Halal Explained

[WoodrowX2]

Salaam Alaikum. That is an interesting theory. The hadiths translate it to "kite". Are you aware of any translations that say "cuckoo"?

I read an article on IslamQA, written by Ibn Baaz. He identifies "kite" as a "hawk-like bird". Another fatwa, written on Islamweb, calls it "a bird similar to a hawk".

Can harmful insects be killed by burning them?

arfrur
Is it permissible to kill insects that may be found in the house, such as ants, cockroaches and the like, by burning them? If it is not permissible, what should we do?

If these insects are harmful, they may be killed with insecticides, but not with fire. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are five pests that may be killed whether one is in ihraam or not: rats, scorpions, crows, kites [a hawk-like bird], and mad dogs.” (Reported by Muslim, 2071). Another report adds a sixth, snakes. Thus the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that they are harmful pests, and that they are unlike other animals which do not do harm, and so he told us to kill them whether we are in ihraam or not. If other creatures, such as ants or cockroaches or dung-beetles, cause harm, they may also be killed with insecticides, but not with fire. And Allaah knows best.

Fataawa Islaamiyaah, Ibn Baaz, 451.


Can harmful insects be killed by burning them? - islamqa.info

...

4. A Muslim should never torture an animal by any means of torture, such as beating it, making it carry more than it can handle, mutilating it or burning it by a fire. The Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, also prohibited the tying down of animals until they die. Allaah's Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, once said: “A woman entered the Hell-fire because of a cat that she tied down. She neither fed it nor let it free to eat the insects of the earth until it died.” [Al-Bukhaari]
Allaah's Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, once passed by an anthill that had been burnt to the ground and he, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: “It is not becoming that anyone should punish by fire except the Lord of the Fire.” [Abu Daawood]
However, it is permissible to kill the harmful animals, such as voracious dogs, wolves, snakes, scorpions, rats etc. This is based on the Prophet's, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, statement: “Five noxious or harmful animals are to be killed whether or not one is in the state of pilgrimage: the snake, the speckled raven that has whiteness either on its back or stomach, the rat, the voracious dog and the kite (a bird similar to a hawk).” [Muslim]
It is also confirmed from Allaah's Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, that he cursed the scorpion and killed it. [Al-Bayhaqi]

...


A cuckoo is not similar to a hawk in any way. A kite certainly is.


I think all evidence we have indicates that Muhammad called kites dangerous birds, and that he urged people to kill them.

One problem with languages is often over time words get confused and changed. Especially in a living language. While the Qur'anic Arabic is not a living language, as it is not used in conversation and never had been the meanings are frozen.

I just noticed in my post I wrote Qur'an instead of Hadith


any how the ahadith were written in colloquial Arabic and it is possible some words have a different meaning today than they did then.

There is no doubt the word translates into kite, I question if it always did.

Unlike the Qur'an the Ahadith are not protected from change.

There is a similar thing happening in the Bible, in the parable of the camel passing through the eye of a needle, the word that now means camel originally meant rope.

Variations on this theme include that of ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves, or the story of an old mountain pass known as the "eye of the needle", so narrow that merchants would have to dismount from their camels and were thus easier prey for brigands lying in wait.
Mangled Greek maybe?
There are some differences in the transmitted Greek. The needle in Matthew and Mark is a rafic. In Luke it is a belone. But both are synonyms for needles used in sewing, but Luke's is more likely to be used by a surgeon than a seamstress.

Another possible solution comes from the possibility of a Greek misprint. The suggestion is that the Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning 'cable, rope', as some late New Testament manuscripts1 actually have here. Hence it is easier to thread a needle with a rope rather than a strand of cotton than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. A neat but unnecessary solution!

A variation on all of the above is that the needle was a 6 inch carpet needle and the rope was made of camel hair- but this is again clutching at straws or camel hair, and is an unnecessary emendation.

Makes sense in Aramaic
An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation2 which has the word 'rope' in the main text but a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer Mar Bahlul who gives the meaning as a "a large rope used to bind ships". (cf. http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/LUKE/evidences/Camel.html)

SOURCE

 

[WoodrowX2]

Tesco reluctant to refund Christian over Halal meat (Join "EDL Videos" on facebook) - YouTube

and that means what????

She got her money back.

 

[wn123455]

and that means what????

She got her money back.

