Slaughter of animals

[chadiga]

Salamu aleikum
I have a question about the slauther. To be halal according to Islam, then the word means in Arabic" Ibah" slaughter.
Opinions differ very much whether the animal is not really suffering.
One side points out that with the cut immediately the nerves are cut to the brain, the other side emphasized that the animal until it bleeds to death,  pain remains. Since God is certainly not advocated torture for me in the room: Is not permitted by the Koran side to stun the animals before? Thank you for your help. peace

[Joseph Islam]

Salamun Alaikum sister,

If the animal is killed by a 'blow' (mawqudhata 5:3) then the meat is haram (forbidden).

Now this opens up a whole area of Islamic discussions. Some argue that if a small voltage is sent through the animal so as to make it slightly unconscious and then it is slaughtered (zibah) then it is fine providing the voltage is very low and if the animal was not slaughtered, it would be able to recover fully.

One of the advantages with this is that as large animals are difficult to control, it is far easier and less painful for them (so no prior injury is caused by trying to stabilise them) that they are rendered immobilised by a small voltage. However, the process must be reversible.

Others argue that this method is not correct and the animal must be slaughtered without any assistance. Some argue that smaller chickens (especially weaker battery farm chickens) can be easily killed by a voltage or other immobilisation method and there is no guarantee that such an animal would be able to recover fully.

However, almost all agree (as far as I know) that the death stroke must not come by way of a blow of any kind. This is correct in my view in light of the Quranic verse 5:3 which I have already mentioned.

For more insight into my humble perspective with regards slaughter of animals and my reading of the Quran, please see the following article.

SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS - THE CORRECT METHOD OF SACRIFICE

http://quransmessage.com/articles/slaughtering%20of%20animals%20-%20the%20correct%20method%20of%20sacrifice%20FM3.htm

I hope this helps God willing.

Regards,
Joseph.

[chadiga]

dear brother Joseph
Perhaps this question will lead to far, I do not know. I know that God would  never order a method of slaughter  that inflicted  the animal unnecessary pain.
As I understand the message of the Qur'an, God gives us no details of how an animal is slaughtered. If you do not shoot allowed, then only the slitting of the throat?
Let us look in the animal kingdom, we quickly realize that all the other animals killed by a bite into the aorta. So is this really the prescribed method of killing?
Or example, the killing with a knife into the heart may be also allowed?
I have no idea which way leads to death faster than the other. I am a little complicated, because the subject touches me very much. I am a vegetarian for a long time and endure it very difficult to witness the slaughter.
The traditional arguments against the shafts of the animals seem plausible, even if an animal must endure  "only" 10 seconds pain,( we will once keep our hand the same time in the fire)-that's too much. Let alone the adoption of an ox or a cow, which apparently will notice everything another 10 minutes .
It is also claimed that an animal that was not halal slaughtered, has approximately the same amount of blood in the meat as halal one. In addition, we do not really allowed to consume only blood flowing, right? The prohibition in the Koran says only blood flowing? Thus, the whole method of slaughter would be questioned.
Just when I look at the translation of sacrifice. If you mention in the article that sacrifice. which is designated as an outrage, also means the slaughter of large number of animals-yes, what is then made on EID otherwise than this? Allah wants us not to say that "sacrifice kill /" is allowed only if the meat is also eaten and the poor will benefit, not just a celebration of a "battle proof" where thousands of animals are slaughtered at once for no reason? It should anyway not animals to be slaughtered by the people who do not go on the pilgrimage, or am I wrong there?
For me therefore arised several questions:
What battles has really allowed?
If the ducts, the only method that can be used to kill an animal?
Why do religious leaders say, an anesthetic is not allowed when the anesthesia does not even kill the animal?
Is not it against the morality of the Qur'an, when are big animals such as cattle or camels slaughtered without anesthesia and with no humanity.?
Is not known to the victim himself as a religious sacrifice, as such, the Qur'an as a sacrilege `?
If, after the Koran could not "sacrifice" from the former colonies are replaced with the slaughter, if there is a need?(meaning real hunger, so that the people eat all from the meat and also take the skin and everything for use)
Is this a thousand times battles on Eid compatible with the Koran?
Is the sacrifice to God with the Quranic statement compatible?
Thank you for your thoughts and help on my questions.
And i hope that you understand the translation from Google

[chadiga]

'm sorry, one more additional
I do not know if my question about the sacrifice itself is arrived really clear.
I understand the message of the Koran in such a way that God has abolished the senseless sacrifice (on altars).
The Mayans sacrificed (animals and humans)
The Egyptians sacrificed (animalsand maybe humans . ..)
The Jews knew blood atonement sacrifice and burnt offerings and sacrifices, all these sacrifices in the name of God or gods before to achieve something, to get rain, to determine a sin-looking buck tumbling.
I understand the Qur'an in such a way that God wants us to continue to refrain from making such senseless sacrifice of animals (even earlier human sacrifice) in the name of God. The only thing we can do when we "sacrifice" even want to, then, the humane slaughter of animals to feed ourselves so poor and so it is really no longer a victim, but only the "normal" killing / slaughtering to purpose of eating ....
?

