Halal Explained

[wn123455]

What about lamb sold in a non-Islamic store?

As virtually all Lamb is slaughtered Halal even if it is going to be sold in a store that sells pork and will no longer be considered Halal?

Should it still be labelled Halal as it is no longer Halal

What about a can of corn, should it be certified halal to show it has no additives and a Muslim may eat it?

I do not eat much lamb. Most canned corn budget brands do not bother to certify halal.

 

[WoodrowX2]

What if the Certification agency is run by Christians? Who ever is certifying something Halal need not be Muslim as long as they can prove the product does not contain anything Haram. it need not be a Muslim that produces or certifies the product.

The cannery might produce their own certification seal/logo denoting their halal products.

 

[smaneck]

I distinguish between halal certified products and halal products.

Yet you posted a video from a woman complaining that her lamb was not labeled halal, although it was NZ lamb, all of which is slaughtered the same way.

 

[wn123455]

Yet you posted a video from a woman complaining that her lamb was not labeled halal, although it was NZ lamb, all of which is slaughtered the same way.

Thank you for letting me know most or all NZ lamb is slaughtered halal.

 

[smaneck]

Thank you for letting me know most or all NZ lamb is slaughtered halal.

Hopefully your boycott will bring down the price.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Thank you for letting me know most or all NZ lamb is slaughtered halal.

Not just NZ. Virtually all lamb is slaughtered Halal or Kosher as Nearly all lamb is sold to Muslims and Jews. It is not economically feasible for a meat producer to try to set up 2 different slaughtering procedures.

The only way you can be certain lamb was not slaughtered halal or Kosher is to buy it from a local farmer you know does not slaughter Halal or Kosher.

This is a case were it might be advisable to come up with "Not Halal" certification. As only a small percentage of lamb won't be Halal

 

[wn123455]

Not just NZ. Virtually all lamb is slaughtered Halal or Kosher as Nearly all lamb is sold to Muslims and Jews. It is not economically feasible for a meat producer to try to set up 2 different slaughtering procedures.

The only way you can be certain lamb was not slaughtered halal or Kosher is to buy it from a local farmer you know does not slaughter Halal or Kosher.

This is a case were it might be advisable to come up with "Not Halal" certification. As only a small percentage of lamb won't be Halal

I do not mind eating Kosher lamb. But I do not really like eating lamb.

 

[smaneck]

Not just NZ. Virtually all lamb is slaughtered Halal or Kosher as Nearly all lamb is sold to Muslims and Jews. It is not economically feasible for a meat producer to try to set up 2 different slaughtering procedures.

The lamb served at the Outback Steakhouse is halal, but look at how it is served:

“A rack of tasty New Zealand lamb (cooked to order) with a rich Cabernet wine sauce. Served with garlic mashed potatoes and fresh seasonal veggies.”

Halal no more!

 

[WoodrowX2]

The lamb served at the Outback Steakhouse is halal, but look at how it is served:

“A rack of tasty New Zealand lamb (cooked to order) with a rich Cabernet wine sauce. Served with garlic mashed potatoes and fresh seasonal veggies.”

Halal no more!

There is a Greek Restaurant in Fargo. Funny thing is they buy halal lamb but it is haram to us Muslims

because of the way they prepare it.

Should be illegal for non-Muslims to buy Halal

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Until we have proof they don't, I think we can make that assumption. If we can't, then we also can't assume that animals killed by halal feel no more pain once they are unconscious.

But with stunning and then slaughtering, that might just be giving the animal even more pain than with slaughtering alone.

We may have to agree to disagree. Let's have a burger tomorrow and forget all about this argument.

Way ahead of you.

Then why the command to kill salamanders?

Because the Prophet Muhammad said so and that's enough for the Muslims. Plus, all animals that are harmful to us and cannot be removed are allowed to be killed. It's just that some animals were specifically mentioned.

Different spider bites will affect different people differently. Also, there are at least three kinds of spiders living in the middle east, whose bite can cause far more problems than a skin irritation.

Maybe it wasn't an issue for them. And as I said above, some animals were specifically mentioned but the general principle is that any animal that is harming us & that harm cannot be removed can be killed.

Of course it does. Muhammad stated that salamanders are to be killed because of the fiery assault on Abraham. The author of IslamToday claims he said no such thing, and that they are to be killed because they are pests. Muhammad either did say that salamanders are to be killed because of the sin of the salamander who didn't help Abraham, or he didn't.

No, actually, he says that the Prophet Muhammad was showing the distastefulness of the salamander but that is not the sole reason to kill them.

And what is that harm?

Allaah knows best.

