The Militant Muslim Community Does Not
Want To Admit That Animals Do Not
Need To Be Awake At Slaughter
Tonight while researching a page for this blog I came upon an article published in 2006 in the very well regarded Scientific publication 'New Scientist' which is born out by another article (already reported in this blog) by Dr Taj Hargey, a dedicated Muslim, a devout religionist, an imam and intellectual scholar of Islam, published only last year (2014).
Both articles show that it is complete and utter crap that an animal can not be efficiently stunned so it is unconscious to pain before and during Halal slaughter.
Before I comment further here are the pertinent excerpts from both articles...
"He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood, and the flesh of swine and that on which any other name has been invoked besides that of God." (The Koran, 2:173)
Muslim religious law requires, among other things, that an animal must be drained of blood before it is halal - permissible for consumption. Ritual slaughter according to Jewish dietary law - shechita - has the same prescription. Most Muslim slaughterers believe that drainage will only be complete if the throat of the animal is slit without stunning it first, but now Haluk Anil of the University of Bristol, UK, and colleagues have shown that the amount of blood drained from the animal, and the rate of blood loss, is the same regardless of whether or not it is stunned first.
Anil's team have already shown that stunning does not affect "bleed-out" in sheep. Now they have done the same thing in cattle. They measured the bleed-out in 13 cattle killed by the tradition Muslim method, and 13 killed in the same way, but having first been stunned by a captive-bolt-pistol blow to the head (Animal Welfare, vol 15, p 325).
"Stunning does not impede blood loss, therefore this objection cannot be used any more," says Anil, who is coordinating a European Union project to examine legislation and welfare issues related to religious slaughter, both shechita and halal.
I’m a dedicated Muslim, a devout religionist, an imam and intellectual scholar of Islam, but I eat whatever food is placed before me, with the obvious exception of pork. If you’re kind enough to invite me to your home, I would eat whatever meat you chose to serve: turkey, lamb, chicken, beef … anything except pork.
This is perfectly permissible in Islam, and the crucial thing is that it doesn’t have to be halal meat. No one wants an imam to be quoting chapter and verse of the Koran over the turkey sandwiches, but it is important that everyone understands how clearcut the teaching is.
Chapter five, verse five of the Koran states: ‘This day all good things are made lawful for you. The food of the People of the Book [meaning the Jews and the Christians] is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them …’
There are no ifs and buts about that. The Koran does expect us to be thankful for our food, however.
I teach in Oxford, and when I go to dining halls in the university, I eat what is available. I must say, I’m partial to a slice of steak.
At the point of consumption, before I put the food in my mouth, I give thanks, with a brief prayer that Muslims have been saying for more than 1,400 years.
I say: ‘In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Gracious.’ Christian readers will recognise what I’m doing — it’s very similar to the concept of saying grace.
The Koran says we cannot eat slaughtered meat unless the name of God exclusively has been pronounced over it, not any other deity or idol.
So, it does not really matter if, when that cow or lamb was slaughtered, the abattoir workers were saying prayers or playing heavy rock music at full blast on their radios. The individual prayer just prior to actual consumption makes the meat fit — halal — to eat.
But if the Koran does not insist on what have become the customary halal methods, why are they now so prevalent in Britain? One reason is that religious zealots and theological ideologues are deliberately promoting confusion about halal to sow discord and resentment.
So there we are then, to me, and I am guessing most of you it's pretty clear cut.
The above should be considered with reading the following....
The old "I have the right to practise my religion" argument
There are 16 basic rights in the Human Rights Act – all taken from the European Convention on Human Rights and they apply to use all regarding of race, religion or creed.There are three types of rights under the Human Rights Act and the important one for the argument against Halal slaughter is of the third type in the list below.
Absolute rights – such as the right to protection from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3).
The state can never withhold or take away these rights.
Limited rights – such as the right to liberty (Article 5).
These rights may be limited under explicit and finite circumstances.
Qualified rights – rights which require a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the wider community or state interest.
These can be taken away or over ruled if the state (government) or a court finds that it is in the interests of the WIDER COMMUNITY.
How this applies to the Halal Argument is: Article 9 of the act says we have "the right to manifest one’s religion or beliefs".
It is this that the Militant Muslims and Imans who are shouting "It's our right to slaughter animals in according to the laws of Islam" will quote and rely on for their legal argument but Article 9 is a Qualified Right which can be taken away or over ruled.
Let me put it another way, they only have the right as long as the Government says they do and the Government can remove that right any time they wish as long as it is the will of, or in the interests of, the wider community.
Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population, the rest of us make up 95.2% so who has the wider community?
As for the current legal exemption from welfare regulations for religious slaughter, it is important to note that the exemption from stunning for religious slaughter is based upon the principle that “unnecessary suffering” should not be caused", however animals are slaughtered. The recognition that “very significant pain and distress” is “likely” to be caused by slaughter without prestunning thus calls into question the entire legal basis of the existing exemption and the UK Government has so far failed to address it.
Expert upon Expert has presented unarguable and explicit scientific and visual evidence to the government proving beyond all doubt that non-stun slaughter causes not just "significant pain and distress" but the most extreme pain and distress.
In 2003, at the request of the Government, the Governments own 'Farm Animal Welfare Council' (an independent advisory body of experts established by the Government of Great Britain in 1979) investigated non-stun slaughter and published its report on the welfare of animals at slaughter. The report overwhelmingly stated that non-stun slaughter should be banned.
In 2004, the Government announced that it would not adopt the report’s recommendation that the practice of slaughter without prior stunning be banned completely.
In 2011 the Government disbanded the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
I do not advocate racism in any way but we do need to make our voices as loud as possible by lawful means.
This is not about race or the right to practice a religion, its about animal welfare.
All animals are living, feeling and sentient beings.
They feel fear, happiness, and pain just as we all do and if we must slaughter them they deserve to be treated with respect and dispatched in the most painless way possible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment