Slaughter of animals

[chadiga]

salamu aleikum dear brother joseph

you say:
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 do not agree, but I have no proof. Only the lane is the lexicon used to? 1863 ...? Could it be that the expressions have been already interpreted?
i found i interesing site in germani translated with google. highlights marked from me...
I http://www.hagalil.com/judentum/koscher/schaechten/schaechten.htm

Rabbi Israel Meir Levinger
Rabbi of the Jewish Community of Basel

The Jewish method of slaughter
- The pits

I. The religious foundations

The slaughter of animals is in itself cruel in any way. The terms "human" and "kill" or "shafts" 1 can therefore not really in a nutshell werden.2 as a necessary evil but it should be done at least as carefully as possible. In compliance with certain provisions of Jewish law also allows the slaughter of certain animals.

The Jewish law describes in writing and orally transmitted and prohibitions Content and keeping of Jewish life. It is based on the written text of the Torah 3, the prophets and the Schriften.4 This foundation course can not go without adequate explanation and practical application. This practical complement is found in the "oral Torah". Both were written and the oral Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai übergeben.5

In the nature of oral tradition, the facility for further development. Due to historical events, such as the expulsion of Jews from their homes and the advent of Christianity, the Jews were forced to the oral teachings in the Mishnah (about the year 180 of the general era) and later in the Talmud (about 500 a year ) to write down. These texts are therefore a holy and immutable basis of the Jewish religion.

As a religion for a constantly changing life of Judaism is open to further development being done by the rabbis and held in various forms. This entire structure is halacha genannt.6

A statement obtained halachic liability if it can rely on a long tradition and a recognized authority, a written evidence alone is not sufficient, if not both these criteria are met. It follows that the Halacha developed very slowly and carefully.

The most important collections of rabbinic halakhah, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the halakhic Midrashim and the Talmud, and from later times, the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (ca. 1160) and the Shulchan Aruch by Joseph Caro (ca 1575). Only by understanding the origin, content and effect of these mandatory codes opens the way Jewish religious thought.

Hartinger 7 and 8 Rowe et alii, which occur in their writings against the shafts argue right now that a provision could be found on the front of the stunning bays neither the Bible nor the Talmud.

This argument is true and must agree, because at the time of writing the Bible and the Talmud, one of today's comparable form of anesthesia before slaughter was not known. Rather, due to the extremely strict rule of ritual aimed at minimizing the pain, even the most extreme slaughter and guaranteed.

The written Torah only provides a small hint of the shafts. So it says in Devarim (Deuteronomy) 12.21: "Thou shalt kill of thy cattle and sheep, as I have commanded you."

The words "as I have commanded you" are very interesting, because as we find in the whole Bible is no further evidence, they point to an underlying layer, to an even older rule on the oral Lehre.9 this in the specific laws received over the shafts, which we find in the Talmud (Tractate Chulin 1-2) in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (Sefer Keduschah) and checks the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'a 1-28).

This halachic rules determine an exact method for the shafts, as it is described below. A second, concussed previous anesthetic would cause injury to the animal and make it trefa (impure). They would therefore contradict the Jewish religion.

Ensure that the Jewish faith, the battle pits as the ideal method considered to be major reasons leading to the meeting: the sanctity of life, the psychology of the slaughterer and meat quality.

The saving of life is very essential in the Jewish Lehre.10 If this is about a human life, may all the laws of the Jewish religion with the exception of murder, idolatry and adultery are violated. The life of an animal are of great importance in Judentum.11 are a number of laws in the Torah, the Talmud and the Talmudic codes, subject to the Animal Welfare haben.12
The strict rules of ritual are also dedicated to animal welfare. Then use of such shafts are carried out by qualified persons. A shochet (ritual slaughterer), the same high ethical standards as provided to a Rabbiner.13

The shochet must be aware of the slaughter run. The dog may only use such machines, which are propelled by human power, but not mechanical-automatic apparatus with water, wind or electric drive. Unqualified Schächtet a shochet, full responsibility for the killing of the animal rests on its Gewissen.14

The slaughter is only allowed to supply the people and must therefore bring the highest quality of meat in the best yield. If it would give too little meat, would have more animals to be slaughtered, which would be contrary to the principle of conservation and animal welfare. The meat quality is very good for the shafts, because the animal bleeds out perfectly because of the continuing functioning of the heart.

conclusion: also in the Thora we don't found exactly prescription for shlaughter. We found the law only in the halacha, talmudic teachings (oral transmittion like ahadith...)  It seems as if the Muslims took the practice of shlaughter of the Traditional Jewish sources  and it smuggles into Islam ...
your undecided sister chadiga salaam

[chadiga]

dear brother joseph
i have anything again
I asked the question for thakaytum in FreeMind forum . So I came to the translation of the verse of them. They translate the word now thakaytum with rescue. Is this correct in your eyes?


