z8000783 wrote:So you are saying that many Muslims and Jews in Australia are eating meat that has been stunned first, and they know and accept this?

John

Proper way of Zabiha

From the booklet entitled "The Meat: Lawful and Unlawful in Islam" by Mohammad Sami’ullah. The booklet is published by Siddiqi Trust of Karachi, Pakistan.

1. The animal should be a Halal (lawful) one according to the Shari’ah (Islamic Law). Dog, cat, monkey, or the meat of any such Haram (unlawful) animal can be lawful for a Muslim only in cases of extreme urgency where a person is threatened with starvation and his life has to be saved. We read in the Qur’an: "Allah has forbidden for you what dies of itself, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked. But whoever is driven by necessity, without neither willful disobedience nor transgressing due limits, then he is guiltless. Surely Allah is forgiving, merciful." (2:173)

2. The animal should be properly slaughtered and should not be dipped in boiling water or killed by electric shocks. Any method other than slaughter adopted to kill the animal will not be lawful. Stunning by bolt shot or electric shock before slaughter is not valid and should be avoided, as it is tantamount to torturing an animal, which is inhumane and unlawful in Islam. The tendency of the Shari’ah is to make the slaughter more humane by reducing the suffering of the animal. The Holy Prophet (SAW) is reported to have said that if you must slaughter, slaughter in the best possible manner. Sharpen your knife every time before you slaughter, but not in front of the animal to be slaughtered. Do not slaughter an animal in the presence of other animals, and feed and rest the animal before slaughter. The idea is to stop cruelty to animals - a practice still prevalent in the West in various forms and guises despite claims to the contrary, as we shall see later.

3. The name of Allah should be recited while slaughtering the animal. The recitation may be done by a Muslim or by a Jew or Christian in his own language. The Holy Qur’an describes that slaughter as unlawful on which the name of Allah has not been recited: "And eat not of that whereon Allah’s name hath not been mentioned, for Lo! It is abomination. Lo! The devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you. But if you obey them, ye will be in truth idolators". (6:121)

4. For meat to be lawful, it is not simply enough that the animal has been slaughtered by the "People of the Book". It is very essential that the act of slaughter should be performed according to their prescribed religious rites and practices. For instance, if a Muslim kills a chicken by twisting its neck, it would a carcass and Haram. If the same method of killing is adopted by a Jew or Christian, then how can such a chicken be Halal? Slaughtering consists of cutting the jugular veins of the neck, so that all the blood is drained out. The spinal cord must not be cut, because the nerve fibers to the heart may be damaged during the process, causing cardiac arrest and hence stagnation of the blood in the blood vessels of the animal. Since blood is also forbidden in Islam, it is incumbent to see to it that the blood is completely drained from the animal during slaughtering. This is meat is then called Halal or lawful. Like other Islamic teachings, dietary restrictions in Islam relate to material well being, even as they are spiritually significant.

dreamweaver wrote; This shocking program aired on 4 Corners here yesterday. The appalling treatment of these animals is all apparently due to religious mandate. A pure illustration of the depths people will go to when they believe their own particular sky fairy decrees it.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mfJ7iKhPPj8J:www.pathofislam.net/2010/united-ummah/meat-from-stunned-animals-is-halal/+can+halal+meat+stunned&hl=en&gl=au&strip=1

Meat from stunned animals is Halal
Published by Abdus-Samad at 11:35 pm under United Ummah
Assalam alaykum. Eid Mubarak.

Introduction

In Islam, there are some foods which a Muslim is allowed to eat and other foods which a Muslim is prohibited from eating. Meat is only Halal (“permissible”) for a Muslim if certain rules are followed. The most important of these when it comes to meat being Halal is that the animal is slaughtered in a set prescribed manner, which includes pronouncing the name of God while cutting the neck of the animal. Recently however a significant number of Muslims are having doubts about eating meat which is from an animal which was stunned before being slaughtered. Doubts have arisen over whether stunning means the meat is not Halal for a Muslim to eat.

