Halal Explained

[WoodrowX2]

The major difference is that Muslims have no problem eating the hindquarters or mixing meat with milk. Also, some madhabs allow shell fish and I don't think any of them have problem eating catfish.

I think the only 'kosher' food that a Muslim would not touch would be wine or any other alcohol.

Another issue here in the USA is gelatin. One area in which Halal is stricter than Kosher. We can not use products that use gelatin that may be from animal sources as the animal might not be halal. same goes for cheese made with rennet as the rennet might be from a non Halal source.

I think the Jews consider both Gelatin and rennet to be so refined they are no longer considered an animal product.

Sort like if salt were extracted from an animal it could be purified to the point of being chemically identical to mined salt.

 

[WoodrowX2]

From what I understand, and feel free to rail me, is Halal is the compliment to "kosher." The meat has to be of a certain origin (healthily fed.) The organs have to be clean and healthy (no lumps on lungs, etc.) Essentially, the meat needs to be "glatt," "parave," and/or "kosher/halal/fit to eat."

I used to live in L.A. and N.Y.C.; I was very familiar with halal and (u) and (k) foods. To me, the differences were marginal.

Yes, I meant to edit my entire sentence. Parve is for food that is not meat or dairy, yes.

Glatt, Parve, or Kosher - this is similar to or the "same" as Halal, unless I am still missing something.

I personally follow Leviticus for "food rules," and health. As I understand it, halal is not that far from traditional "kosher."

Parve would be a "subset" of Kashrut (kosher). Glatt describes a specific thing relating to meat and the lungs of the animal, although in common usage is tends to me more strict. Kosher and Halal would be the terms that could be compared.

Right. So you agree Halal and Kosher is comparable.

