Thread: Halal killing is inhumane.

Muslims eat meat only when prepared according to a method described in the Koran. The killing of animals for this purpose is done by cutting their throats and bleeding them. Through most of the Muslim world, this is done with the animals live and conscious. Muslim clerics have always claimed that the animals do not feel pain in this process.

A recent study was reported in New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...slaughter.html

Animals were anesthetised enough to prevent consciously feeling pain, but to a small enough extent to allow pain signals to pass through nerves. They had their throats cut according to the Muslim tradition, and pain signals monitored. Results were clear cut. Animals killed by the Muslim method feel intense pain. The process is inhumane and should be stopped.

It is quite possible to stun animals with an electric pulse before throat cutting to permit Halal killing with no pain to the animal. This should be done.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is quite possible to stun animals with an electric pulse before throat cutting to permit Halal killing with no pain to the animal. This should be done.

That sounds like a good solution that could make everybody happy. However Western-style slaughterhouses don't normally induce seizure with electric pulse - and employ a method more cruel and unusual than throat slitting - so I'd hesitate to suggest a higher standard.

Yes, there is an old documentary called The Peaceable Kingdom about agricultural practices in the United States, and it included some film of the slaughterhouses. Besides the overwhelming load of hippie nonsense in the movie, it does make it clear that our standard mass market agricultural system isn't that much more humane.

Really, do you think chickens don't feel pain when their beaks are burned off to prevent them from damaging the other chickens? In fact, a large amount of them die from shock, but it is an acceptable loss because the fighting would lower the yield more.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Really, do you think...

Unsure who you're talking to. :wink: I'm opposed to animal rights, and believe that animal welfare only matters to the degree that we (consumers) know about the animals.

Muslims are required to know the conditions of slaughter... or think they know. Throat-slitting is no problem for those ignorant of the study. But just in case folks decide to plaster this all over the internet, out of the goodness of their hearts, I guess adding a humane stun would put everyone at ease.

I know nothing of the way slaughterhouses are run in the USA. Here in New Zealand, animals are killed with a special bolt gun to the head. Instant!

Our slaughterhouses which produce halal meat have been using an electric shock technique to render animals unconscious before their throats are cut, for quite a few years now.

I find it hard to believe that other western nations, with their full complement of animal rights activists, still use slow and painful killing methods.

However, there is very little cost to us as meat eaters to carry out our killings in a way that causes no pain to the animals we kill.

Originally Posted by skeptic

animals are killed with a special bolt gun to the head. Instant!
...

I find it hard to believe that other western nations, with their full complement of animal rights activists, still use slow and painful killing methods.

Actually, what I meant by cruel and unusual was the bolt gun, which is essentially a pneumatic nail gun, and some complication about confirming death. Cattle, like humans, don't always die from a manually aimed shot to the head. So, with our tool of choice, it does happen that cattle remain standing, or don't collapse fully. It can be hard to tell when the (dead?) animal is twitching on a floor. The worker has to basically f*ck with its head until it no longer attempts to stand up. And then it's dead: when it can't stand up. Our working definition. The cattle must be standing when killed, and they must not proceed along the line until they're dead AKA "down". It's not like they're checking for pupil dilation, pulse, or brainwaves here. If you think about it, you'll see this is the best we can do.

I think that's relatively painless (heck we castrate beef calves without anesthetic), but I think it fair to call cruel and unusual.

I got this information mainly through courteous conversation with a (my) family of ranchers and slaughterhouse workers in Alberta, Canada, and yes I do eat beef.

Animal cruelty is a known factor in the development of a sociopath murderer in
the area of criminal violence.

The question is: Can accepting animal cruelty contribute to group violence?

This argument has been advanced by the author of "The World Peace Diet", by Will Tuttle.

If this is true, it could be an important consideration in the prevention of genocide, and even nuclear war.

Originally Posted by dedo

Animal cruelty is a known factor in the development of a sociopath murderer in
the area of criminal violence.

The question is: Can accepting animal cruelty contribute to group violence?

This argument has been advanced by the author of "The World Peace Diet", by Will Tuttle.

If this is true, it could be an important consideration in the prevention of genocide, and even nuclear war.