There are organisations which help a Muslim know what meat is Halal and what meat is not, by ensuring that the Butchers, amongst others, are complying with the Islamic rules. Hence when a Muslim wishes to buy some food, he or she can search the packaging for a certified “Halal” logo with the name of the organisation that has checked, and thus be assured that the meat is Halal because he or she trusts that company. The criteria or checklist that a Butchers must pass before being certified to produce Halal meat is mostly agreed upon by various organisations, however there may be differences between different organisations. Hence although one organisation might declare that a certain Butchers produces Halal meat, the same Butchers might not pass the criteria of another organisation.

Doubts have arisen over whether stunning the animal before slaughtering means the meat is no longer Halal. So naturally this is a point of difference between some organisations. The most prominent organisation in Britain which only certifies Butchers, who do not stun the animal pre-slaughter, are HMC (“Halal Monitoring Committee”). Incidentally, the doubt over stunning seems to have mainly been caused by HMC.

Stunning will now be examined to determine its permissibility.

Is stunning permissible?

The most important thing to establish first is the opinions of the Ulema (scholars) on the issue of stunning.

Mainstream Sunnis

The famous Al-Azhar University in Egypt has declared that according to the four Sunni madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) of Sunni Islam, stunning before slaughter is halal. They established this ruling by asking scholars of each of the four Sunni madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) to investigate.

The famous Muslim World League (who let it be noted are one of the main organisations who calculate prayer times for Muslims) who in a joint meeting with the WHO (World Health Organisation) said: “Pre-slaughter stunning by electric shock, if proven to lessen the animal’s suffering, is lawful, provided that it is carried out with the weakest electric current that directly renders the animal unconscious, and that it neither leads to the animal’s death nor renders its meat harmful to the consumer.”

The Council for Legal Verdicts at Dar al-Mustafa for Islamic Studies in Yemen have ruled that the meat of animal which is stunned before slaughter is Halal as long as the animal is alive at the time of slaughter. (source: http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/artic ... -yemen.php)

Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, has said:

“As for stunning the animal, it does not make the animal dead, for it is intended only to knock the animal unconscious so that it does not feel pain and it is brought under control. This itself does not render the animal impure and unlawful unless it is dead before slaughter. My own experience with the slaughterhouses is that they do not make use of animals that are already dead before slaughter. Inspectors, who are appointed by the government (in countries such as Canada), do make sure that this is not the case.”

There are many more Sunni Ulema who have ruled that the meat of an animal which was stunned before slaughter is permissible.

See http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/artic ... unning.php for some more and for the sources of the above.

Wahabbis

Wahabbis/Salafies permit stunning. The proof for this is that IslamQA.com (the biggest online site for fatwas ((rulings)) by Wahabbis) has said that it is permissible. Their fatwa describes the manner so well that it is worth reproducing in full:

If the matter is as described, that the butcher slaughters the an’aam animal (camel, cow, sheep or goat) as soon as it falls to the ground after receiving an electric shock, if that is done when it is still alive, then it is permissible to eat it. But if he slaughters it after it has died then it is not permissible to eat it. This comes under the ruling on animals killed by a violent blow, which Allaah has forbidden unless they are properly slaughtered before they die. The slaughter does not count unless it is proven that the animal showed signs of life such as moving a leg or if blood flowed (at the time of slaughter) and so on, which indicates that it was still alive until the slaughtering was over. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maitah (the dead animals — cattle — beast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which Allaah’s Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering (that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allaah, or has been slaughtered for idols) and that which has been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by the goring of horns — and that which has been (partly) eaten by a wild animal — unless you are able to slaughter it (before its death)” [al-Maa'idah 5:3]

An’aam animals that have been exposed to a fatal blow are permissible so long as they are slaughtered properly before they die, otherwise it is not permissible to eat them. (source: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/14308)

Shia

Ayatollah Sistani, arguably the most prominent living Shi’i scholar, has ruled that stunning is permissible.