Definitely. I wouldn't say they are interchangeable and I doubt Orthodox Jews would purchase Halal meat instead of Kosher meat, but I see the concepts as being pretty similar.

```

I agree with both of you. The above quotes to be a good summation.

 

[oi_antz]

When properly done both kosher and zabiah slaughter are less stressful on the animal without stunning.


SOURCE

SOURCE

Here is a link to a copy right protected Canadian study

Captive Stunbolt vs Halal Slaughter | Cynthia D'Errico

SOURCE

Do these people think I am stupid Woodrow? I have seen it with my own eyes. When conscious, the animal is visibly distressed, when unconscious the animal does not appear to know it is happening. All this does is show me that there has been an attempt to say "actually, it isn't what it appears to be". So, my original question is asking which scripture instructs the Muslim not to stun the animal first? I am not interested in someone trying to pull wool over my eyes, all I want to know is who said it and why.

 

[wn123455]

Another issue here in the USA is gelatin. One area in which Halal is stricter than Kosher. We can not use products that use gelatin that may be from animal sources as the animal might not be halal. same goes for cheese made with rennet as the rennet might be from a non Halal source.

I think the Jews consider both Gelatin and rennet to be so refined they are no longer considered an animal product.

Sort like if salt were extracted from an animal it could be purified to the point of being chemically identical to mined salt.

Are you allowed to eat halal meat of animals that ate haram food? If you were in a restaurant that serves both halal food and non-halal food and you hate the halal food without noticing that you water glass was previously used for alcohol and the water glass contains a drop of alcohol in it because it was not cleaned properly then would drinking that water without noticing it has a drop of alcohol a sin? What if you noticed that there is a drop of alcohol in your glass of water? Would you still drink that glass of water?

 

[smaneck]

Do these people think I am stupid Woodrow? I have seen it with my own eyes. When conscious, the animal is visibly distressed, when unconscious the animal does not appear to know it is happening. All this does is show me that there has been an attempt to say "actually, it isn't what it appears to be". So, my original question is asking which scripture instructs the Muslim not to stun the animal first? I am not interested in someone trying to pull wool over my eyes, all I want to know is who said it and why.

Actually in New Zealand where most of the halal lamb is produced they do stun the animal first.

"All the halal lamb and beef slaughtered in New Zealand is currently stunned with a head-only electrical stun. The act of stunning is disliked and should be avoided. However, stunned meat will be halal if slaughtered in accordance to Islamic law with the condition that the animal was alive during the time of slaughter and there were signs of life. For more information on the Islamic viewpoint on stunning, visit the ‘Our Issues’ section and read about Stunning"

New Zealand Meat Report - Halal Advocates of America

It looks like Muslims are divided on the issue of stunning, but it is not allowed for kosher meat at all.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Are you allowed to eat halal meat of animals that ate haram food? If you were in a restaurant that serves both halal food and non-halal food and you hate the halal food without noticing that you water glass was previously used for alcohol and the water glass contains a drop of alcohol in it because it was not cleaned properly then would drinking that water without noticing it has a drop of alcohol a sin? What if you noticed that there is a drop of alcohol in your glass of water? Would you still drink that glass of water?

First of all if the animal ate haram food it would not be halal. The question is moot as the haram can not be made halal

If the halal and haram are intermingled in a restaurant the restaurant would not be halal. We should not even enter a place that serves alcohol

 

[smaneck]

Are you allowed to eat halal meat of animals that ate haram food?

How would a halal animal eat one that is haram? Halal animals are all herbivores!

As for restaurants where they don't wash the dishes properly, you might want to find a better restaurant.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

interesting thread.

just this week i have avoided chicken, pork and beef as I am trying to eat non-karmic foods. not dogmatic about it, but giving it a shot. I do still eat seafood though.

the idea is if an animal suffered at all in the process, then you eating the food is bad karma. like i said, not dogmatic, but giving it a shot. in the end even seafood could be considered 'karmic' but I need a place to start.

Chicken is the main thing for me. I have seen and heard stories of what mass slaughtered chicken houses are like. Even when i ate chicken every day i felt a tinge of guilt when i thought about it.

anyways it's an interesting thing to discuss.

Many Christian mystics and saints throughout history have been vegetarian, and many mystics from other faiths. Yes an interesting thread though.

 

[wn123455]

How would a halal animal eat one that is haram? Halal animals are all herbivores!

As for restaurants where they don't wash the dishes properly, you might want to find a better restaurant.