Halal certified food should be properly labeled. If I labeled non-halal beef with halal certified label and you found that out would you not be upset?

 

[smaneck]

There is a reason the meat was not labeled halal. As I mentioned earlier nearly all New Zealand lamb is slaughtered in accordance with halal methods, but the meat which is not labeled halal may be packed along side non-halal meats like pork, which renders it non-halal as far as Muslims are concerned.

Tesco reluctant to refund Christian over Halal meat (Join "EDL Videos" on facebook) - YouTube

Al-Jazeera had a marvelous editorial today about evangelical Christians who imagine they are being persecuted in America. This woman seems to share the same mentality:

The bitter tears of the American Christian supermajority | Al Jazeera America

"To be sure, there are Christians in the world who face persecution, from Copts in Egypt to Catholics in northern Nigeria. But in the U.S., the Christian faith and its institutions have never been more pampered by the state."

 

[WoodrowX2]

Halal certified food should be properly labeled. If I labeled non-halal beef with halal certified label and you found that out would you not be upset?

I have to verify every meat labeled Halal as being so. There are unscrupulous people that do label Haram meat as Halal.

Being halal or haram is not going to change the meat for a non-Muslim. If a person is concerned as to how an animal was slaughtered they do need to verify the source of all meat products they buy.


But I do agree the store should have labelled it Halal as without doing so, no Muslim will buy it. Kind of stupid to sell Halal meat to a non-Muslim as they will not treat it as halal. The only people that will buy meat not labelled halal are non-Muslims and they will Probably cook it in wine and make it haram.

 

[TG123]

Yes.

Thanks.

Just because you do not see the body convulsing in response to being slaughtered (which it does right before it's pulled up - though I believe that by this time the animal was dead and it was just the body's reaction which is the same reaction most, if not all, of the halaal-slaughtered animals have that makes people think its in pain) doesn't mean that the animal was not fearful right when the object hit its head. Nor does this show that the goat was not registering pain. Maybe it was in pain, maybe it wasn't.

I can see why we could wonder whether or not the animal was in pain... like with the case of most halaal slaughtered animals, I also believe it was its bodily reaction. I am pretty sure it was unconscious.

Regarding fear... the goat was munching on grass calmly right up to the moment the mallet came down. I can't see how its reaction at any point could have been construed as showing fear.

In any case, I am one of those Muslims who follows the opinion that I can eat the meat of stunned animals as long as they are slaughtered while still alive but I am still not convinced that this doesn't introduce more unnecessary pain to them.

I think that an animal that is stunned and unconscious cannot feel the knife that is cutting its throat. I believe that a good butcher can kill an animal using the either the halal/kosher method or non, and do it in a humane way.

I watched and read what you posted, I just didn't respond to those portions because I wasn't interested in getting into a long debate about this which is what I see happening and because I thought my post conveyed what was necessary.

OK, thanks for confirming. Sorry for assuming you didn't watch the videos.

What about them? I would still prefer to eat the goat slaughtered by Mercy Farms because a.) they are Muslims who mentioned Allaah's Name over the animal while slaughtering b.) I don't know if the goat was in unnecessary more pain right when and after being hit in the first video.

I can understand your first point, and if I were a Muslim, that would be my sole reason for choosing. I think that the goat in the second video suffered in no pain, and it suffered considerably less stress than the animals in Mercy Farms that needed to be physically restrained. At no point in the second video did the goat try to even struggle or break away. It was too busy enjoying its grass.

If the people in the people in the first video did not kill the animal by hitting it over its head nor did they invoke any other name besides God's (and said His Name) and they are Christians/Jews, then I would still eat the meat they offered.

I would take their product over the product of some mass slaughterhouse factory, if it was affordable.

They slaughtered their animals with dignity and respect and with minimal pain. I commend them for that.

I think that the woman in the second video however still did a better job, just by looking at how she handed the goat. If I had the choice, I would probably buy the goat from her.

The hadeeth isn't encouraging killing it with 3 blows instead of 1. It is telling us that it's less of a reward to eliminate this harm with 3 blows than 1 but it's also saying that the person isn't sinful if it's not killed in 1 blow. Slaughtering an animal (say a goat) should be done as quickly as possible. If the slaughterer botches it up and the goat gets up off the ground deeply wounded, it doesn't mean that the slaughterer becomes a sinner or is going to have all of his reward taken away. Of course, in both of these scenarios we're assuming that the one taking the life of these creatures does not intend to prolong the suffering of the animals since that is contrary to Islaamic principles.