That is really a stretch. Is there any indication that slaughterhouse workers are likely to become psychopaths, and if there were, what does that have to do with you or me?
People have been killing animals since the dawn of time, mostly using much less humane methods than what has been mentioned here. Now, all of a sudden, you decide they are psychopaths.

I agree that slaughterhouse workers are not, by definition, psychopaths. It appears that dedo was referring to some specific work in this field (such as that below), but has engaged in a generalization fallacy, used this fallacy as the basis of his argument, and also forgotten the context of this actual work (namely, that the aforementioned animal cruelty manifests early in childhood).


http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/01/psychopathy.html

One particularly striking feature of psychopathy is that extremely violent and antisocial behaviour appears at a very early age, often including casual and thoughtless lying, petty theft, a pattern of killing animals, early experimentation with sex, and stealing (Hare, 1993, p. 158).

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by dedo

Animal cruelty is a known factor in the development of a sociopath murderer in
the area of criminal violence.

The question is: Can accepting animal cruelty contribute to group violence?

This argument has been advanced by the author of "The World Peace Diet", by Will Tuttle.

If this is true, it could be an important consideration in the prevention of genocide, and even nuclear war.

That is really a stretch. Is there any indication that slaughterhouse workers are likely to become psychopaths, and if there were, what does that have to do with you or me?
People have been killing animals since the dawn of time, mostly using much less humane methods than what has been mentioned here. Now, all of a sudden, you decide they are psychopaths.

I am not aware of any studies that say that slaughterhouse workers are more likely to become psychopaths. However, slaughterhouse workers are not children.

I believe that animal torture is a psychiatric emergency in children because it does contribute to the progression toward becoming a violent psychopath.

How this effects you or me is that if there is a causal relation between some behavior, and a predisposition to war/genocide, it is in our best interest to fix it.

The cause of war/genocide is unknown. However, human societies are complex systems. Thus, from what we know about complex systems include:

1. The cause and the effect can be far removed from each other.
2. Also the effect is not proportionate to the cause. Thus, the "cause" can build up over time with little or no "effect". Then all of a sudden, a massive effect occurs like an avalanche.

Thus, even though there is no current obvious conflict between nations, the "cause of war" could be building up over time until it is released in a massive "avalanche" eg: nuclear war.

3. Certain parameters of the system may make the system able to amplify a small cause into a massive effect. (eg: the "butterfly effect") Thus, a flap of butterfly in Brazil can create a tornado in Texas.
Another example is the start of WW I where the act of a single assassin started the greatest war in human history up to that time.

Thus, there may be relatively simple things that we could do to make our nations/groups relatively war resistant, if we knew what the variables/behaviors make a group predisposed to amplify an idea/conflict into a war/genocide.

One researcher, Staub in a work called "The Roots of Evil..." speculated that corporal punishment might make a society predisposed to group violence.

If something as simple as not beating children, or not being cruel to animals, could prevent a nuclear war and the death of a couple billion people--well I could support such an effort.

Originally Posted by inow

I agree that slaughterhouse workers are not, by definition, psychopaths. It appears that dedo was referring to some specific work in this field (such as that below), but has engaged in a generalization fallacy, used this fallacy as the basis of his argument, and also forgotten the context of this actual work (namely, that the aforementioned animal cruelty manifests early in childhood).


http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/01/psychopathy.html

One particularly striking feature of psychopathy is that extremely violent and antisocial behaviour appears at a very early age, often including casual and thoughtless lying, petty theft, a pattern of killing animals, early experimentation with sex, and stealing (Hare, 1993, p. 158).

It is difficult to know how to obtain evidence of a causal relationship between two variables in a complex system.

One way might be to examine systems where the "effect variable (genocide)" is absent, and then look for the presence of the "cause variable".

This is why studies of peaceful societies who have long histories of war avoidance are important.

Another interesting study would be to develop an instrument that might give evidence for a propensity to support group violence by an individual. Then let slaughterhouse workers fill out the instrument and compare it to a control group.

That could be another way to detect a "causal variable" that is rarely expressed.

