an, it is still the case now that, as the author above points out, the animals in our care must be allowed to live out their full animal natures and social behaviour patterns, and not simply be reduced to components of a meat production process. In my view, this means free range. Not GM. Fairly treated. That is how I view Halal produce should be farmed. Though I admit, other Muslims may have a different opinion, it is up to them to justify that position from an Islamic standpoint.

Those people who oppose Halal meat probably do so because they feel that the slaughtering process is not to their liking, but this ignores the other obligations of a Halal farmer.

Originally Posted by C_steam:
Point 2 - If all animals were "free range and organic, should have a good life and be well treated" would it still be OK to kill by ritual slaughter? If yes, then your beleifs about animal slaughter are competely out of kilter with your beliefs about how the animals should live. If no, then why is ritual slaughter OK right now?

I partially answered this point in my original answer. As long as the animal has led a full, healthy and well-cared for life, I do not think that we can sugar-coat the slaughter process. An animal is being killed for consumption by humans, at some level, we have to deal with it. I'm happy with it because I view it as the natural order of things (food chain wise), so if an animal suffers for a few minutes during slaughter, sure, I feel bad about it, but no, it wouldn't stop me chowing into a Nandos chicken meal. As I said, if I was so diametrically opposed to an animal being killed on my behalf, I would become a vegetarian.

However. I do beleive the suffering of the animal should be reduced to the bare minimum. As the author of the article above states:-

Originally Posted by :
On examination, the notion that it is better for the animal to die while unconscious is revealed to be unfounded; indeed, one may suspect that it is an assumption based on what some people may prefer for themselves – to drift quietly into endless sleep. However, this is certainly not the case for the Muslims, either for themselves, or for the purposes of ritual slaughter as required by Shariah....

After Halal slaughter:
• For 3 seconds after the incision, the EEG registered no change, and therefore no pain
• For the following 3 seconds, the EEG registered the patterns of deep sleep, and thereafter dropped to zero activity.
• As the EEG dropped to zero, the heart still beat vigorously, and the reflex action of the central nervous system caused the body to convulse, thereby driving out the maximum amount of blood from the body.

After captive bolt stunning:
• The animals appeared unconscious after stunning
• EEG showed severe pain and distress immediately upon stunning
• Zero level on EEG was only reached after the bloodletting cut
• Their hearts stopped beating sooner, resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat

So, it has been scientifically proven that Halal slaughter is more humane than stunning. Even so, the question of stunning within Halal slaughter is apparently open for debate as Malaysian Standard for Halal, MS1500:2004 states that stunning is ‘not recommended’. This leaves the door open for interpretation for Halal slaughtermen, leaving them the option to stun.

I'm open to debate if anybody has any other objective studies that proves that Halal slaughter is less humane than stunning, but from the point of view of animal welfare, the Halal method seems to me to be the best as it starts from the birth of the animals, and carries on until the death. It is a complete solution, not just about the slaughter, and is more concerned with correct treatment of animals than the meat industry at large.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
I think animals should be free range and organic, should have a good life and be well treated. All the things which lead to less profit for the meat industry But when it comes to slaughtering, I'm sorry, but nothing is going to sugarcoat it. Killing an animal is killing an animal. Yes, it should be as humane as possible, and the life of the animal should be respected, but at the end of the day, it is being killed so that we can eat.

Consumer choice is the name of the game here. If you want to buy Halal meat then that's your choice, but by the same token I should be able to buy meat that has been prepared in line with British standards (which, I will add, are often higher than those on the continent).

Policies such as schools only buying Halal meat (in the false belief that it is OK for everyone to eat) are outrageous and should be altered immediately.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
A Muslim believes that halal slaughter is better than stunning. No surprises there...

That is a logical fallacy. It is an ad hominem and does not help your argument here.

Empirical research was conducted and it was done mostly by non-Muslims. Unless you have your own empirical research or can show any real faults in the experiment then there is little argument against it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by C_steam:
basically agree with you as far as how animals should be treated whilst alive. But to believe this and then to accept ritual slaughter is nonsensical.

Point 1 - Various slaughtering methods and 'clean/unclean' foods were proscribed due the conditions and health isues at the time of the writing of the books. Any 'god' worth the name would accept that things have moved on.

Point 2 - If all animals were "free range and organic, should have a good life and be well treated" would it still be OK to kill by ritual slaughter? If yes, then your beleifs about animal slaughter are competely out of kilter with your beliefs about how the animals should live. If no, then why is ritual slaughter OK right now?