OK, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

Even if snakes didn't hide themselves away, I would not want poisonous snakes in my house when there are humans around. The same principle stands for the creature being talked about in the hadeeth.

Fair enough. I am assuming you would also kill ants or spiders if you found them in your house, correct?

I haven't read anywhere that you're supposed to kill them wherever you see them. Generally, the ones in houses are the only ones that pose a real harm to anyone since in the wild they're not really harming us. If I'm in a forest and I spot a mouse from 100 feet away, I'm not going to go chasing after it to kill it.

Muhammad said that whoever kills a salamander will get blessings. I don't see where he specified that it only applies to only those in houses.

Also, I have yet to see a hadith in Bukhari or Muslim where a salamander is described as a pest or harmful creature.

This classification is given clearly to some animals, like rabid dogs, crows, kites and mice. Not the salamander. I don't see any reason given by Muhammad for killing them.

The IslamQA fatwa quotes a hadith that states that the reason for killing salamanders is because allegedly one of them blew on Abraham when his enemies set him on fire.

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.”
(Sunan Ibn Maajah, 3222. He said in al-Zawaa’id, the isnaad of ‘Aa’ishah’s hadeeth is saheeh, its men are thiqaat (trustworthy)



Killing salamanders by hand - islamqa.info

Anyway, why are you deciding for the Arabs what should be considered pests in their area?

LOL come on. Just earlier you said you are against fishing for sport. Am I supposed to say "why are deciding for non-Muslims what should be considered wrongful hunting"? We are having a discussion, and should be allowed to question things.

You are absolutely correct that fishing for sport is wrong, and you have every right to say that. I have every right to say that salamanders should not be considered pests. Look at how much good they do.

And again, I see no evidence that the killing of salamanders only applies to those in one's home. Or that Muhammad considered them to be a danger to humans.

Allaah knows best in which way they are considered harmful.

Or perhaps they aren't, and when Muhammad made this statement he was wrong.

I already believe in him and all of the other Prophets. They were sent as a mercy from God to their respective nations and I love them, including Jesus (peace be upon him), more than words can describe. This is why I find the worship of him upsetting just as I would be upset if someone decided to worship Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him and all of the other Prophets) because it goes against the core message that each of the Prophets was sent with.

Believing in Jesus to a Christian means believing what He said and what He did for us on the cross.

I hope and pray that one day you recognize Him for who He really is. On that day, I will love* you as a sister in Christ. Until that day, I will have to love* you as a neighbour and a friend.

* I meant "love" in the Christian way of loving other people, not in any romantic way. I am pretty sure you know that, but I just wanted to clarify.

It would make me so happy if this statement were true (the "even before I became a Muslim" part). God-willing, one day.

I am extremely sorry, I definitely misspoke.

Unfortunately, if I were to become a Muslim, it would mean rejecting Jesus' sacrifice for me, and losing my salvation. While I have a lot of respect for Muslims and also for many parts of your religion, I could not join it and reject my Saviour and Lord.

Ok.

Glad to have clarified that.

Many of my posts here regarding religion are mainly in 'defense' of Islaam (though Islaam stands alone perfectly and doesn't need anyone's help, especially this layperson's), correcting others' misconceptions about it, clarifying what's part of Islaam and what isn't, and just responding to various attacks against it as I see fit.

I don't talk about Judaism or Christianity or any other religions much, positive or negative. Generally the only time I bring up what I believe are negatives is when my religion is being attacked or misrepresented and even then it's usually to make a point.

Fair enough.

 

[TG123]

One problem with languages is often over time words get confused and changed. Especially in a living language. While the Qur'anic Arabic is not a living language, as it is not used in conversation and never had been the meanings are frozen.

I just noticed in my post I wrote Qur'an instead of Hadith


any how the ahadith were written in colloquial Arabic and it is possible some words have a different meaning today than they did then.

There is no doubt the word translates into kite, I question if it always did.

Unlike the Qur'an the Ahadith are not protected from change.

Thanks for what you wrote.