I really am not trying to sound rude, and please forgive me if I am, but are you saying that if you find a snake in your house that could potentially be poisonous, you wouldn't try to get rid of it in the first go? I mean, what if you admonish it the first time, and it slithers away? Then bites you or one of your kids or a guest?

30 seconds doesn't make that big of a difference. It's just a warning for it to leave. Also, I'm not sure if poisonous snakes are excluded from this because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) specifically gave the order to kill a type of snake that was harmful to humans in Arabia. Thankfully, I live in an area where we don't have many poisonous snakes or spiders so it's not really something I've read up on.

 

[WoodrowX2]

But with stunning and then slaughtering, that might just be giving the animal even more pain than with slaughtering alone.



Way ahead of you.



Because the Prophet Muhammad said so and that's enough for the Muslims. Plus, all animals that are harmful to us and cannot be removed are allowed to be killed. It's just that some animals were specifically mentioned.



Maybe it wasn't an issue for them. And as I said above, some animals were specifically mentioned but the general principle is that any animal that is harming us & that harm cannot be removed can be killed.



No, actually, he says that the Prophet Muhammad was showing the distastefulness of the salamander but that is not the sole reason to kill them.



Allaah knows best.



30 seconds doesn't make that big of a difference. It's just a warning for it to leave. Also, I'm not sure if poisonous snakes are excluded from this because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) specifically gave the order to kill a type of snake that was harmful to humans in Arabia. Thankfully, I live in an area where we don't have many poisonous snakes or spiders so it's not really something I've read up on.

Just a summation of how I see things.

Based upon the Ahadith and taking simply the intent of them the conclusion I come to:

1. We are not specifically commanded to kill anything

2. It is allowed for us to kill animals that are harmful or dangerous.


My own actions are when I find something that poses a threat is I that will take it and move it to an area where it poses no problem. I am not required to kill them. but if I were not able to catch them, or was afraid to capture them, there would be no sin in my killing them

 

[simplegifts]

But with stunning and then slaughtering, that might just be giving the animal even more pain than with slaughtering alone.

...

Didn't I post an article about studies that showed no bad issues with stunning? The animals that were stunned were fine, there was nothing to indicate any pain [abnormal vital signs] and actually went out to pasture and started eating very quickly after being stunned.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Didn't I post an article about studies that showed no bad issues with stunning? The animals that were stunned were fine, there was nothing to indicate any pain [abnormal vital signs] and actually went out to pasture and started eating very quickly after being stunned.

True

But what is not shown is proof that the stunned animals do not feel pain. Because they were not able to respond to the pain is not proof they did not feel pain.

Ask anyone who has ever been in a coma.

In 1963 I was severely injured and spent 3 months in a coma. during that time I still member experiencing pain and at times even hearing the doctors around me talking. Although I was incapable of any movement, not even able to blink my eyes.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Addendum to my above post.

Check this link

HERE

 

[WoodrowX2]

From a non-Muslim site

Can an Electrically Stunned Animal Feel Pain?

There is evidence from human beings that electrical stimulation is painful. Electrical current is widely used to torture people in South America/ the Middle East and China; cattle prods or electric batons are used. Victims of torture attest that the larger the voltage or current, the more painful it is; they do not go unconscious immediately. The power used to torture people is of the same order as that used to stun animals. Greater energy used in the electric chair kills the victim after some minutes, or spoils the taste of meat. Of course, the voltages and currents experienced by the human beings or animals are much lower than those coming out of the devices they use, because the electrodes cannot be applied accurately and firmly and there are alternative pathways across the skin, through the skin and into the tissues. In the case of prisoners in the electric chair, the electrodes are moistened and bound firmly to the head and foot to ensure good contact.

SOURCE

We assume stunning is humane because it looks clean, calm and peaceful. But do not assume the animal is not feeling pain. Since animals can not tell us how they feel, ask people that experienced horrific accidents that rendered them unconscious.

Can only speak for myself but 51 years later I still remember the pain and I was deeply unconscious.

 

[simplegifts]

From a non-Muslim site



SOURCE

We assume stunning is humane because it looks clean, calm and peaceful. But do not assume the animal is not feeling pain. Since animals can not tell us how they feel, ask people that experienced horrific accidents that rendered them unconscious.

Can only speak for myself but 51 years later I still remember the pain and I was deeply unconscious.

My Grandfather spoke of his pain also. he was actually shocked. Was it a different type of shock? The article I linked to mentions 2 types.

A lot an be told from vital signs, such as stress and pain. http://aevm.tamu.edu/files/2010/06/Vital_Signs-1.pdf

There are different stages of coma.

 

[merryheart]

anyone who has ever experienced a high voltage shock and lived to tell about it can let you know that this is very painful in spite of the immobilization that has occurred. A better indicator than visible signs of trauma might be the presence of adrenal hormones.