[Joseph Islam]

Dear sister Chadiga,

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you for your post and perspective.

It is clear that you have many deep concerns with this matter.  However, as you will no doubt appreciate, I can only try to humbly answer direct questions in light of the Quran. You have shared  a number of personal opinions with theological deductions which while I appreciate, it is difficult to answer all in one attempt as we will lose focus.

For example, you asked a simple question about stunning. I gave you a response from my humble perspective from the Quran.

If we are to discuss some of the verses and their wider interpretation, then we need to look at this one by one InshAllah. As you know very well, when studying the Quran to get the best meaning, we cannot allow our personal or theological world views to influence the text. This is as true for me as it is for anyone else.

Please, if you have a question with regards a specific word / interpretation etc, please do post and InshAllah we can all discuss. But please do it in small parts so we don't lose focus.

Thanks as always for your insightful posts. I look forward to your response 

Your brother in faith.

Regards,
Joseph.

[chadiga]

 dear brother Joseph
God willing I'll ask my questions in a clear intellectual presentation, soon ...
I must gather together all the relevant points only.

[Joseph Islam]

I look forward to reading it InshAllah 

Thanks sister.

[chadiga]

dear brother Joseph
I've divided the topic. Here is my question limited to the actual battles and the question of whether the ritual shafts (throats cut without stunning) is required by Allah.

005:003
"Forbidden to you is carrion (Arabic: maytatu) and blood (Arabic: damu) and the meat of the pig (Arabic: walahmu lkhanziri) and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of God, and the animal that has been stifled is beaten or death (Arabic: mawqudhatu) or killed by a fall or by horns blow or by a predator broken, except that which ye have slaughtered (Arabic: Thakaytum), while it was still alive, and forbidden to you is all that slaughtered on the altars of idolatry is (Arabic: Thubiha) And you is not allowed to seek to discover through divination what the future may hold for you, this is sinful behavior have today those who are bent on denying the truth... All hope lost respect your religion. proves no reverence for them, but have respect for me today I have vervollkommet your religious law for you, and have given the full measure of my blessings and willed that Selbstergebung shall be your religion in what I am. However, the terms, driven by extreme hardship and not by an inclination to sin, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

The prohibition in paragraph 5.3 has many aspects:

First Prohibition:-the outflowing - Blood: Prohibits the pre-Islamic practices of victims who consumed the blood from the assumption that the soul is seated in the blood (for sure sitting viruses and germs in the blood!)

Second Prohibition of pork is clear

Third Prohibition of beaten to death, kicked and strangled:
     - First point of reference to foreign influence / we are not the performer himself (to prevent contamination of meat) the question of the date of death
    -Second point: the issue of torturing: these deaths are not allowed because they cause a slow and agonizing death for the animal
- third point: ,no mention in the Name of God,

Conclusion:
Allah does not mention any particular kind of slaughter.

If the animal itself / and personally killed with a shot or a spear, etc. in the fastest way is, in the name of God with full confidence and respect for life, there is a halal slaughter
The shafts as a slaughter method can be applied but must not.
Shafts as a contradiction to the Quran in two points:
 - Larger animals need to be thrown to the ground: there is panic, thickening of the blood, the blood stays in the body
- Larger animals, the nerve pathway to the brain can not be cu,t so that they have to suffer (cows up to 10 minutes) for this contradiction to the above-mentioned item 3
- Recent findings suggest that after a cow is not powerless, but suffocated in her own blood, which contradicts the Koran

Slaughtering at slaughter than Quranic smaller animals, where the head with a blow-year-can be separated and so it is guaranteed that the nerve cord is severed immediately

Slaughtering of sheep, because sheep "martyr" and not fight with appropriate care and preparation for the battles to be.

Shafts with anesthesia.

what is your opinion?

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Chadiga,

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you for your nicely laid out points. I will like to go through them one by one InshAllah. Please let me start with the first prohibition.

FIRST PROHIBITION

You say: "Prohibits the pre-Islamic practices of victims who consumed the blood from the assumption that the soul is seated in the blood (for sure sitting viruses and germs in the blood!)"

As we are trying to best understand this matter from a Quranic perspective, please can you tell me:

(a) Which verses of the Quran have you used to come to the above conclusion in red, or is this opinion simply from Islamic secondary sources?
(b)  I do not find any reference to 'the outflowing' in the Arabic of 5:3. The word used here is 'damu' which just means blood. The only place where I know the adjective 'masfuan' (poured forth) is used in this context is in 6:145 and appears as a clarification along with 'daman' (blood). This clarification is not present in verse 5:3. Please can you elaborate how you have understood 'poured forth' from the Arabic text of verse 5:3. If you have used 6:145 to interpret the 'damu' in 5:3, then I accept that.

Once we have better understood each other 's points, then I'd like to discuss the next points and conclusion InshAllah :-)

I look forward to your response 

Regards,
Joseph.