Question: “If Chicken is stunned with an electric charge before they are slaughtered, are they still halal? Is this accepted as halal slaughter?”

Answer from Najaf.org: “As long as the chicken is alive when it get slaughtered according to the islamic laws so it moves after slaughtering even its eye, then it is halal.”

Another scholar, ayatollah Milani, has also ruled that stunning is permissible.

Question: “If Chicken is stunned with an electric charge before they are slaughtered, are they still halal? Is this accepted as halal slaughter?”

Answer: “The electric charge must not lead to the death of chicken before slaughtering.”

Conclusion

The Ulema (scholars) from the prominent sects and groups have ruled that the meat of an animal that was stunned is Halal. They point out that if stunning kills the animal then the meat is not Halal. This is logical since, as was noted in the introduction, one of the essential conditions for meat to be Halal is that the animal is slaughtered in the Islamic prescribed method; hence if the animal is killed by stunning, and not the Islamic method, then the meat is obviously not Halal. Therefore the Ulema have ruled that the meat of an animal that was stunned is Halal, as long as it is killed by the prescribed method and not by the stunning. Even if the stunning will cause the animal to die, then the meat is still halal as long as the animal is still alive at the time of slaughter; (see the fatwa of IslamQA for proof).

The HMC attempt to dispute this but provide no fatawa (rulings) by scholars except a couple of links to unknown scholars whose reasoning is flawed, based on faulty assumptions about stunning, and contradicts well-known scholars and groups listed above who have based their answer on the Quran and Sunnah. Furthermore, weight is added to the rulings of the Ulema, because different Ulema from different sects and groups have a consensus on this issue.

What is stunning? Does it kill?

After some Muslims learn that the Ulema have ruled that stunning is permissible, they insist on their position that the meat is not Halal. They do this by arguing that stunning kills the animal. By arguing this, they display their ignorance of what stunning actually is. Stunning comes from the word ‘stun’, meaning to shock, daze, immobilise something, or to deprive something of its strength. It is not meant to cause death. Stunning is simply making the animal immobile or unconscious before the animal is slaughtered for the purpose of reducing or removing the pain the animal feels at the time of slaughter. Hence to claim generally that animals die from stunning is false and displays ignorance of what stunning is. A significant number of governments of various countries require or recommend stunning for the sake of lessening the pain of the animal feels when it is later slaughter.

HMC attempt to dispute this by implying that many animals die from stunning “on many occasions”, but they give no reliable evidence. They also claim this is verified by “research”, but they neither quote the actual reference nor reference it. The articles they link to on their site are devoid of actual fact, and contain many assumptions and false implications.

Even if stunning does result in the occasional death of an animal, organisations do (or should) remove the dead animals and separate them from the animals which were stunned and were still alive at the time of slaughtering. For example, HFA (“Halal Food Authority), another very prominent organisation in Britain, state that: “one has to be reminded that HFA has always maintained “no stunning to kill”…Halal Food Authority allows controlled electric stun-with-minuscule amperage, with official Veterinary Surgeon validating that the animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering.” (http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/FAQs.html)

HMC also link to, or say in, articles that say stunning is unhealthy, that organisations don’t remove animals which were killed by the stunning, and describe “horror” stories of stunning being very inhumane. Such words are false, and have been proven false by people who have visited certified slaughterhouses to see for themselves. Some of these accounts are available on the internet and can be found using a search engine, such as google. Furthermore if stunning was actually was as unhealthy and as painful as they have implied or said or linked to, then the governments of various countries, including Muslim countries like Malaysia, would not have recommended or required it.

Conclusion

Stunning is used to lessen the pain the animal feels when it is later slaughtered. Stunning is not killing and, if performed with a correct method, should not lead to death. The Ulema say that as long as the animal is not killed by the stunning, then the meat of a stunned animal is Halal. Even if the stunning is fatal to the animal, then as long as the animal is actually killed by the Islamic method, then the meat remains permissible; (the Quran itself says this). If any animal does die from the stunning, then it should be removed. A Muslim should make sure that the organisation which certified the meat has this policy. There will still be some who insist that stunning is Halal despite all the evidence to the contrary. Ironically these same people will often be people of little knowledge.

HMC are greatly profiting by claiming that the meat of stunned animals is not Halal, since they are one of the few organisations that only certify non-stunned animals, and are causing a lot of Muslims to doubt whether it is Halal, and thus they only eat from HMC-certified places.

In conclusion, to put it simply, meat from stunned animals is Halal. HMC and some Muslims should stop saying it isn’t.

Oeditor wrote:

Tollens wrote:I wish Halal could be outlawed.

Well, killing without stunning is illegal in the UK. Since an exception is made for use as food by Muslims, suddenly we have supermarkets and caterers selling nothing but halal meat. It must be illegal but nobody will do anything about it. Hell, the government even refuses to make them label it when it's unstunned. The EU parliament voted to have it labelled but the bureaucrats running the EU refused as well. The parliament is having another go - please contact your MEP, any European citizens out there.

lyingcheat wrote:I thought this site was called Rational Skepticism, not Irrational Reactionary.

dreamweaver wrote; This shocking program aired on 4 Corners here yesterday. The appalling treatment of these animals is all apparently due to religious mandate. A pure illustration of the depths people will go to when they believe their own particular sky fairy decrees it.

I saw the program too, and it was indeed shocking and sickening, and I agree the government should step in to stop the live cattle export trade. But I didn't get the same impression you seem to have that due their crackpot religion all Muslims are compelled to abuse animals. Certainly, the incompatibility of stunning with halal requirements was mentioned by one slaughterman (a noted expert on Islamic Law - not), and many general references were made by the programs narration, but the main problem I saw, in terms of reducing the animals suffering, was inadequate Third World conditions and equipment, a lack of understanding of modern animal handling techniques, and cultural (Indonesion) disregard for any 'feelings' animals might have.

In short, I saw a cultural and lack of resources (economic) problem, not a religious one.

“Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, has said:

As for stunning the animal, it does not make the animal dead, for it is intended only to knock the animal unconscious so that it does not feel pain and it is brought under control. This itself does not render the animal impure and unlawful unless it is dead before slaughter.

My own experience with the slaughterhouses is that they do not make use of animals that are already dead before slaughter. Inspectors, who are appointed by the government (in countries such as Canada), do make sure that this is not the case.”

dreamweaver wrote; Cultural as in Islamic Indonesians? and resources as in not having a sharp knife? They can pay up to $1000 a head for these cattle but can't afford to provide workers with sharp knives? As for the rest of the equipment, if they can afford casting boxes they can afford head bails, head cradles and non slip flooring. They can save money on all the water they inexplicably throw around which makes the whole area a skating rink. Surely even they can see it's an unecessary macabre circus?

Why the need to throw the cattle on the ground? How hard would it be to simply use a headcradle crush, have the animals head calmly restrained, stun the animal then bleed it? None of it makes any sense unless it is by religious decree.

dreamweaver wrote; If meat from stunned animals is halal then all meat produced in Western abbatoirs is halal.

dreamweaver wrote; Sounds lovely but what do you define as "dead"? Having seen a stun gun, I would dispute that any animal, after having this bolt driven into their brain is still "alive" for all strengths and purposes. If it wasn't bled immediately I would daresay it would be dead anyway in a very short time. The same with electrical shock stunning. I have yet to see a stunned goose get up again. And I think this is where the dispute lies. I think this is why some Muslims do not accept stunning. They believe stunning kills the animal. I agree as to me, brain dead is dead.

lyingcheat wrote:

dreamweaver wrote; Cultural as in Islamic Indonesians? and resources as in not having a sharp knife? They can pay up to $1000 a head for these cattle but can't afford to provide workers with sharp knives? As for the rest of the equipment, if they can afford casting boxes they can afford head bails, head cradles and non slip flooring. They can save money on all the water they inexplicably throw around which makes the whole area a skating rink. Surely even they can see it's an unecessary macabre circus?

