Halal Explained

[light upon light]

islamic terrorism but also islamic imperialism, islamic colonization, islamic occupation, islamization of countries through islamists taking over the banks and media and islamists using islamist lobbies...

How does this read if I replace "islamist" with "zionist"?

"perfect love casteth out fear"

 

[wn123455]

How does this read if I replace "islamist" with "zionist"?

"perfect love casteth out fear"

The indonesian occupation and colonization of West Papua is an example of islamic imperialism, islamic occupation and islamic colonization.
Papua conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

islamists influence fox news.
Saudi prince changes Fox's Paris riots coverage | Media | MediaGuardian

Wirathu says islam influences the media.
Wirathu lashes out at Time magazine - YouTube

CAIR is an islamist lobby.
CAIR Nazis | BARE NAKED ISLAM

islamist trying to influence and abuse the banking system.
http://www.shariahfinancewatch.org/blog/

islamists are trying to influence the US.
The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin | FrontPage Magazine

 

[light upon light]

You do know that demonizing a group of people is what leads to the Holocaust.

In the case of scapegoating and blaming Muslims, it has led already to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

 

[wn123455]

You do know that demonizing a group of people is what leads to the Holocaust.

In the case of scapegoating and blaming Muslims, it has led already to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Protocols of the Elders of Islam | David Altman | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel

In conjunction with spreading the tales of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Islamic leadership has put into practice a three-pronged strategy, as follows: First of all, Islamic immigration around the world became a growing phenomenon, as immigration to strategic areas was encouraged, and amplified in areas where Islamic footholds already existed. Second, new areas where Islam never existed began to see new waves of immigration, and Islam found roots in far-reaching locations around the world. Thrid, in areas where new immigrants wanted to assimilate into the new society and begin a modern way of life, Muslim clerics made a supreme effort to educate youth according to the dictates of a fundamentalist version of Islam, as assimilation into modern life was exchanged for a fundamentalist approach.

Recently, the associations of teachers and professors in Great Britain and Ireland have called for a boycott Israel, a phenomenon that illustrates the way in which fundamentalist interest groups apply pressure on institutions and public opinion across Europe and in other places. If there are those who want to preserve the values of democratic society, they must unite to fight against this dangerous phenomenon of social and political terror, which is operating within democratic societies and making use of democracy to destroy it. And the sooner resolute action is taken, the better.

islamists know how to demonize people and commit genocide.

 

[light upon light]

Yes, some people of all religions are hate-mongers who simply attack those of other religions.

It is a terrible thing indeed.

 

[wn123455]

Yes, some people of all religions are hate-mongers who simply attack those of other religions.

It is a terrible thing indeed.

Just because I point out the indonesian occupation of West papua or the actions of islamists does not mean I am hate muslims. I am against islamists not muslims.

 

[smaneck]

Halal certified products might be used to fund islamic imperialism, islamic colonization and islamic occupation like the indonesian occupation of West Papua.

And your evidence that funds gained from halal certification are going to the Indonesian government?

 

[smaneck]

islamist bankers are trying to influence and abuse the banking system.

What exactly makes bankers "islamist" rather than simply Muslim. Or are you proving once again, that in real life you don't make a distinction?

Banks will decide from for themselves whether they wish to cater to Muslims and they will do it on the same basis they decide anything, is there any profit in it? Hard to make a profit when you can't charge interest, but Muslims have been very inventive when it comes to finding ways around this restriction.

The question is, why should you care? How does it effect those of us who are not Muslim?

 

[smaneck]

islamists know how to demonize people and commit genocide.

They aren't nearly as good at it as you are.

 

[smaneck]

I do not really care who certifies what halal. As long as a product is certified halal I do not buy it because it might fund not just islamic terrorism but also islamic imperialism, islamic colonization, islamic occupation, islamization of countries through islamists taking over the banks and media and islamists using islamist lobbies...

In other words what you really oppose is Muslims practicing their own religion and developing their own institutions to enable them to do this. That's what you are calling Islamization, Muslims trying to establish their own banks to serve their own needs.

But no one really cares if you eat halal food. They don't make it halal for your benefit in the first place. Why would a non-Muslim pay extra to eat halal certified food? That would be silly.

 

[smaneck]

Just because I point out the indonesian occupation of West papua or the actions of islamists does not mean I am hate muslims. I am against islamists not muslims.

Sure it does, because you call any one who tries to establish as shariah-compliant bank to serve their own community or eats halal food an islamist even though they have absolutely nothing to do with your precious West Papua.