You all are really blowing halal slaughtering out of proportion. Halal salughtering is done in the Islamic tradition in a very quick way, and also in a way so that the animal does not know that it is about to die. According to Islamic teachings, the animal may not see the knife before its death. Also, the death is a quick cut to the neck. Perhaps it is just me, but I am not seeing the horrible pscopathic behavior in all of this.

Is it not more cruel to simply prolong its death? When humans are given the sentenced to death in the U.S. they know how they will die and have to endure the psychological and then physical pain. They are not knocked out before they are killed!

Now, I ask you, what is healthier and more natural for us- to eat a naturally killed chicken or an electrically stunned and then slaughtered chicken? Either way, we are going to kill it, so why not kill it in a way healthier and more benaficial for us?

I see no problem in this way of slaughtering.

Originally Posted by FringeGirl

Now, I ask you, what is healthier and more natural for us- to eat a naturally killed chicken or an electrically stunned and then slaughtered chicken? Either way, we are going to kill it, so why not kill it in a way healthier and more benaficial for us?

Why do you use the word natural to further your position? This isn't a political debate. Everything we do is natural since we can't exclude ourselves from nature. And what exactly makes the animal healthier and more beneficial with this way of slaughtering rather than that one? Do you have any scientific arguments to distinguish any clear physiological differences, etc?

The parallell you made between humans and animals doesn't make much sense. The animal won't know it's going to die in the same way a criminal is. Besides, it's not like the death penalty is practiced everywhere.

If there are no real differences, why not just go with the humane way?

"Throat-slitting is no problem for those ignorant of the study." -Pong

So you wouldn't mind having your throat slit, so long as you were ignorant of objective means to confirm pain?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Throat-slitting is no problem for those ignorant of the study." -Pong

So you wouldn't mind having your throat slit, so long as you were ignorant of objective means to confirm pain?

I meant that the animal's rights/welfare are not an issue to those unaware of it. This is curious. Certainly a person's welfare matters whether or not we know about that person. For animals, it's different: because we may think (reason/legislate/industrialize) with cool calculation, but we must always feel gut empathy when confronted at a personal level. For example most animal shelters take volunteers, mainly volunteer dog-walkers, but they wouldn't accept volunteers to euthanize the strays - that is done by grim professionals. If you volunteered for that they'd think you're deeply screwed up and probably dangerous. However if you endorse it detachedly you're a decent & humane person. A bit of a mind-game here, that has everything to do with observer empathy, and little to do with the object itself.

Animal rights groups play the game dirty. "Just look at the suffering" they plead. Then of course you must empathize with the big-eyed seal pup or lamb or whatever, against your better judgment, because you're only human.

I fear this study will be used to discomfit Muslims. That would be a dirty trick, because we each accept some things we wouldn't participate in or even look at, and we're supposed to have the grace to respect sensitivities.

Originally Posted by FringeGirl

You all are really blowing halal slaughtering out of proportion. Halal salughtering is done in the Islamic tradition in a very quick way, and also in a way so that the animal does not know that it is about to die. According to Islamic teachings, the animal may not see the knife before its death. Also, the death is a quick cut to the neck. Perhaps it is just me, but I am not seeing the horrible pscopathic behavior in all of this.

So because the animal can't see the knife before it is cut that means it is more humane, less painful, and faster? The animal still has to bleed out, and although the neck is a quick way of doing this, it will still take time.

Originally Posted by FringeGirl

Is it not more cruel to simply prolong its death? When humans are given the sentenced to death in the U.S. they know how they will die and have to endure the psychological and then physical pain. They are not knocked out before they are killed!

Prolonged in what way? Prolonging the actual killing of the animal, sure. The methods used now to kill humans, from what they tell us, are relatively painless. Who is not knocked out? Humans or animals? If you are referring to previous in the post where people said they should knock the animals out, they said it because that would cause the animal to feel no pain while it is actually dying. Yes knocking it out would cause pain, but you're trying to kill the animal, you can't get around causing it pain in some form or another.

Originally Posted by FringeGirl

Now, I ask you, what is healthier and more natural for us- to eat a naturally killed chicken or an electrically stunned and then slaughtered chicken? Either way, we are going to kill it, so why not kill it in a way healthier and more benaficial for us?

I see no problem in this way of slaughtering.