If you are able to find some evidence that the word "kite" meant anything but a hawk-like predator, which is what IslamWeb and IslamQA describe the bird as, I look forward to seeing it. Until then, I see no reason to assume that "kite" did not mean "kite". Which would have meant that Muhammad made a clear mistake, since these birds are not a pest but rather the opposite.

There is a similar thing happening in the Bible, in the parable of the camel passing through the eye of a needle, the word that now means camel originally meant rope.

SOURCE

Have you read the article in its entirety? That the Greeks meant to write "rope" instead of "camel" is a theory, not fact. And according to its author, an incorrect one.

The author concludes that "camel" was meant to be taken as "camel".

In fact, comparison is made to a part of the Talmud where an elephant is described as going through a needle.

Mangled Greek maybe?

There are some differences in the transmitted Greek. The needle in Matthew and Mark is a rafic. In Luke it is a belone. But both are synonyms for needles used in sewing, but Luke's is more likely to be used by a surgeon than a seamstress.

Another possible solution comes from the possibility of a Greek misprint. The suggestion is that the Greek word kamilos ('camel') should really be kamêlos, meaning 'cable, rope', as some late New Testament manuscripts1 actually have here. Hence it is easier to thread a needle with a rope rather than a strand of cotton than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. A neat but unnecessary solution!

A variation on all of the above is that the needle was a 6 inch carpet needle and the rope was made of camel hair- but this is again clutching at straws or camel hair, and is an unnecessary emendation.
Makes sense in Aramaic

An alternative linguistic explanation is taken from George M Lamsa's Syriac-Aramaic Peshitta translation2 which has the word 'rope' in the main text but a footnote on Matthew 19:24 which states that the Aramaic word gamla means rope and camel, possibly because the ropes were made from camel hair. Evidence for this also comes from the 10th century Aramaic lexicographer Mar Bahlul who gives the meaning as a "a large rope used to bind ships". (cf. http://www.aramaicnt.org/HTML/LUKE/evidences/Camel.html)

Some have even suggested a pun in Aramaic between camel and gnat or louse from the Aramaic kalma 'vermin, louse'.

Just as the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew3 refers the saying to a literal camel and needle, so we are not meant to reason away the apparent difficulty of getting a camel through a needle's eye. For the difficulty is not apparent it is real, and not be solved by textual trickery but by taking the ludicrous language at face value.

What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:

"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."4​

This first instance concerned dreams and their interpretation and suggested that men only dream that which is natural or possible, not that which is unlikely ever to have occurred to them.

"… who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle."5​

In this case, the illustration concerns a dispute between two rabbis, one of whom suggests that the other is speaking "things which are impossible".

The camel was the largest animal seen regularly in Israel, whereas in regions where the Babylonian Talmud was written, the elephant was the biggest animal. Thus the aphorism is culturally translated from a camel to an elephant in regions outside of Israel.

The aim is not, then, to explain away the paradox and make the needle a huge carpet needle for, elsewhere, the Jewish writings use the "eye of the needle" as a picture of a very small place, "A needle's eye is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not wide enough for two enemies."6 . The ludicrous contrast between the small size of the needle's eye and the largest indigenous animal is to be preserved for its very improbability.

The camel and the eye of the needle, Hebrew NT Application - Biblical Hebrew

 

[wn123455]

What You Should Know About The Halal Food Industry | The Counter Jihad Report

 

[TG123]

What You Should Know About The Halal Food Industry | The Counter Jihad Report

Gee wiz! That sounds absolutely terrible!

It almost sounds as bad as kosher, which the Jews use to control the world!

Kosher Tax | Subverted Nation

You should really read "subverted nation" and "jew-watch"! It is just as informative as "bare naked Islam" and "Counter Jihad report"!

Thank goodness we have all these informative and scholarly websites out there that show us just how evil Jews and Muslims are!

 

[wn123455]

Gee wiz! That sounds absolutely terrible!

It almost sounds as bad as kosher, which the Jews use to control the world!

Kosher Tax | Subverted Nation

You should really read "subverted nation" and "jew-watch"! It is just as informative as "bare naked Islam" and "Counter Jihad report"!

Thank goodness we have all these informative and scholarly websites out there that show us just how evil Jews and Muslims are!

I have read JewWatch before and it is full of lies. They claim Jews control banking but they never complain about Sharia banking. JewWatch logic is basically if someone has Jewish ancestry then that person is a Zionist. JewWatch thinks Zionists are controlling the world. The people who are trying to control the world are islamists. islamists are the ones trying to control the world through banking and other methods.

