Have you read the scientific evidence behind how unhealthy pork is? Most unhealthy people eat pork. I have eaten both halal and non halal meat and in my opinion halal meat tastes way better is more tender and indeed stays fresher longer. Mariam, You are right on this answer to Raphael. May Allah continue to help us,.
There are a tonne of videos telling people how bad pig is for u but no one listens bc people love the taste. This is where cancers lie; in pig. They r the dirtiest animal and eat anything, bones, feces, fruit and people if it was in a pail for them.
People need to be open and not label not eating pork as a religious thing and do what is best for health and living. If you have religious reasons for abstaining, by all means do. Peter was one of those people who had a hard time accepting this change.
Acts tells of how Peter had a vision from God. Peter objected because they were unclean. So as a Christian, I have absolutely no religious footing to say that we should not eat pork. I agree with her, shooting. Shocking or suffacating in any way in horrible for any animal death for consummation. If the killing of animals is to be done, do it in the best manner, and when you slaughter, do it in the best manner by first sharpening the knife, and putting the animal at ease.
That person killed me in vain! He did not kill me for any useful purpose. If you are killed for some useful purpose , do you agree? In order to overcome guilty consciousness,we need some stupid allah or whatever God. Probably someday there will be nuclear wars due to your Allan. Get over allah and follow west developed science not some Arabic religion.
Maybe for you, any kind of slaughtering is inhumane and you are not wrong for thinking that. Unless you yourself eats hamburger then that just makes your hypocritical. You must not use such harsh words epecially for the Creator whatever the name is used for Him if you respect Him by whatever name you use for Him. Without arab Muslims you would NOT have algorithms.
And without Algorithms you would not be able to achieve this so called western developed science.. Then one should do some research at the very least, simply to get some facts.. Preferably from literature for and against on any subject.. He is the creator who created you as well. You need to have some kind of sense, so as to use a language. And the rituals and practices of a religion are for a reason.
It does make sense in our rules, that is why we follow, and it is for our own good. And by the way, plants do have life and they too feel pain according to the recent scientific researches ,so would you rather die without eating them?
And being a vet idk how you do not have any idea about the impacts of consuming pork. As far as halal is concerned you have to let the blood drain, and indeed a halal slaughter with sharp knife and the right place it is the minimum an animal feels. As to putting animal to sleep first before slaughter is akin to dead animal.
If the creator of you and me says that this is best way who are we to argue? Allah knows best. Pork is the most widely eaten meat in the world, making up about 38 percent of meat production worldwide.
Many people are surprised to find this out, but in the Old Testament God warned us that the pig was an unclean animal. No matter how you think about it, pigs are rather dirty animals. This includes not only bugs, insects and whatever leftover scraps they find laying around, but also their own feces, as well as the dead carcasses of sick animals, including their own young.
At least one farmer has gone out to feed his pigs and never returned. There are reasons that the meat of the pig becomes more saturated with toxins than many of its counterpart farm animals. This would scare them and make them unnecessarily nervous.
Animals must be slaughtered swiftly with a sharp knife, not anything rugged that would make it more difficult and more painful to the animal. No clubbing, beating, shooting the animal is allowed nor is such meat halal for Muslims to eat.
This allows the heart to continue to pump the blood out and drains the blood from the animal blood is not halal to consume. There was a study done long ago in Germany, as mentioned in great detail here and discusses these points, although it is not meant to be the final word or most comprehensive source of information on this topic.
Overall, halal is antithetical to the inhumane treatment of animals. Eco-halal is a term coined to describe this all-encompassing way of feeding people with food that is blessed and sacrificed for the purpose of consumption, not waste. I am not a scholar of this topic, and this is in no way a comprehensive overview of it, either.
It's purpose is to clear a misconception by offering some insight into the truth of the matter and hopefully open the door for more discussion and personal research by readers who would like to explore the topic further for themselves. Are there any other myths you would like to see addressed? The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author s and do not necessarily reflect those of MomsRising.
We value diversity of opinions and perspectives. Stunning: any mechanical, electrical, chemical or other procedure which causes immediate loss of consciousness which lasts until either the animal is killed or it recovers [ 20 ]. Reversible stunning: the animal being able to recover naturally if slaughter does not take place.
A pilot study to test the clarity of the questions, effectiveness of the iPad delivery and capture of data was conducted at the University of Queensland Gatton campus with three participants. Following this a help text was embedded differentiating between compulsory requirements in order to make a product halal and non-compulsory recommendations for halal products, and a simple definition of halal was also inserted into the preliminary page. The new questionnaire was tested on 10 new participants and no further changes were made.
Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses using a logit link function were used to assess the significance of the relationships between respondent demographics the independent variables and the distribution of the Likert scale responses for each question the dependent variable. For each independent variable demographic factors, country, age group, area of residence and income , the most numerous response category was chosen as the reference category e.