What if a cow drank alcohol? Have you ever been to third world countries? If you go to countries like indonesia or malaysia you can see how many restaurants just pour water and dish washing liquid into a bucket(which is dirty sometimes) of dirty dishes to wash dishes. It is pretty much the normal way for countries like indonesia or malaysia to wash dishes. To find a restaurant which does wash dishes properly in indonesia or malaysia would be hard unless you want to eat fast food or eat in an expensive restaurant. Don't forget in restaurants in malaysia serve both halal and non-halal food due to it being a multicultural country.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Do these people think I am stupid Woodrow? I have seen it with my own eyes. When conscious, the animal is visibly distressed, when unconscious the animal does not appear to know it is happening. All this does is show me that there has been an attempt to say "actually, it isn't what it appears to be". So, my original question is asking which scripture instructs the Muslim not to stun the animal first? I am not interested in someone trying to pull wool over my eyes, all I want to know is who said it and why.

You have to read the Qur'an and understand the Sunnah to understand why many of us believe the animal is not to be stunned.

The basis is found in Surah 5

3. Forbidden to you (for food) are: Al-Maytatah (the dead animals - cattle-beast not slaughtered), blood, the flesh of swine, and the meat of that which has been slaughtered as a sacrifice for others than Allah, or has been slaughtered for idols, etc., or on which Allah's Name has not been mentioned while slaughtering, 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) - and that which is sacrificed (slaughtered) on An-Nusub(stone altars). (Forbidden) also is to use arrows seeking luck or decision, (all) that is Fisqun (disobedience of Allah and sin). This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination to sin (such can eat these above-mentioned meats), then surely, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

If the animal happened to die from the stunning it would become haram and not permissable to eat. the death of the animal would be a waste and sinful

You will find differences of opinion from different Islamic scholars. I will attempt to show different views which find stunning permissible and not permissible

This is a link to an article (Which blocks copying) that shows reasons stunning is permissable for halal slaughter. Stunning for halal slaughter is practiced in the UK

Stunning Animals - Halal or Haram? The Truth.

Here are excerpts from some Fatwas (Islamic opinions) regarding stunning

After thorough discussion of the issue, the Council agreed on the following:
First, if the animal is still alive after electric shock and
then it gets slaughtered, then it is slaughtered in an Islamic way and,
thus, there is nothing wrong in eating it. Allah Almighty says: “Forbidden
unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swine flesh, and that
which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled,
and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a
height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and
the devoured of wild beasts.” (Al-Ma’idah: 3)
Second, if the animal happens to die through the electric
shock before it gets slaughtered, then it is carrion, which is
forbidden for Muslims to eat. Allah Almighty says: “Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion…” (Al-Ma’idah: 3)
Third, giving the animal high voltage electric current
before slaughtering is in fact severe torture for the animal. Islam
prohibits torture and enjoins mercy and clemency. The Prophet (peace
and blessings be upon him) said: “Verily Allah has enjoined
goodness to everything; so when you kill, kill in a good way and when
you slaughter, slaughter in a good way. So every one of you should
sharpen his knife, and let the slaughtered animal die comfortably.”
Fourth, if the animal is exposed to a low electric current
that would not cause the animal to suffer, and it is rather undertaken
to relieve the animal’s pain and control it while slaughtering it, then
it is legally all right to do so, for so long as it is in people’s
favor.”

SOURCE

Praise be to Allaah. 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):

SOURCE

3. The animal should be properly slaughtered and not dipped in boiling water or killed by electric shocks (by stunning). With regards to meat that is not slaughtered according to Islamic rites, it is not Halal because of the effect electric shock (stunning) on blood drainage. In regular meat slaughterhouses, animals are brought into an alley and given an electric shock (stunning) to the head to make them unconscious. The animal’s legs are then tied up and it is hung upside down, and chicken goes through the water. A knife is put to its throat, and then it is slaughtered. The animal is then temporarily left alone to allow the blood to drain from its body. From there, the meat is processed. But using electric shock (stunning), means that all of the animal’s blood does not leave its body, because electric shock (stunning) affects the central nervous system. On the contrary, if an animal is slaughtered in accordance with Islamic guidelines, the central nervous system works properly, and all of the animal’s blood comes out. Remaining blood in the animal is a source of fermentation and destruction of meat quality. This means bacteria can grow easily on the meat. From an Islamic perspective, it is Haram to eat meat containing blood, as it is clearly stated in the Qur’an that Muslims cannot consume blood. 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 inhuman and unlawful in Islam. The tendency of the Shari'ah (Islamic Law) is to make the slaughter more humane by reducing the suffering of the animal.