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/

I know you are going to ask me why I was on JewWatch. I was browsing a muslim forum and went to one of the sources a forum member linked for his thread.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Regarding fear... the goat was munching on grass calmly right up to the moment the mallet came down. I can't see how its reaction at any point could have been construed as showing fear.

1.) I meant right when it was hit over its head and then while it was laying unconscious.

2.) This goat, unlike the goats at Mercy Halal, was kept for awhile by its owners and probably was used to them. The goats with Mercy Halal, from what I gathered, generally come to them from auctions from big ranchers and are not one of 3 goats (there is an entire herd of them at Mercy Halal). I think that probably has something to do with it too.

I think that an animal that is stunned and unconscious cannot feel the knife that is cutting its throat. I believe that a good butcher can kill an animal using the either the halal/kosher method or non, and do it in a humane way.

Allaah knows best. I'm not convinced yet that it is less painful than merely slaughtering it.

Fair enough. I am assuming you would also kill ants or spiders if you found them in your house, correct?

If they are poisonous or venomous, yes. Otherwise, no. I'd either relocate them outside or let them be.

Muhammad said that whoever kills a salamander will get blessings. I don't see where he specified that it only applies to only those in houses.

Also, I have yet to see a hadith in Bukhari or Muslim where a salamander is described as a pest or harmful creature.

This classification is given clearly to some animals, like rabid dogs, crows, kites and mice. Not the salamander. I don't see any reason given by Muhammad for killing them.

The IslamQA fatwa quotes a hadith that states that the reason for killing salamanders is because allegedly one of them blew on Abraham when his enemies set him on fire.

Killing salamanders by hand - islamqa.info

And the IslamToday article explained that this is a reason given to show the distastefulness of the animal but it is killed because of its harmfulness since that is in accordance with the rest of Islaam. But even if that hadeeth was the only reason, since Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a Prophet of God, we will follow that reason.

LOL come on. Just earlier you said you are against fishing for sport. Am I supposed to say "why are deciding for non-Muslims what should be considered wrongful hunting"? We are having a discussion, and should be allowed to question things.

I didn't decide that for them. I said I consider that a cruel sport. I see people fishing at the lake all the time but I don't tell them to stop. Plus, a pest is something that is considered harmful by most if not all of the people in a certain area so how would you know what is considered a pest to people in Arabia (especially at a time when houses weren't as completely sealed up as they are now)?

But anyway, point taken.

You are absolutely correct that fishing for sport is wrong, and you have every right to say that. I have every right to say that salamanders should not be considered pests. Look at how much good they do.

And they were considered pests to Arabs because of how often they came into their homes. As the IslamToday article stated, they have a nickname for them: "it is also known to Arabs as sâmm abras (literally, “the leprosy venom&#8221."

Believing in Jesus to a Christian means believing what He said and what He did for us on the cross.

I hope and pray that one day you recognize Him for who He really is. On that day, I will love* you as a sister in Christ. Until that day, I will have to love* you as a neighbour and a friend.

* I meant "love" in the Christian way of loving other people, not in any romantic way. I am pretty sure you know that, but I just wanted to clarify.

Don't worry, I understood. Anyway, I do believe what he said even if I don't know what exactly he said since, as a Muslim, I am obligated to believe in all of the Prophets and all of the Scriptures revealed to some Prophets. I know that they all brought the Truth from God. It is for this reason I will never worship Jesus (peace be upon him) especially since it directly contradicts the core message of Islaam.

I am extremely sorry, I definitely misspoke.

Maybe one day you will say it 'for real', God-willing.

Unfortunately, if I were to become a Muslim, it would mean rejecting Jesus' sacrifice for me, and losing my salvation. While I have a lot of respect for Muslims and also for many parts of your religion, I could not join it and reject my Saviour and Lord.

Hopefully you will see that becoming a Muslim means to worship God as He commanded us and to believe in Jesus' actual message (i.e. to worship his Lord and our Lord, the One Who created him and us all).

 

[TG123]

1.) I meant right when it was hit over its head and then while it was laying unconscious.

If the animal was unconscious, how could it have been afraid?
We know that the animals being killed at Mercy Ranch did show fear and opposition, since they needed to be straddled and the words needed to be said over them a few times.

2.) This goat, unlike the goats at Mercy Halal, was kept for awhile by its owners and probably was used to them. The goats with Mercy Halal, from what I gathered, generally come to them from auctions from big ranchers and are not one of 3 goats (there is an entire herd of them at Mercy Halal). I think that probably has something to do with it too.

One of the videos shows the men handling goats and not killing them. So at least some of the goats are handled first and get used to the man. We also don't know how long they stay at Mercy Ranch before being dispatched. We don't know how long the goat "George" was with the family.

Allaah knows best. I'm not convinced yet that it is less painful than merely slaughtering it.

I think the fact that the goat is lying still and seems to be asleep shows that it is not in any pain.

If they are poisonous or venomous, yes. Otherwise, no. I'd either relocate them outside or let them be.

But every spider can potentially bite you if you handle it.

And the IslamToday article explained that this is a reason given to show the distastefulness of the animal but it is killed because of its harmfulness since that is in accordance with the rest of Islaam.

Correct. However, the author of IslamQA produced a hadith to back up his point. IslamToday's author didn't.

The statement

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.

contradicts the hadith cited by IslamQA, which clearly states that Muhammad said that salamanders are to be killed for that reason.

But even if that hadeeth was the only reason, since Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a Prophet of God, we will follow that reason.

Fair enough. I don't see any other reason cited in the hadiths.

Muhammad did not say that the salamander is a pest, although they can sometimes be one. He did say however that the kite is a pest, although they certainly aren't.

I didn't decide that for them. I said I consider that a cruel sport. I see people fishing at the lake all the time but I don't tell them to stop. Plus, a pest is something that is considered harmful by most if not all of the people in a certain area so how would you know what is considered a pest to people in Arabia (especially at a time when houses weren't as completely sealed up as they are now)?

I'm not making a decision for the Arabs either. All I am saying is that kites are not pests.

You wrote:

a pest is something that is considered harmful by most if not all of the people in a certain area so how would you know what is considered a pest to people in Arabia (especially at a time when houses weren't as completely sealed up as they are now)?

However, sometimes people can consider animals as pests and be wrong.

During the Middle Ages, cats, and particularly black ones, were being exterminated in some parts of Europe. The reason is obvious. They were witches and demons in disguise.

Most Europeans considered black cats as dangerous pests, and sometimes killed them in the most horrific ways. Now we know that these morons were wrong.

Cat torturing in the Middle Ages | History | Kattenstoet Ieper

But anyway, point taken.

No problem and shukran.

And they were considered pests to Arabs because of how often they came into their homes. As the IslamToday article stated, they have a nickname for them: "it is also known to Arabs as sâmm abras (literally, “the leprosy venom&#8221."

Yes, touching a salamander may result in a rash. Touching a spider may result in a bite.
Spiders in the House – Friend or Foe? | Bayer Advanced

Actually, touching any wild creature involves a high risk of being bitten or stung. Ants bite too. Wasn't one of the prophets bitten by an ant, and then reprimanded by God for burning down the anthill?

However you say you would remove or ignore a non-poisonous spider or ant from your house, yet kill a salamander. How are the first two any less pests than the third one? Both the spider and salamander kill bugs for you. I don't know how the ant is earning its keep, though they are pretty cool.

Don't worry, I understood. Anyway, I do believe what he said even if I don't know what exactly he said since, as a Muslim, I am obligated to believe in all of the Prophets and all of the Scriptures revealed to some Prophets. I know that they all brought the Truth from God. It is for this reason I will never worship.

I respect your commitment to your faith, though I still hope that one day you leave it and come to Christ, who came down to earth and was crucified and died for you, so that if you believe in Him (and that includes believing His teachings and what He did for you) you may have eternal life.

If you do not convert, I will have no choice but to team up with wn and expose Islam for what it really is, according to learned scholars like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Don't worry, that was a joke. I wouldn't do something like that even if I got drunk.

Maybe one day you will say it 'for real', God-willing.

God willing He will protect me from making such a decision, no offence to you.

Hopefully you will see that becoming a Muslim means to worship God as He commanded us and to believe in Jesus' actual message (i.e. to worship his Lord and our Lord, the One Who created him and us all).

I already worship God and believe in Jesus' message. I pray that one day you will also.

 

[smaneck]

If you do not convert, I will have no choice but to team up with wn and expose Islam for what it really is, according to learned scholars like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Don't worry, that was a joke. I wouldn't do something like that even if I got drunk.

Stay sober, my friend.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

If the animal was unconscious, how could it have been afraid?

We're assuming it can't feel pain while unconscious.

We know that the animals being killed at Mercy Ranch did show fear and opposition, since they needed to be straddled and the words needed to be said over them a few times.

And if they weren't calmed down, they would've been sent back to the herd.

One of the videos shows the men handling goats and not killing them. So at least some of the goats are handled first and get used to the man. We also don't know how long they stay at Mercy Ranch before being dispatched. We don't know how long the goat "George" was with the family.

1.) He was with them long enough to sire kids (that's what baby goats are called, right?).

2.) There was a point 2, but I'm not very committed to this debate lol so I'll cut it short. I don't think we really disagree except that you don't think the way Muslims/Jews slaughter our animals isn't necessarily the best method. Obviously I disagree since I believe this commandment is from my Lord and He is the All-Knowing. I won't be against the source of my meat being stunned as long as they don't die from the blow (which renders it impermissible). However, I am still not convinced that stunning is less painful for the animal. Until then, I will prefer animals slaughtered exactly the way the prophets of the past used to slaughter them.

I think the fact that the goat is lying still and seems to be asleep shows that it is not in any pain.

That's your assumption.

But every spider can potentially bite you if you handle it.

1.) There is no command to kill spiders if they are in our houses.

2.) I don't mind normal spider bites (as long as they do it when I'm not looking and am unaware) unless they cause serious irritation of some sort beyond a mild itch.

contradicts the hadith cited by IslamQA, which clearly states that Muhammad said that salamanders are to be killed for that reason.

It doesn't contradict them. And it doesn't contradict the principles laid out in Islaam and is, in fact, in accordance with them.

During the Middle Ages, cats, and particularly black ones, were being exterminated in some parts of Europe. The reason is obvious. They were witches and demons in disguise.

The reason kites were to be killed is due to the harm they introduced. As for killing animals because they're demonic, we actually believe that jinn can be in snakes (or take the form of snakes? not sure) and are told to command snakes to leave the house 3 times since we don't want to kill the jinn. If it doesn't leave, we can proceed to kill it.

If you do not convert, I will have no choice but to team up with wn and expose Islam for what it really is, according to learned scholars like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. Don't worry, that was a joke. I wouldn't do something like that even if I got drunk.

lol. Don't forget to add Pat Robertson and O'Reilly to the miix.

 

[wn123455]

We're assuming it can't feel pain while unconscious.



And if they weren't calmed down, they would've been sent back to the herd.



1.) He was with them long enough to sire kids (that's what baby goats are called, right?).

2.) There was a point 2, but I'm not very committed to this debate lol so I'll cut it short. I don't think we really disagree except that you don't think the way Muslims/Jews slaughter our animals isn't necessarily the best method. Obviously I disagree since I believe this commandment is from my Lord and He is the All-Knowing. I won't be against the source of my meat being stunned as long as they don't die from the blow (which renders it impermissible). However, I am still not convinced that stunning is less painful for the animal. Until then, I will prefer animals slaughtered exactly the way the prophets of the past used to slaughter them.



That's your assumption.



1.) There is no command to kill spiders if they are in our houses.

2.) I don't mind normal spider bites (as long as they do it when I'm not looking and am unaware) unless they cause serious irritation of some sort beyond a mild itch.



It doesn't contradict them. And it doesn't contradict the principles laid out in Islaam and is, in fact, in accordance with them.



The reason kites were to be killed is due to the harm they introduced. As for killing animals because they're demonic, we actually believe that jinn can be in snakes (or take the form of snakes? not sure) and are told to command snakes to leave the house 3 times since we don't want to kill the jinn. If it doesn't leave, we can proceed to kill it.



lol. Don't forget to add Pat Robertson and O'Reilly to the miix.

Bill O'Reily's television program is on fox news. fox news is islamist controlled.

Saudi prince changes Fox's Paris riots coverage | Media | MediaGuardian

Fox News was ordered to alter its coverage of the riots in France after a Saudi prince with shares in its parent company News Corporation complained to Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul aziz Al-Saud told a conference in Dubai he had telephoned Mr Murdoch after seeing a strapline on the news channel describing the disturbances as "Muslim riots".

"I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots," Campaign Middle East magazine quoted the prince as saying.

"He investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots'."

The prince said his intervention had been an example of how Muslim people can change the portrayal of their religion in the western media - although few Fox viewers will have his contacts.

It is not the first time he has admitted to trying to influence Mr Murdoch's coverage of sensitive issues.

 

[TG123]

I have read JewWatch before and it is full of lies. They claim Jews control banking but they never complain about Sharia banking. JewWatch logic is basically if someone has Jewish ancestry then that person is a Zionist. JewWatch thinks Zionists are controlling the world. The people who are trying to control the world are islamists. islamists are the ones trying to control the world through banking and other methods.

http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/

I know you are going to ask me why I was on JewWatch. I was browsing a muslim forum and went to one of the sources a forum member linked for his thread.

Why do you claim JewWatch is full of lies? Don't you realize your sources feed you the same lies, only that their targets are Muslim and Jew-Watch targets Jews?

Jew-Watch is as legitimate as the sources you cite. If you didn't notice, on their first page they claim to be scholarly.

 

[wn123455]

Why do you claim JewWatch is full of lies? Don't you realize your sources feed you the same lies, only that their targets are Muslim and Jew-Watch targets Jews?

Jew-Watch is as legitimate as the sources you cite. If you didn't notice, on their first page they claim to be scholarly.

Maybe you should read about the difference between Zionism and islamism.

You are being redirected...

 

[TG123]

We're assuming it can't feel pain while unconscious.

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.

And if they weren't calmed down, they would've been sent back to the herd.

Correct. But unlike the goat, they did display fear.

1.) He was with them long enough to sire kids (that's what baby goats are called, right?).

True.

2.) There was a point 2, but I'm not very committed to this debate lol so I'll cut it short. I don't think we really disagree except that you don't think the way Muslims/Jews slaughter our animals isn't necessarily the best method. Obviously I disagree since I believe this commandment is from my Lord and He is the All-Knowing. I won't be against the source of my meat being stunned as long as they don't die from the blow (which renders it impermissible). However, I am still not convinced that stunning is less painful for the animal. Until then, I will prefer animals slaughtered exactly the way the prophets of the past used to slaughter them.

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

That's your assumption.

Correct. I assume that when animals are unconscious they feel no pain. Just like you assume they feel no more pain after their throats have been cut in the halal way.

1.) There is no command to kill spiders if they are in our houses.

Then why the command to kill salamanders?

2.) I don't mind normal spider bites (as long as they do it when I'm not looking and am unaware) unless they cause serious irritation of some sort beyond a mild itch.

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.

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Dreaded-Camel-Spider-and-Other-Middle-Eastern-Arachnids&id=1796985

According to the source you cited, the gecko's skin also only sometimes produces serious irritation.

The instruction to kill the wazagh is for the same reason – it is a pest that poses harm to people. If a wazagh comes in contact with the skin, it can sometimes induce serious irritation. For this reason, it is also known to Arabs as sâmm abras (literally, “the leprosy venom”).

It doesn't contradict them. And it doesn't contradict the principles laid out in Islaam and is, in fact, in accordance with them.

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.

The reason kites were to be killed is due to the harm they introduced.

And what is that harm?

As for killing animals because they're demonic, we actually believe that jinn can be in snakes (or take the form of snakes? not sure) and are told to command snakes to leave the house 3 times since we don't want to kill the jinn. If it doesn't leave, we can proceed to kill it.

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?

lol. Don't forget to add Pat Robertson and O'Reilly to the miix.

That would require more than one bottle.

 

[TG123]

Maybe you should read about the difference between Zionism and islamism.

You are being redirected...

The learned scholars on Jew-Watch say that Zionism and Judaism are the worst form of evil and imperialism, and that they wish to enslave the world. The great statesman Adolf Hitler said the same thing.

 

[wn123455]

The learned scholars on Jew-Watch say that Zionism and Judaism are the worst form of evil and imperialism, and that they wish to enslave the world. The great statesman Adolf Hitler said the same thing.

Actually islamism is the worst form of imperialism and colonization. islamisms want to enslave all non-muslims by making them dhimmis.