 

[WoodrowX2]

My Grandfather spoke of his pain also. he was actually shocked. Was it a different type of shock? The article I linked to mentions 2 types.

A lot an be told from vital signs, such as stress and pain. http://aevm.tamu.edu/files/2010/06/Vital_Signs-1.pdf

There are different stages of coma.

I was in a plane crash and essentially shattered every bone in my body. The most serious were my right leg was pulverized from my hip to knee along with my right arm was pretty much powdered every rib was broken and multiple head fractures.
There were also several bullet wounds in various and assorted parts of my body. there was also considerable blood loss that most likely caused shock.

Yes this was a military incident while in the USAF

The assumption was that I was not capable of feeling pain so there were no pain medications given until I cam out of the coma. But I do vividly remember many things from while I was unconscious especially the pain.

 

[WoodrowX2]

anyone who has ever experienced a high voltage shock and lived to tell about it can let you know that this is very painful in spite of the immobilization that has occurred. A better indicator than visible signs of trauma might be the presence of adrenal hormones.

The presence of them would definitely prove the presence of pain, but I am not certain the lack would be proof of no pain.

 

[TG123]

But with stunning and then slaughtering, that might just be giving the animal even more pain than with slaughtering alone.

Unless the blow kills it immediately. Then it could suffer less than during the slaughter.

Way ahead of you.

Bon Appetit.

Because the Prophet Muhammad said so and that's enough for the Muslims.

OK, but we both know that a salamander is no more a threat than a spider, if left untouched.

Plus, all animals that are harmful to us and cannot be removed are allowed to be killed. It's just that some animals were specifically mentioned.

Why can a salamander not be removed? How much harder would it be to remove a salamander, than removing a frog?

I bring up the example of a frog, since OnIslam states that Muhammad forbade killing them also.
Making Medicine from Frogs - Medicine - counsels - OnIslam.net

Yet touching any reptile (including a frog or salamander) can cause salmonella, which can be a serious disease.
CDC Features - Reptiles, Amphibians, and Salmonella

Geckos, however, were recommended to be killed for blessings and frogs were forbidden to be killed, even for medicine. Both of these can be harmful, when touched. They also are both very beneficial and kill flies and other bugs, which spread very serious diseases.

Maybe it wasn't an issue for them.

Or maybe Muhammad was unaware of the fact that spiders can be dangerous when touched. As can frogs.

And as I said above, some animals were specifically mentioned but the general principle is that any animal that is harming us & that harm cannot be removed can be killed.

In that case, there is no reason to kill geckos and spare frogs. Both of them are only dangerous when touched, and both can be removed from one's house safely.

No, actually, he says that the Prophet Muhammad was showing the distastefulness of the salamander but that is not the sole reason to kill them.

He said that what the salamander did to Abraham is not the reason why salamanders are to be killed.

It is not killed because of its blowing on the fire kindled for Abraham (peace be upon him). When Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) informed us that the wazagh blew upon the fire of Abraham (peace be upon him) to help fan the flames, he was merely depicting the distastefulness of the animal and the extent of its harmfulness. He was merely characterizing this species as an unpleasant one.
The house gecko (wazagh) | IslamToday - English

Compared to the hadith cited by IslamQA.

Shaykh Sulaymaan al-‘Alwaan.


Ibn Maajah (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated in his Sunan from Saa’ibah the slave woman of al-Faakih ibn al-Mugheerah that she entered upon ‘Aa’ishah and saw a spear sitting there in her house. She said, “O Mother of the Believers, what do you do with this?” She said, “We kill these salamanders with it, because the Prophet of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that when Ibraaheem was thrown into the fire, there was no animal on earth but it tried to extinguish the fire, except for the salamander, which was blowing on the fire (to keep it burning). So the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that they should be killed.”

Killing salamanders by hand - islamqa.info

True, Muhammad also called salamanders "mischief doers" and "noxious".

I think this is a moot point. Muhammad did say that salamanders are both harmful, and that one of them did not help Abraham when he was on fire. I think he gave two reasons for them to be killed.

There is no way to prove or disprove the account of the salamander attacking Abraham, though this story is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Ordering them to be killed for being "harmful" but at the same time forbidding the killing of frogs makes no sense to me. Both animals are equally "harmful". Both animals do people a great service. Unlike a frog, a salamander does not keep everyone up all night by croaking.

Allaah knows best.

Indeed. I am pretty sure He knows that kites are not harmful in any way to humans. I don't think He would have told Muhammad to order the killing of birds which help people by eating reptiles and mice.

Here are the two kinds of kites that can be found in Saudi Arabia, and their diet. The first type of kite is not only not harmful, but actually very benificial, since it only feeds on mice.