I really don't see what difference it would make how the chicken died, it is still dying, all the death signals are still being sent, the hormones to attempt to overcome it released etc. The only negative I can see to electrically stunning something before death is the possibility of someone doing it wrong and damaging meat.

Animals kill and eat each other all the time, they don't use a ritualistic throat slitting killing method. They tear the animal apart, sometimes while it is still alive, they seem to be doing alright.

Im less horrified by the Halal method, than the fact that we eat animals, I still eat meat though

Isnt Halal similar to Kosher?

we need to eat, but in order to do it right we need a rule to get it, thats why there's halal rule, that we dont go too far and do anything we want to get what we need, thats why muslim has a rule to do it for the benefit of human and not make the animal suffer in pain in a long time, if you think thats is horrified so all off animal killing too in any safe method you think, cause all of it mean to kill them, just be vegetarian if you dont want to see animal die and dont eat meat!

While living among the Iraqi Army I've witness several Halal killings of cattle. The animal is tied facing Mecca, prayers are given to Allah and the throat is cut. The animal usually collapses into unconsciousness in a few minutes and at least in one case I witness there was absolute horror in the animals eyes. (It was still good to eat.)

Like many religious things, Halal probably made sense as a practical way to ensure food safety mixed with respect and appreciation for Allah's works of nature that's embedded in Islam (but not widely practiced now).

I think modern methods to ensure safety and ethics have made it obsolete.

Well I see no problems in doing this. Inhumanity concept, as I believe, is only used for human infraction.

And if you want to use it with animals, you should use it with everything; like, per example, kicking flowers is inhuman too, because the kick will 'kill' the flower, and it is the same case with animals, I do believe.

And about ethics, well ancients were more cruel. Well why associating 'killing animals', for eating, with ethics; however?

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is quite possible to stun animals with an electric pulse before throat cutting to permit Halal killing with no pain to the animal. This should be done.

Some Muslims have a problem with that because they believe the blood should be pumped out of the animal's body through "natural convulsions" - which might not happen if the animal is stunned or anaesthesised.

I don't know how close or how far this view is from the actual Quran wording; perhaps it's just somebody's interpretation.

Originally Posted by Pong

Unsure who you're talking to. :wink: I'm opposed to animal rights, and believe that animal welfare only matters to the degree that we (consumers) know about the animals.

Muslims are required to know the conditions of slaughter... or think they know. Throat-slitting is no problem for those ignorant of the study. But just in case folks decide to plaster this all over the internet, out of the goodness of their hearts, I guess adding a humane stun would put everyone at ease.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

If it only matters to the extent of what the consumer knows about, why does it matter at all? Because it could easily be kept behind closed doors without anybody knowing so exactly the same thing would happen except nobody would notice, which would therefore make it right.

I'm guessing this same theory can also apply to murder. As long as nobody finds out, its fine.

The reason animals have rights is because, as has been scientifically proven without a doubt, that they have emotions, relationships, and lives. Not to the extent that we do, but they still feel. So why should we just disregard that and treat them as our posessions? Its exactly the same as slavery; creatures (in slavery's case, PEOPLE) who we KNOW have feelings, relationships and their own lives, being treated as our own personal posessions, simply because we are superior to them and they have no way of fighting back. Its wrong.

Originally Posted by hegelian@revolutionist.co

And if you want to use it with animals, you should use it with everything; like, per example, kicking flowers is inhuman too, because the kick will 'kill' the flower, and it is the same case with animals, I do believe.

Flowers don't have any emotion, they don't think, so killing a flower, from the flower's point of view, doesn't happen. A flower works like a computer; It does a set task and can't do anything else. It doesn't feel, it doesn't think, it has no free will in the first place.

But anyway, being a part of a religion, no matter what we do I can't see Halal going away any time soon. I'm a religious person myself (Christian) but if one of my beliefs caused pain or suffering to another creature then I would not uphold that belief. But not everyone thinks that like that, and a lot of Muslims are extremely religious, so Halal is part of their culture and their lives, even if it is wrong. But from a practical point of view; its pointless.

Originally Posted by Haasum

Yes knocking it out would cause pain, but you're trying to kill the animal, you can't get around causing it pain in some form or another.

Can't you? What about applying some anaesthesizing gas (which can be as simple as ) before killing the animal?

Also, controlled atmosphere killing has been used to cull poultry, for example during the chicken flu scare a few years ago. This, some people claim, puts the birds out more or less painlessly (unless you use !), although if they were being slaughtered for food there would be a problem with the blood left in their bodies (which is undesirable for health reasons as well as hallal or kosher considerations).

Who decides what is and isn't humane? The muslim people do this, not because they just want to torture animals, but because it is in their religion. At least in America, there is the idea that there should be a tolerance for all religions and their practices.

If I were to say that crushing grapes and making it into wine was inhumane and i suggested a way of humanely applying electric shock to the grapes while i gently cut them from the branch I would be called f*cking crazy. Then if i were to say that wine should not be drunken during Church and that all the people who drank wine that wasn't made in my way were bad, inhumane people, I would be laughed at!

This of course is all hypothetical. The people who decide what makes things humane or not are the people and groups that do the acts. Not the people who go on a science forum and get laughed at by the people who read what they say (thats me ) rather than go public in a group who get laughed at as a group rather than individually.

Can't you? What about applying some anaesthesizing gas (which can be as simple as ) before killing the animal?

Also, controlled atmosphere killing has been used to cull poultry, for example during the chicken flu scare a few years ago. This, some people claim, puts the birds out more or less painlessly (unless you use !), although if they were being slaughtered for food there would be a problem with the blood left in their bodies (which is undesirable for health reasons as well as hallal or kosher considerations).

I don't think that gas killing has been seen as humane since the 1940's in Germany.

Originally Posted by Jordy

Originally Posted by Pong

Unsure who you're talking to. :wink: I'm opposed to animal rights, and believe that animal welfare only matters to the degree that we (consumers) know about the animals.

Muslims are required to know the conditions of slaughter... or think they know. Throat-slitting is no problem for those ignorant of the study. But just in case folks decide to plaster this all over the internet, out of the goodness of their hearts, I guess adding a humane stun would put everyone at ease.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

If it only matters to the extent of what the consumer knows about, why does it matter at all? Because it could easily be kept behind closed doors without anybody knowing so exactly the same thing would happen except nobody would notice, which would therefore make it right.

I'm guessing this same theory can also apply to murder. As long as nobody finds out, its fine.

I think ignorance is scary. Our TV programming is so sanitized these days, I doubt many of us really connect with the fact the people who die in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering horrible deaths. We think they're just like the bad guys in some PG13 action movie, who just instantly die the moment the bullets hit them without crying out in pain or even leaving any blood on the ground.

The reason animals have rights is because, as has been scientifically proven without a doubt, that they have emotions, relationships, and lives. Not to the extent that we do, but they still feel. So why should we just disregard that and treat them as our posessions? Its exactly the same as slavery; creatures (in slavery's case, PEOPLE) who we KNOW have feelings, relationships and their own lives, being treated as our own personal posessions, simply because we are superior to them and they have no way of fighting back. Its wrong.

I think economic practicality has always been the rule in these matters. Slavery ended in the USA after the industrial revolution had already rendered slave labor obsolete in the Northern States. The southern states would probably have followed suit on their own, even without a Civil War, once gasoline powered tractors became available to harvest their fields with.

We only do moral stuff when its better for business.

But anyway, being a part of a religion, no matter what we do I can't see Halal going away any time soon. I'm a religious person myself (Christian) but if one of my beliefs caused pain or suffering to another creature then I would not uphold that belief. But not everyone thinks that like that, and a lot of Muslims are extremely religious, so Halal is part of their culture and their lives, even if it is wrong. But from a practical point of view; its pointless.

Yeah. After all the other disagreements Muslims and Christians shoot each other over, I really don't think we need to add cessation of Halal killings to our list of demands for cultural change over there. Let's focus on getting them to treat their women a little better first, then think about how they treat food animals later.

Very interesting thread. It gave me an idea for a new topic in the philosophy sub-forum “It's said, we are what we eat”. I'm sure each of you that posted in this thread would have an opinion that would interest me.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=272379#272379