[chadiga]

Salamu aleikum brother Joseph
the drinking of blood was in many ancient civilizations custom, after being sacrificed. In Satanism, this is still practiced today. This remark was not meant as an interpretation of the commandment in the Quran, but served only (my part) as a possible explanation as to why it came to this prohibition. In the Ahadith, I have never read  that the ancient Arabs have also been drinking blood  or they  thinked that the soul is sitting in the blood..
I have the info about the blood found in various Satanic magic books and books from the Middle Ages, and publications about ancient civilizations and their sacrifices. there is nothing mentioned about it in the Quran, what i know

The interpretation of the outflowing blood I have certainly not from the verse 5.3, but as you said, from 6.145.
Thank you for your help.salam.

[Joseph Islam]

Thank you sister Chadiga.

I acknowledge your interpretation of 5:3 based on 6:145. Thanks.

With regards the consumption of blood, you seem to admit that you know of no evidence (Quran or Islamic sources) that the Arabs ever consumed blood. It appears then that you advance your reason for the prohibition of blood in the Quran as a possible explanation based on other sources and present day Satanism.

Therefore, I find it difficult to accept that the Quraish were being prohibited from something they never actually ever practiced or inclined to, but because other ancient pagan civilisations had practiced it.

Are you prepared to accept that a more plausible explanation of the prohibition against consuming blood is actually based from scriptures? For example, the prohibition against consuming blood was always a universal law that even predated the Bible (even known to the people of prophet Noah). The Bible simply confirmed this law and the Quran confirmed further.

For example if you read Genesis 9:1-4, it says:

"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis 9:1)
(King James Version)

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat" (Genesis 9:4)
(King James Version)

This prohibition can also be found given to the Children of Israel in other verses of the Bible such as Leviticus 17:10-14.

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people" (Leviticus 17:10)

Therefore, the prohibition in my view has nothing to do with the Quraish or any other ancient civilisation that may have consumed blood but it is a universal law which was known even at the time of Prophet Noah, confirmed by the Bible and further confirmed as a universal law to the believers via the Quran.

I have provided my evidence from the scriptures. I would love to know your view given the above perspective and if you think that this could be a more plausible explanation as to why we find the prohibition of consuming blood in the Quran.

I look forward to your response, InshAllah after which, we can look at the other points together one by one 

Regards,
Joseph.

[chadiga]

 dear brother
Thank you for your answer, I agree with you, i have only one (tiny) remark, you say

Are you prepared to accept that a more plausible explanation of the prohibition against consuming blood is actually based from scriptures? For example, the prohibition against consuming blood was always a universal law that even predated the Bible (even known to the people of prophet Noah). The Bible simply confirmed this law and the Quran confirmed further.
Yes clear!


Therefore, the prohibition in my view has nothing to do with the Quraish or any other ancient civilisation that may have consumed blood but it is a universal law which was known even at the time of Prophet Noah, confirmed by the Bible and further confirmed as a universal law to the believers via the Quran.

we actually don't know, if the Quraisch consumed blood but the Quran has something to do with all the humans
What is an universal law other then an affirmation also  of ancient civilizations? These are indeed within this law- And: i have my Knowledge also from scriptures, but not divine scriptures....

But you're hundred percent correct with your assertation. ! i'm agree!!salams

[Joseph Islam]

Salamun Alaikum Chadiga,

Thank you for your post. That clarifies our respective positions with regards the FIRST PROHIBITION.

Now I agree with your understanding of the SECOND PROHIBITION.

In the THIRD PROHIBITION, you have highlighted 'no mention in the Name of God' in the second point you have made.

Please can you clarify for my understanding why you have highlighted this and what point you expect me to fully understand by this highlight.

Also, please can you tell me in the first point what you mean with your statement 'the question of the date of death'.

I look forward to your response.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

[chadiga]

dear brother
what i wanted  point out is:
Third Prohibition of beaten to death, kicked and strangled:
  why Allah has forbidden the beaten to death, kicked and strangled ?
my understanding: 1. because the animal died not from our hand,i.e. without the name of Allah, i.e. without thanks to Allah

Also, please can you tell me in the first point what you mean with your statement 'the question of the date of death'.
for our health
I wanted to say that it is Rahma of Allah for giving us this prohibits, for the simple reason that by the animals from the first and the third group we do not know exactly when and why they are died - perhaps died from a disease and so the enjoyment of such meat would poison us.
i hope now my question is more clear? sorry...

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Sister Chadiga,

Salamun Alaikum

Thank you for your post which leads to the clarification of all 3 prohibitions 

Now in your conclusion you say:

"Allah does not mention any particular kind of slaughter"

Would you agree that the word 'Thakaytum' in 5:3 as used in the context of FOOD to eat means to slaughter in the manner prescribed by the law while yet life remains in it? In other words, it means to make a food fit for consumption in a lawful well known manner? If you agree with this classical and modern day understanding, would you then agree that a well known method of killing the animal was known to the Arabs?

THAKAYTUM
http://quransmessage.com/articles/thakaytum%20FM3.htm


If you do not agree with this classical Arabic definition, can you please provide me any evidence from any notable Arabic lexicon source or literature which in the context of 'food to eat' and NOT war, (context is crucial), the word 'thakaytum' does not mean to slaughter in a well known manner, but something else.

I look forward to your response.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.