Similarly, binary logistic regression analyses with a logit link function were used to assess the significance of the demographic factors on the compulsory and recommended halal slaughter practices. Other variables were analysed with a general linear model, with the same factors as outlined for the logistic regressions. A total of eligible participants answered the survey. Income was evenly spread over the different categories in Australia, but tended to be less in Malaysia.
When respondents were asked to rate their understanding of Islam, Muslims mean rating 4. Notes: All are variables that had at least one level with a p-value of less than 0. Responses were measured from the mean Likert scale score for that group and question. When asked to rate their understanding of the process of halal slaughter, Muslims claimed greatest understanding 4. Legal control of animal welfare during slaughter was supported by the general consensus including Muslims and Christians , although Buddhists, Hindus and Jews were not sure Table 2.
Humane and respectful treatment of animals in halal slaughter was more important to Muslims than other religions, with Jews attributing it the least importance value.
Muslims generally thought that the quality of halal meat is better than non-halal meat, whereas those other religions tended to be unsure. Similarly, Muslims generally thought that the slaughtering of animals that are conscious for religious reasons was acceptable, whereas other religiously identified respondents within the study thought it unacceptable.
Muslims had a strong preference to buy halal meat, but Christians and those without a religion tended to avoid it, with others unsure. Conversely, Muslims were unsure whether paying extra money for animal products with high welfare standards was reasonable, but Christians and those without a religion were more prepared to do so.
When asked whether various practices are compulsory or recommended for halal slaughter, there was overall agreement in both countries that a practising Muslim must conduct the procedure, an Islamic prayer must be recited, a sharp knife used and the throat, oesophagus, jugular vein and carotid artery must be severed Table 4.
These were all considered by most participants to be compulsory practices, especially by respondents from Malaysia. More of the remaining Malaysians than Australians thought that these were recommended, except the recital of an Islamic prayer, which more Australians thought was recommended. A majority of Malaysians thought that the person carrying out the slaughter must be sane which Australians were more likely than Malaysians to believe to be just recommended , the head of the animal should be facing Mecca and the animal must be conscious during slaughter, whereas only between one third and one half of Australians thought these to be compulsory.
Approximately one third of Australians, but only a quarter of Malaysians believed that meat had to be, or it was recommended that it was, approved by an Imam. Only a small proportion believed that the entire head of the animal had to be severed, but more Australians that Malaysians believed this.
Participants with an undergraduate degree as their highest level of education had a higher perceived understanding of Islam and halal slaughter than school leavers and those with a certificate or diploma Table 5. They were also more in agreement that animal welfare during slaughter should be controlled by law than participants with other education levels.
They found it more reasonable to pay extra for animal products with high welfare standards and more important to provide halal options within Australian or Malaysian societies, compared to school leavers and certificate or diploma holders. Participants with an undergraduate degree as their highest level of education also more strongly believed that the humane and respectful treatment of animals in halal slaughter was important, compared to certificate or diploma participants. They were also less likely to believe that the quality of meat in halal slaughter was increased compared to certificate or diploma holders, but they were more likely to believe that the quality was increased than school leavers.
Male participants were more likely than females to have a higher self-rated understanding of Islam and to find it acceptable to slaughter animals that are conscious for religious reasons Table 6. Females were more likely to agree that animal welfare during slaughter should be controlled by law. Participants aged 56 and over had a lower self-rated understanding of halal than other age groups Fig 1. Respondents aged 46—55 were more likely to agree that animal welfare during slaughter should be controlled by law than those aged 18—25 and 56 and over.
Agreement with slaughtering animals that are conscious for religious reasons declined in older respondents. Variables had at least one level with a p-value of less than 0. As a result the differences between Muslims and Christians detected were similar to those between Malaysians and Australians. However, it must be noted that we based our geographical representation, in the case of Australia, on socioeconomic indices and were not able to do that for Malaysia. Hence we cannot be absolutely sure that the two populations were exactly comparable.
Demographic factors such as country, religion and education were significantly associated with attitudes, beliefs and consumer habits regarding halal slaughter practices.
This study also presented generally accepted principles that a social network, opinions and beliefs are circulated and shared by many of its members, thus determining attitudes, expectations and actions [ 23 ].
One possible explanation for this is that those with less disposable income would prefer laws to be imposed to improve welfare standards across all products, as they do not have the perceived luxury of additional expenditure in order to purchase a more ethical product.
Those respondents in the lowest income bracket were also more likely to believe that the humane and respectful treatment of animals in halal slaughter was important, however other studies have found that high-income respondents had a higher level of concern regarding animal welfare, which is at odds with these results [ 25 ]. This is a complex issue with numerous socio-economic and socio-political factors.
The differences in overall attitudes to halal animal products may be attributed in part to the disparity in knowledge of halal slaughter techniques between Australian and Malaysian participants, with Australians possessing less understanding than Malaysians. For instance, Australian participants were more likely than Malaysians to incorrectly identify that halal meat must be approved by an Imam and that the entire head of the animal must be severed as compulsory practices in halal.