Why the need to throw the cattle on the ground? How hard would it be to simply use a headcradle crush, have the animals head calmly restrained, stun the animal then bleed it? None of it makes any sense unless it is by religious decree.

Repetition of assumptions doesn't make them true.

dreamweaver wrote; If meat from stunned animals is halal then all meat produced in Western abbatoirs is halal.

Huh? You demonstrate the problem with using assumptions to reach conclusions. This ^^^ doesn't follow, and isn't true.

Lion Irc wrote:
And so is the RSPCA
"The standard for meat production in Australia is that all animals must be effectively stunned (unconscious) prior to slaughter. The most common form of halal slaughter complies with the Australian standard."

dreamweaver wrote; Sounds lovely but what do you define as "dead"? Having seen a stun gun, I would dispute that any animal, after having this bolt driven into their brain is still "alive" for all strengths and purposes. If it wasn't bled immediately I would daresay it would be dead anyway in a very short time. The same with electrical shock stunning. I have yet to see a stunned goose get up again. And I think this is where the dispute lies. I think this is why some Muslims do not accept stunning. They believe stunning kills the animal. I agree, as to me, brain dead is dead.

lyingcheat wrote;The definition of 'dead', as opposed to alive, is well known. The difference between 'unconscious', and 'dead', is similarly uncontroversial.
Your confusion regarding the various states mirrors that of the poorly educated or misguided Muslims who are unable to distinguish between them either. The solution is education, not mechanical repetition of mistaken beliefs. Besides, as I said, though you seem to have taken no notice, Indonesia is a poor Third World country with animal husbandry attitudes (in common with many other Muslim and non-Muslim poor Third World countries) probably 50 years behind the West. That's still no excuse for our exporters though, and the live cattle trade should be stopped.

lyingcheat wrote;Rather than building feedlots in Indonesia to fatten up the hapless cattle, as the big pastoral companies have, they should spend the money on local refrigeration facilities and only export halal meat slaughtered here.

dreamweaver wrote:Cultural as in Islamic Indonesians? and resources as in not having a sharp knife? They can pay up to $1000 a head for these cattle but can't afford to provide workers with sharp knives? As for the rest of the equipment, if they can afford casting boxes they can afford head bails, head cradles and non slip flooring. They can save money on all the water they inexplicably throw around which makes the whole area a skating rink. Surely even they can see it's an unecessary macabre circus?

Why the need to throw the cattle on the ground? How hard would it be to simply use a headcradle crush, have the animals head calmly restrained, stun the animal then bleed it? None of it makes any sense unless it is by religious decree. Talk about doing it the hard way

satisfaction_uk wrote:More importantly they add a premium to the price of the product a sort of religious tax which goes to the leaders of the relevant religious groups.

The association welcomes the new legislation where all non stun meat will have to display a three-step label describing the animal’s country of birth, upbringing, and slaughter.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:what page?

There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows or sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Ah, found it:

There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows or sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut.

(earlier in the chapter he mentions that almost all opponents to abortion are deeply religious people)

First he suggests the embryo's of animals suffer no more than human embryos. It is a simple comparison to put things into perspective.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Then he suggests that embryos suffer far less than those animals which die in halal/kosherslaughterhouses.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Hence religious people who are against abortion but for religious slaughter are inconsistent. But it could be argued they regard humans as a superior race, or some other garbage. You can justify anything with a holy book.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Anyway, you are conflicting the two ideas in the quote. He doesn't say abortions are OK - 'because religious people can kill animals in the halal fashion'. Maybe you just remembered it wrong or something, but no-where in the passage does he even say "abortion is OK", he is just attempting to debunk pro-life positions.

dreamweaver wrote:If meat from stunned animals is halal then all meat produced in Western abbatoirs is halal.