Black Shouldered Kite

Black-shouldered Kites live almost exclusively on mice, and have become a specialist predator of house mice, often following outbreaks of mouse plagues in rural areas.[17] They take other suitably sized creatures when available, including grasshoppers, rats, small reptiles, birds, and even (very rarely) rabbits, but mice and other mouse-sized mammals account for over 90% of their diet. Their influence on mouse populations is probably significant: adults take two or three mice a day each if they can,[17] around a thousand mice a year.[13] On one occasion a male was observed bringing no less than 14 mice to a nest of well-advanced fledglings within an hour.[18] In another study, a female Kite was seen to struggle back to fledglings in the nest with a three-quarters grown rabbit, a heavy load for such a small bird.[19]

Black-shouldered Kite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second type of kite is the black kite, which has a varied diet that includes small live prey, fish, and garbage, as well as rodents and bats and birds. They sometimes will take people's food.
Food and foraging

Black Kites are most often seen gliding and soaring on thermals as they search for food. The flight is buoyant and the bird glides with ease, changing directions easily. They will swoop down with their legs lowered to snatch small live prey, fish, household refuse and carrion, for which behaviour they are known in British military slang as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-hawk. They are opportunist hunters and have been known to take birds, bats and rodents.[13] They are attracted to smoke and fires, where they seek escaping prey.[14] This behaviour has led to Australian native beliefs that kites spread fires by picking up burning twigs and dropping them on dry grass.[15] The Indian populations are well adapted to living in cities and are found in densely populated areas. Large numbers may be seen soaring in thermals over cities. In some places they will readily swoop and snatch food held by humans.[4][16] Black Kites in Spain prey on nestling waterfowl especially during summer to feed their young. Predation of nests of other pairs of Black Kites has also been noted.[17] Kites have also been seen to tear and carry away the nests of Baya Weavers in an attempt to obtain eggs or chicks.[18]


Black Kite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


They sometimes will steal food from people. Although this would be doubtlessly annoying, I don't see how either of these birds would be "harmful".


In contrast, one animal that lives in Saudi Arabia that actually does do a lot of harm, is the golden jackal. Jackals are like crows. They will eat up people's crops and attack livestock.


Livestock, game and crop predation

The golden jackal can be a harmful pest, attacking domestic animals such as turkeys, lambs, sheep, goats, and domestic water buffalo calves, and valuable game species like newborn roe deer, hares, nutria, pheasants, francolins, grey partridges, bustards and waterfowl. It destroys many grapes, and will eat watermelons, muskmelons and nuts.[72]
In Greece, jackals tend not to be as damaging to livestock as wolves and red foxes are, though they can become a serious nuisance to small stock when in high numbers. In southern Bulgaria, 1,053 attacks on small stock, mainly sheep and lambs, were recorded between 1982 and 1987, along with some damages to newborn deer in game farms. In Israel, about 1.5%–1.9% of calves born on the Golan Heights die due to predation, mainly by golden jackals. In both cases, the high predation rate is attributable to a jackal population explosion due to the high availability of food in illegal garbage dumps. Preventive measures to avoid predation were also lacking in both cases.[37][86] ...


Golden jackal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another harmful animal is the baboon. Sometimes a swarm of them will come into villages and loot and destroy and attack people.

Village south of Qunfudah fights off baboon invasion | Arab News — Saudi Arabia News, Middle East News, Opinion, Economy and more.

Why would Muhammad label a kind of bird that is not only harmless, but in some cases also beneficial, as "harmful" and call for its extermination- but ignore animals that truly do cause harm to people, like baboons and jackals?

30 seconds doesn't make that big of a difference. It's just a warning for it to leave.

Snakes can move pretty fast.

Also, I'm not sure if poisonous snakes are excluded from this because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) specifically gave the order to kill a type of snake that was harmful to humans in Arabia.

That is a good point. If poisonous snakes are excluded, then what is the point in expelling the harmless snakes? They eat mostly rodents and insects.

Also, I found some hadiths in which Muhammad forbade the killing of house snakes that do not have streaks on them, or short tails.

(7) Nafi' reported on the authority of his father that as 'Abdullah b. 'Umar saw one day (standing) near the ruin (of his house) the slough of a snake and said (to the people around him): Pursue this snake and kill it. Abu Lubaba Ansari said: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He forbade the killing of snakes found in the houses except the short-tailed snakes and those having streaks upon them, for both of them obliterate eyesight and affect that which is in the wombs of (pregnant) women. (Book #026, Hadith #5551)

Search the word house snake in the Hadith (Hadis) Books (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, and Malik's Muwatta)

Thankfully, I live in an area where we don't have many poisonous snakes or spiders so it's not really something I've read up on.

Alhamdullilah. The same is true for me.