But however the empirical evidence still stands. The evidence shows no pain in those slaughtered the halal/kosher method and great pain in those stunned.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Consumer choice is the name of the game here. If you want to buy Halal meat then that's your choice, but by the same token I should be able to buy meat that has been prepared in line with British standards (which, I will add, are often higher than those on the continent).

Policies such as schools only buying Halal meat (in the false belief that it is OK for everyone to eat) are outrageous and should be altered immediately.

Why if it is more humane?

Halal/Kosher is more humane empirically speaking.

Now if it wasn't I still would not ban it or anything. I enjoying hunting and fishing, those who go on about Halal and Kosher, ignoring the studies which refute them, are hardly likely to respect those pastimes of mine.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Consumer choice is the name of the game here. If you want to buy Halal meat then that's your choice, but by the same token I should be able to buy meat that has been prepared in line with British standards (which, I will add, are often higher than those on the continent)..

Once you know that Britain produces Halal meat for export to other countries you will understand that this argument is without logic. Again, I quote from the 2005 article kindly linked to earlier:-

Originally Posted by :
Of the 12 major Halal food exporting countries in the world, (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom and the USA) none are under Muslim authority. While the meat that they produce is usually of the highest quality, Halal is for them a purely economic issue; it is about access to a market of 2 billion people.

The Halal Journal

Ironic? I think so. Who would have thought that Halal meat is a Great British export? The economics, then, becomes simple. Ban Halal meat, lose income, and in turn, lose jobs. I note the article agrees with your assertion that the meat produced is of the highest quality.

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
Policies such as schools only buying Halal meat (in the false belief that it is OK for everyone to eat) are outrageous and should be altered immediately.

Indeed. But as I have discussed above, the objections to Halal meat seem to be based on the premise that Halal slaughter is cruel, and these objections have been scientifically been proven incorrect. If one agrees that, done correctly, Halal slaughter is less objectionable than pre-stunning animals, what can the problem be with eating Halal meat?

I have heard of local UK butchers buying meat from Halal slaughterhouses (apparently, in some instances it makes more economic sense), and you will find that many curry houses and kebab shops will use exclusively Halal meat. Imagine my surprise when I discovered a local Italian restaurant served Halal meat (only for Chicken dishes though), this was clearly an economic decision as I can guarantee he doesn't get a lot of Muslim customers.

You make a good point about consumer choice, and so it is up to you to ensure that the meat you eat is non-Halal if you feel that strongly.

As an aside, I saw a programme on TV not long ago, possibly Channel 4, where a group of British people went to live and work with a Muslim family for a month or something, possibly in Pakistan. I don't recall the specific details, but the programme was about eating habits and how these people were overweight and ate the wrong food. Towards the end of the programme they had to witness a Halal slaughter. The slaughter as not shown on TV, but the British people had to watch it (no doubt the programmes' producer was going for shock value) and their reactions were recorded. They all seemed to be humbled by the experience - having never seen an animal slaughtered before - and none of them said it looked cruel, and they did mention that the slaughter process was respectful of the animal. This was in the middle of a foreign country with no mass production professional slaughter facilities. This program really put my mind to rest... Wish I could find the clip!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Why if it is more humane?

Halal/Kosher is more humane empirically speaking.

Now if it wasn't I still would not ban it or anything. I enjoying hunting and fishing, those who go on about Halal and Kosher, ignoring the studies which refute them, are hardly likely to respect those pastimes of mine.

Yes, I was thinking about this last night, or rather fishing, not hunting, but you raise a good point. I think I disagree with killing an animal purely for sport, but if the end point is to consume the animal, and the process of killing the animal is quick, then I can't see a problem.

I understand many fishermen catch fish but then release them, which would be fine with me, and catching then eating the fish would be fine too. I think I would personally draw the line at something like fox hunting.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Yes, I was thinking about this last night, or rather fishing, not hunting, but you raise a good point. I think I disagree with killing an animal purely for sport, but if the end point is to consume the animal, and the process of killing the animal is quick, then I can't see a problem.

I understand many fishermen catch fish but then release them, which would be fine with me, and catching then eating the fish would be fine too.

I agree that animal should suffer as little as possible and eating is preferable.

Originally Posted by :
I think I would personally draw the line at something like fox hunting.

I would not. I wouldn't go fox hunting myself most probably but it isn't that bad that I 'd get a load of MP in Westminister who represent mainly middle class urbanite to ban country people from what they have been doing for centuries.

Fox hunting was an interesting case of PC indoctrination in my experience as well. I remember its supposed evils being drummed into me at school from a very early age. We had to write essays on it and all sorts.
[Rep]