 

[smaneck]

Wirathu says islam influences the media.

And we are all going to take the word of a genocidal maniac and your hate websites.

 

[wn123455]

And we are all going to take the word of a genocidal maniac and your hate websites.

Wirathu is not a genocidal maniac.

 

[wn123455]

Sure it does, because you call any one who tries to establish as shariah-compliant bank to serve their own community or eats halal food an islamist even though they have absolutely nothing to do with your precious West Papua.

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

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

 

[smaneck]

Wirathu is not a genocidal maniac.

That is the way he is regarded by all the reputable human rights organizations.

 

[wn123455]

That is the way he is regarded by all the reputable human rights organizations.

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[smaneck]

Criticism of Human Rights Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism of Amnesty International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I get it. You oppose human rights organizations who try and stop genocide.

 

[wn123455]

Yes, I get it. You oppose human rights organizations who try and stop genocide.

I am just linking websites.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

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

1.) Unless the slaughter also kills it immediately.

2.) That meat would be considered impermissible for us to eat.

3.) I'm still not convinced that it is less painful (or significantly less painful) than simply slaughtering with a sharp knife.

In any case, since Allaah is the One who revealed the rules of slaughter of animals for us, I am fully comfortable with them.

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

No, we don't. If the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that they're more harmful than spiders, then I would believe him because he was getting revelations from the All-Knowing. Even if he didn't say anything of the sort, the word of Allaah and His Messenger are enough for us and they specified some animals that are permissible to kill even if we're not going to eat them.

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

I could probably remove it, but it's also permissible to kill them.

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.

Allaah knows what we know not.

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

Or maybe the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was simply relaying what God, the All-Knowing, told him to relay.

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.

I know that Allaah is the Most-Wise and that is enough for me. Allaah says that sometimes we may like something that is bad for us and dislike something that is good for us.

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.

It being found in the Bible does not prove the account. The modern-day Bible has absolutely no authority over my beliefs. I know it's true because the Prophet Muhammad said so.

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.

The bottom line for us is that it is generally only permissible to kill animals for food or to avoid harm. Any animal that causes harm can be killed and we will not be sinful over killing it. For a reason that is known only to Allaah, the All-Knowing, the Most-Wise some animals were specifically mentioned. That does not mean that He has to mention ever single animal on the planet that can be harmful to us.

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.

He knows more than us so I know that whatever He told His Messenger Muhammad is the truth and more worthy of being followed.

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?

Because Allaah is the source of his information and Allaah knows more than wikipedia.

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.

Actually, I'm not sure anymore that we have to expel them from our houses. The ahadeeth mention that a group of jinn in Madinah had embraced Islaam and that if anyone sees one of them, to give a warning to them to leave their houses 3 times and if it appears after that, to kill it because it is not a Muslim jinn, it is the devil. I thought it was referring to all snakes but now I'm not sure it wasn't referring only to the snakes with jinn in them. Regardless, Allaah is the Most-Wise and I know that everything He does has wisdom behind it whether or not you can see it. I am not a scholar so I'll just leave it at this.

Did he? The ahadith say contrary things in regards to this even though the isnad supposedly goes back to the same person, Aisha:

May Allaah be pleased with the Mother of Believers.

Anyway, no, they do not say contrary things. One says that she never heard him saying that. The other says that this is what he commanded (not that she heard him say it personally). There is another hadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, I believe, where she said that another companion claims that this is what the Prophet says. So it seems that she believes the companions who said that the Prophet said this. I am a layperson in hadeeth (let alone Islaam) but even I was able to see this.

Obviously both of these hadith can't be true. Either Aisha heard the prophet say kill salamanders or she didn't. In my mind it demonstrates just how problematic these hadith are, even though both are supposedly 'sahih.'

Not so obviously, as shown in the point above.

Secondly, this is precisely why your approach to ahadeeth is incorrect. You are clearly biased against ahadeeth (though you give quotes from your own religion as if they are fact) and seem to take any opportunity to bash them without trying to properly understand them. This is why it is so important to go to the hadeeth scholars who, while not infallible, were/are experts in this field unlike us.

 

[TG123]

1.) Unless the slaughter also kills it immediately.

2.) That meat would be considered impermissible for us to eat.

3.) I'm still not convinced that it is less painful (or significantly less painful) than simply slaughtering with a sharp knife.

In any case, since Allaah is the One who revealed the rules of slaughter of animals for us, I am fully comfortable with them.

I can see a valid argument for the statement that you choose to eat halal because you believe God told you to. I can't see how you argue it is the most humane way to kill an animal.