Australians were also more likely to believe that certain practices are only recommended when actually they are compulsory in halal slaughter; for example that halal slaughter must be conducted by a practising Muslim. It is also likely that non-Muslim Malaysians possess more knowledge of halal through living in a majority Muslim country and having more exposure to Islamic practices such as halal slaughter.
This is further supported by Golnaz et. Malaysian respondents may also be more familiar with halal practices regardless of their religious beliefs in part due to the state government of Malaysia taking on the role of a halal-certifying authority and standardising the processes [ 27 ].
However, they still demonstrated an adherence to a standard set of procedures, which were also agreed by Australian respondents Table 4. Policy makers must understand the gaps between common perceptions and the prescribed requirements of halal slaughter in the relevant religious texts. A clear and open debate to clarify what is required is long overdue. The present study particularly demonstrated a lack of knowledge amongst Malaysian Muslims in regards to permissible stunning.
This supports previous findings that Muslim respondents were unaware of some aspects of the halal process [ 15 ]. This lack of knowledge could result in opportunity for confusion and increased possibly of being misled. Religion appeared to be the basis of acceptance of animal slaughter without the use of stunning, which was linked to the acceptance of halal food. Muslims may believe that the bleed time of stunned animals is adversely affected by stunning, although neither head only electrical nor captive bolt stunning affects this [ 29 , 30 ].
A low frequency head to back stun has been shown to reduce bleed out in goats, with consequent reduction in microbiological quality of the meat [ 31 ]. Stunning accelerates loss of consciousness, with benefits for animal welfare [ 32 ]. However, some Muslim consumers also fear that the stunning process may kill animals prior to the throat being cut, which would make the meat unacceptable for consumption [ 15 ]. While Muslims thought that the slaughtering of animals that are conscious for religious reasons was acceptable, all other religiously identified respondents within the study thought it unacceptable.
This is a point of interest in regards to the small number of Jewish participants, as it suggests a possible lack of knowledge of the process of Kosher slaughter, which does not permit pre-slaughter stunning [ 33 ]. Muslim consumers may prefer transacting with Muslim butchers because they are individuals of known reputation with similar moral and religious obligations, as this may confer confidence that animals are slaughtered and the meat is prepared with respect to religious rituals [ 15 ].
There was also a major difference between Malaysian and Australian participants regarding opinions on meat quality in halal. While most Australians believed that the quality of meat was unaffected or decreased as a result of halal slaughter, the majority of Malaysians were of the opinion that the quality was increased.
This difference suggests a disparity in beliefs about meat quality. While meat quality is generally described in the West using attributes such as aesthetic, taste and nutritional value, in halal slaughter there is also an underlying dimension of spirituality [ 34 ].
I spend a lot of my time talking to small holders and organic farmers about this, all to try and win them over and dispel the myths around halal, so that they feel confident to sell us high quality pasture-raised and organic meat so we at Abraham Organics , can supply our customers with the best. We have made some great connections with farmers and small holders through the years, and I hope that as the demand grows we will be able to encourage more halal customers to purchase high quality meat.
Respect for this history and the fact that most of the world adhere to a faith, shows tolerance and understanding in society. Small ruminants will lie down almost hypnotised, a state referred to as tonic immobility in the scientific literature.
This can be achieved by laying the sheep or goat on their side until they lie perfectly still. Many animals display this behaviour — chickens, lizards, even sharks. Traditional shepherds in the Muslim world saw this as a sign of submission.
Some Muslims would argue that this is truly the only time you can slaughter from an Islamic perspective, as the animal has effectively submitted its life to you. However, the industrialised scale of slaughter takes this sacred act and puts it onto a conveyor belt, with as many beasts as possible, killed in the shortest amount of time.
Could it be open to people to come and see their animals being slaughtered, engaging them in the process of adding value and learning along the way? Slaughtering animals is necessary for meat consumption and having slaughtered many animals, I have been galvanised by a strong sense of gratitude for the meat that ends up on our plates. My morality and guidance when approaching slaughter has been influenced not only by my faith, but also by best practice as defined by Temple Grandin, the world-famous animal behaviour expert, as well as robust scientific research into slaughter methods.
Slaughter as a subject engenders a lot of emotion, and in my experience, people can become blinded by that.
In the media, halal slaughter comes up time and time again, portrayed as a cruel and barbaric way to kill animals, when, in fact, it is little different from the slaughter faced by farmed animals across the globe. Open discussion is needed, along with a better understanding of halal practice and the beliefs it is grounded in, to dispel the misconceptions that are so often associated with it. Its premise and practice is based on a deep and enduring respect for the animals whose lives are sacrificed for our nourishment.
Muhsen will be speaking about the subject of halal at our conference, Harmony in Food and Farming, which takes place on the 10th and 11th July in Llandovery, Wales.
0コメント