The Holy Prophet 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 animal, 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.
4. The name of Allah (Bismillah) should be recited. While slaughtering the animal. This 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 onwhich the name of Allah has not been recited:
“And eat not (O believers) of that (meat) whereon Allah's name has not been mentioned(at the time of the slaughteringof the animal), for sure! It is abomination(Fisq; a sin and disobedience of Allah). And certainly, ! the devils do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you. But if you obey them[by making Al-Maytata (a dead animal) legal by eating it], you will be in truth idolaters(Mushrikun)." (6: 121).
5. For meat to be lawful, it is not simply enough that “People of the Book” have slaughtered the animal 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 his neck, it would be a carcass, or haram (unlawful). If the same method of killing is adopted by a Jew or Christian, then how such a chicken can become Halal (lawful)? Slaughtering consists in 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 fibres 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 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
6. For an animal to be Halal is that it should not be given any hormones. In the meat industry, beef and chicken are given female sex hormones. This is meant to increase the weight (fattening) of the animal in a short period of time. The effect of consuming an animal with injected female hormones is a reduction in the masculine appearance of boys and men. It also reduces sexual appetite, adding that this of course would not happen by eating just one meal containing meat. Rather, it can result when people are consuming meat daily, and "KFC and and MacDonald’s" as two examples. But eaters of Zabiha meat should not get on a high horse either: even if an animal is slaughtered in the Islamic manner, it will still contain these hormones.
7. The animals should be in lawful possession of the person who owns them and free from any apparent or hidden impurities. Similarly, they should not be slaughtered on an idol or grave etc. The slaughterer must be sane. Slaughter is not allowed to be carried by a mentally deranged person, a drunkard, a child not able to discriminate or a Magian. It would be desirable if the animal is made to lie facing Qibla during the act of slaughter.
The Islamic manner of slaughtering an animal is to slit its throat, saying " Bismillah " (In the name of Allah), thus recognizing that its life is taken only by Allah's permission to meet the lawful need of food, and allowing all the blood to drain out. The meat sold commercially in the U.S.A. and European co

SOURCE

Just my opinion here in the USA the use of stunning can be misused and not trusted as the animal might be killed by the stunning. American Slaughter houses are more like killing factories. It is difficult to know if the animal was actually slaughted halal unless it has been witnessed as killed in the traditional manner before stunning was developed.

If you are slaughtering yourself stunning should be permissible as you can verify the animal was not killed by the stunning.

I am a strong advocate that a Muslim should raise and slaughter his own meat animals and treat them with the best of care before slaughtering. I believe that would cut down on meat consumption and result in more humane treatment of the animals.

(Side note--I am essentially a vegetarian) I will on occasion eat Halal and Kosher meat if I know the source and how it was raised and slaughtered. As my wife is Native American we do eat Kosher Bison on occasion. We have not found Halal Bison but Kosher Bison is available on occasion The Tatanka (Bison) is an integral part of Cheyenne and Lakotah culture.

I avoid factory produced meat even if it is labelled halal.

 

[oi_antz]

You have to read the Qur'an and understand the Sunnah to understand why many of us believe the animal is not to be stunned.

The basis is found in Surah 5



If the animal happened to die from the stunning it would become haram and not permissable to eat. the death of the animal would be a waste and sinful

You will find differences of opinion from different Islamic scholars. I will attempt to show different views which find stunning permissible and not permissible

This is a link to an article (Which blocks copying) that shows reasons stunning is permissable for halal slaughter. Stunning for halal slaughter is practiced in the UK

Stunning Animals - Halal or Haram? The Truth.

Here are excerpts from some Fatwas (Islamic opinions) regarding stunning



SOURCE




SOURCE



SOURCE

Just my opinion here in the USA the use of stunning can be misused and not trusted as the animal might be killed by the stunning. American Slaughter houses are more like killing factories. It is difficult to know if the animal was actually slaughted halal unless it has been witnessed as killed in the traditional manner before stunning was developed.

If you are slaughtering yourself stunning should be permissible as you can verify the animal was not killed by the stunning.

I am a strong advocate that a Muslim should raise and slaughter his own meat animals and treat them with the best of care before slaughtering. I believe that would cut down on meat consumption and result in more humane treatment of the animals.

(Side note--I am essentially a vegetarian) I will on occasion eat Halal and Kosher meat if I know the source and how it was raised and slaughtered. As my wife is Native American we do eat Kosher Bison on occasion. We have not found Halal Bison but Kosher Bison is available on occasion The Tatanka (Bison) is an integral part of Cheyenne and Lakotah culture.

I avoid factory produced meat even if it is labelled halal.

Thank you, and to smaneck, for the information. Can you tell me whose is this instruction that is stated in Surah 5?

 

[WoodrowX2]

Thank you, and to smaneck, for the information. Can you tell me whose is this instruction that is stated in Surah 5?

We believe the Qur'an is the word of God(swt) exactly as he dictated it to the Angel Gabrial.

We do not believe the Qur'an has a Human author. Surah 5 and the rest of the Qur'an are the exact and unchanged words of God(swt)

 

[wn123455]

We believe the Qur'an is the word of God(swt) exactly as he dictated it to the Angel Gabrial.

We do not believe the Qur'an has a Human author. Surah 5 and the rest of the Qur'an are the exact and unchanged words of God(swt)

The Origins of the Qur'an - WikiIslam

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Unfortunately most of the world does not have an overabundance of food. In the US we were relieved that the recent recession and the extra money that was pumped into the economy by the Fed buying bonds did not create runaway inflation, but there was inflation in two major commodities, fuel and food. That didn't have much of an affect on most Americans because we spend less than 7% of our income on food, and that includes eating out! Much of the world, however, spends more like 50% of their income on food, and this inflation had devastating consequences. We sometimes forget that the Arab Spring really began as bread riots.

Oh, I do not forget that. And there is a link between our overconsumption and their want - it's a capitalist economy.
Not only are irresponsible brokers and banks (such as the Deutsche Bank, to indict my own country first) speculating on food prices, but our wasteful system of overconsumption also affects their livelihood.

Germans are supplied with cheap chicken meat produced under truly horrendous circumstances. Few people stop to think what it takes to sell meat at less than three euros per kilogram while still making a profit.
But what's even worse is: most Germans only buy chicken BREASTS, and the rest has to go somewhere else. So most of the poultry is frozen into blocks, exported to Africa, and sold there for a pittance - which undermines and ruins local farmers trying to stand on their own feet, since they cannot possibly compete with the low prices.

 

[oi_antz]

We believe the Qur'an is the word of God(swt) exactly as he dictated it to the Angel Gabrial.

We do not believe the Qur'an has a Human author. Surah 5 and the rest of the Qur'an are the exact and unchanged words of God(swt)

In wn123455's link, I don't see a clear statement of exactly how those words got to be on paper. I assume it is not said to be the same way the Ten Commandments got on stone, so how did it get there? I have an idea that Mohammad received his understanding from speaking with an angel, is it this understanding that was conveyed to a scribe? Was it dictated or was the scribe recording what Mohammad had conveyed? And was Mohammad stating the exact same words that the angel had given him, or was he explaining what he understood of what the angel had said?

 

[simplegifts]

Jewish law and Islamic law both require that:

1) The animal must be alive when it is slaughtered (hence stunning or other procedures to render the animal unconscious should be avoided).
2) The animal must be killed with a sharp knife (hence, a blow to the head would render the animal treif and ḥarām).
3) The knife must cut the neck arteries of the animal: in particular, the trachea, esophagus, cartiod arteries and jugular veins should be cut, while leaving the spinal cord intact.
4) The blood must be drained out.
5) There must be minimal harm to the animal – a painless and quick slaughter is required.

All of these are points of agreement between Jewish and Islamic law.

Click the link for more info (including differences):

The American Muslim (TAM)


The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said,

Verily Allaah has prescribed Ihsaan (proficiency, perfection) in all things. So if you kill then kill well; and if you slaughter, then slaughter well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slaughters. [Saheeh Muslim]

There are some Rabbis allowing for stunning of the animal and then slaughter.

Here is a perfect solution and makes perfect sense, because this type of stunning does not stop the heart beating but does render the animal unconscious.-

Questions about death of the animal when different stunning methods are used before Halal or Kosher Slaughter

 

[smaneck]

Germans are supplied with cheap chicken meat produced under truly horrendous circumstances. Few people stop to think what it takes to sell meat at less than three euros per kilogram while still making a profit.

Three Euros a Kilo? The last time I bought chicken I paid 49 cents a pound! However, I buy legs and thighs, not breasts.

I'm pretty sure our excess thighs go to Russia, or at least they did before Crimea.

 

[smaneck]

What if a cow drank alcohol?

LOL. I know of a cow that once got drunk eating a bunch of fermented apples. Might want to let it sober up before slaughtering it.

Have you ever been to third world countries? If you go to countries like indonesia or malaysia you can see how many restaurants just pour water and dish washing liquid into a bucket(which is dirty sometimes) of dirty dishes to wash dishes.

So that's where you live, Malaysia.

Do observant Muslims go to restaurants that serve alcohol there?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Do these people think I am stupid Woodrow? I have seen it with my own eyes. When conscious, the animal is visibly distressed, when unconscious the animal does not appear to know it is happening.

I don't think there is any definitive, conclusive evidence that halaal slaughter is more painful than stunning and then slaughtering.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council said in their

Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing: Part 1: Red Meat Animals (10 June 2003) in clause 194: “It is difficult to measure pain and distress during the slaughter process in an objective scientific manner and subjective indicators…”

Personally, I have seen quite a few slaughters. As long as the animal was treated well, the blood from any previous slaughters washed away, and the knife sharpened outside of their sight, the animal normally remains calm and then by the time it's ready for slaughter, it usually shouldn't know what hit it as long as it's slaughtered properly.

Islaamically, many jurists say that stunning animals is allowed as long as it was alive before slaughter (though most say it comes under the category of makrooh - disliked/discouraged). I think one of the other issues is that many strongly believe that stunning causes more unnecessary pain to the animal then simply slaughtering without stunning.

In wn123455's link, I don't see a clear statement of exactly how those words got to be on paper. I assume it is not said to be the same way the Ten Commandments got on stone, so how did it get there? I have an idea that Mohammad received his understanding from speaking with an angel, is it this understanding that was conveyed to a scribe? Was it dictated or was the scribe recording what Mohammad had conveyed? And was Mohammad stating the exact same words that the angel had given him, or was he explaining what he understood of what the angel had said?

The Qur'aan is the Word of God exactly the way He said those Words. So it went from Allaah --> Angel Gabriel --> Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon them both) --> Prophet's companions (may Allaah be pleased with them).

There were, indeed scribes who wrote down parts of the Qur'aan during the Prophet's life and many others who memorized it by heart. The collection of the Qur'aan in book format was a meticulous process.

The great scholar Ibn Hajar said in his book Fath al Bari:

Umar said: Who ever received anything regarding the Quran from the Prophet (peace be upon him) then let him bring it. And they used to write it on the manuscripts and boards and date palmed stalks. He said that nothing would be accepted from anyone until two witnesses testify to it. "And this points out that Zayd was not satisfied with only finding it written down until someone testified that he heard it, even though Zayd himself had memorized it, and they used to take this extra precaution in order to be more cautious. And Abu Dawud contained a narration on the authority of Hisham bin Arwa that his father said that Abu Bakr said to Umar and Zayd: Sit down on the door of the Mosque and whoever of two witnesses come to you regarding the Quran then write it down'. The men of this narration are trustworthy despite the chain being broken, and the intended meaning regarding two witnesses was memorization and writing, or it meant that they both testify that what was written down was actually written down under the authority of the Messenger peace be upon him, or it meant that they both testify that it was sent down as Quranic revelation. And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization. (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Fadaa'il Al Qur'aan, Bab: Jami' Al Qur'aan, Commentary on Hadith no. 4603, Source)

 

[smaneck]

I don't think there is any definitive, conclusive evidence that halaal slaughter is more painful than stunning and then slaughtering.

I think oi_antz is reacting to the fact that the animal appears to react more when it is killed this way. But we all know how chickens can run around after their head is cut off. Doesn't mean they are still in pain. Paralyzing something before it is killed may make those observing the killing feel more comfortable but it doesn't mean the one being killed feels it any less. That is part of the debate over capital punishment in our country.

Islaamically, many jurists say that stunning animals is allowed as long as it was alive before slaughter (though most say it comes under the category of makrooh - disliked/discouraged). I think one of the other issues is that many strongly believe that stunning causes more unnecessary pain to the animal then simply slaughtering without stunning.

The stuff I read may a distinction between the practice of stunning which they considered makruh, and the meat itself which was still considered halal so long as the animal is still alive. I presume that disallows the kind of bolt stunning we do in our country which destroys the animal's brain.