If an animal's throat is cut properly, it may die right away as it bleeds out, or it may suffer for a while. If you stun it first, I concede that it may still feel pain as it is unconscious.

So I did some more research, and found a way of slaughter that, if done properly, is guaranteed to cause no suffering after the blow is given.

The Sikhs (also monotheists) use a form of slaughter called "jhatka". How it basically works, is, that an animal is decapitated. The head is taken off with one blow of an axe or sword. A decapitation is guaranteed to kill instantly. Once the head leaves the body, death is instantaneous.

Unlike with halal or kosher or stunning, there is no chance of the animal feeling any pain or consciousness after the slice or blow. It is over. There isn't even one second of suffering or any feeling whatsoever. There isn't even the remote possibility that the animal will feel any pain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee7sOXPI92E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItKTxlILFhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2iPYIXCoE


Interestingly, Saudi Arabia uses this form of punishment on its criminals. Murderers and drug dealers meet a quicker death than most slaughtered animals do.

No, we don't. If the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that they're more harmful than spiders, then I would believe him because he was getting revelations from the All-Knowing. Even if he didn't say anything of the sort, the word of Allaah and His Messenger are enough for us and they specified some animals that are permissible to kill even if we're not going to eat them.

Muhammad did not say that geckos are more harmful than spiders, although he ordered geckos to be killed, and frogs and spiders to be spared. Considering how much good geckos do for people, to a person who doesn't believe he is a prophet, it makes little sense.

I could probably remove it, but it's also permissible to kill them.

That is what your religion teaches, correct. Unfortunately, this causes harm especially to people who live in zones where there are diseases spread by insects.

Allaah knows what we know not.

I agree. He also knows that Muhammad was not His prophet.

Or maybe the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was simply relaying what God, the All-Knowing, told him to relay.

To accept that, we need to accept the idea that God tells people to kill an animal that can help protect them from deadly disease, and says it is "harmful" while He protects other animals that are "harmful" in exactly the same way. It would be like telling a person that it's not OK to kill a tiger but it is OK to kill a lion, because the lion is dangerous.

I know that Allaah is the Most-Wise and that is enough for me. Allaah says that sometimes we may like something that is bad for us and dislike something that is good for us.

I agree that Allah is the Most-Wise. I have no special affinity towards either geckos or frogs. They are both helpful animals that should not be touched, and that many girls I teach both think are "gross"

It being found in the Bible does not prove the account. The modern-day Bible has absolutely no authority over my beliefs.

I understand why you would say that.

I know it's true because the Prophet Muhammad said so.

But you cannot defend some of his teachings, and are unable to come up with counter-arguments for those who question the validity of some of them.

The bottom line for us is that it is generally only permissible to kill animals for food or to avoid harm. Any animal that causes harm can be killed and we will not be sinful over killing it. For a reason that is known only to Allaah, the All-Knowing, the Most-Wise some animals were specifically mentioned. That does not mean that He has to mention ever single animal on the planet that can be harmful to us.

No, but some of the animals that Muhammad mentioned are not harmful at all, like kites. Others are only harmful if a person behaves irresponsibly.

He knows more than us so I know that whatever He told His Messenger Muhammad is the truth and more worthy of being followed.

God does know more than us. I believe that whatever He told His messengers is true and worthy of being followed. I do not believe Muhammad is His messenger.

Examining some of the things Muhammad said (like the teachings above about the "harm" that kites pose) I think helps demonstrate that he was a sincere man, but unfortunately sincerely wrong about believing he was God's prophet.

Because Allaah is the source of his information and Allaah knows more than wikipedia.

God definitely knows more than wikipedia. Wikipedia knows more than Muhammad on some issues, however. Including kites.

Actually, I'm not sure anymore that we have to expel them from our houses. The ahadeeth mention that a group of jinn in Madinah had embraced Islaam and that if anyone sees one of them, to give a warning to them to leave their houses 3 times and if it appears after that, to kill it because it is not a Muslim jinn, it is the devil. I thought it was referring to all snakes but now I'm not sure it wasn't referring only to the snakes with jinn in them. Regardless, Allaah is the Most-Wise and I know that everything He does has wisdom behind it whether or not you can see it. I am not a scholar so I'll just leave it at this.

How would a Muslim know which snakes are jinn who embraced Islam and which did not? If you saw a snake in your house, what would you do?

The fatwa below provides an answer.

Different forms of Jinn - Islam web - English

So if you go by what the scholars say, if you see a snake in your house, you need to give it three warnings to leave before trying to kill it.