5:3 Forbidden to you is that which is already dead, and the blood, and the meat of pig, and what was dedicated to other than GOD, and that which has been strangled, and that which has been beaten to death, and that which has fallen from a height, and that which has been gored, and that which the wild animals have eaten from except what you managed to rescue [dhakkaytum], and what has been slaughtered [dhubiḥa] on altars, and what you divide by the arrows of chance. This is vile. Today the rejecters have given up from your system, so do not be concerned by them, but be concerned by Me. Today I have perfected your system for you, and completed My blessings upon you, and I have approved submission as the system for you. So, whoever is forced by severe hunger and not seeking sin, then GOD is Forgiving, Merciful.

thanks and salaam

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Sister Chadiga,

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you for your posts 

With all due respect, free-minds.org is not a classical Arab dictionary, neither an authority on the Quran, nor do I understand they profess to be. I humbly feel that I have provided you clear proof from notable lexicons and authorities what the word means to the Arabs in the context under discussion. Some of these lexicons make reference to old classical Arabic authorities.

If we cannot respect the language in which the Quran is revealed and interpret it based on the language of the Arabs, then we cannot discuss the Quran properly as we are working from two different sources.

The Quran was revealed in the language of the Arabs in 7th century Arabia. How did they understand this verse, the word 'thakaytum' and how did they slaughter the animal? There were no bolt guns in that time, any anaesthetic in use or any other method for killing an animal to my knowledge.

Like you I follow the Quran. The Quran tells me to rely on clear proof, not to rely on assumption (zan - 6:116) and to verify (17:36). It also asks me not to enter arguments (tumari) but to rely on a matter that is clear or obvious (zahir - 18:22).

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of thakaytum as 'rescue' given the context. The Arabic word for rescue / to save or to deliver is 'najja' or 'anja' and it has even been used throughout the Quran. See 7:89, 6:64 and 39:61. See also 29:24, 2:50, 6:63, 7:64, 7:72 etc.

I prefer to rely on Arabic that I understand to be the language of the Arabs and notable lexicon classical authorities on this matter for support. This for me is clear proof.

I hope you understand my position. If you have better proof with regards the word 'thakaytum' than those that I have cited, I would be more than happy to study it.

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

Thanks sister.
 
Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

[Doc]

Like you I follow the Quran. The Quran tells me to rely on clear proof, not to rely on assumption (zan - 6:116) and to verify (17:36). It also asks me not to enter arguments (tumari) but to rely on a matter that is clear or obvious (zahir - 18:22).

That is an important point!    Salam

[chadiga]

dear doc and joseph
This is certainly true. But I do not know if you brother joseph've read my first answer to your question, or just the addition of FM Translation? My main concern was really to point to the Torah. or it counts as a source incorrect?
Thank you for your answer.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear Sister Chadiga,

Salamun Alaikum

I always endeavour to read your complete posts as I always appreciate them

I have one simple question. Why do we need to turn to the Torah and abstract commentary when we have the Quran with us making things clear? If we read Surah Baqarah, we clearly note that God commanded the Jews to 'thibah' a cow.

002:067
"And remember Moses said to his people: "God commands that you sacrifice (Arabic: Tadhbahu) a heifer." They said: "Do you make a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "God save me from being an ignorant (fool)!"

002:071
"(Moses) answered: Indeed! He says: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she ploughs not the soil nor waters the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now you bring the truth. So they sacrificed her (Arabic: Thabahu), though almost they did not"

In my humble view, there is no need to consult the Torah for this matter when the Quran is clear. The Jews clearly used a process of 'thibah / dhibah' to kill an animal. At no place in the Quran is this manner of ending a life of the animal challenged. Therefore, those who listened to the Quran clearly knew the correct and lawful method of killing an animal (thakaytum).

I hope you can see my point, InshAllah 

All believers including me first, must be very careful to interpret the Quranic text for what it says in the language it was revealed and not to introduce our desires as we only have knowledge of what God gives us.

There is a very powerful verse we should all take note of.

025.043
"Have you seen him who takes his desires (passion, impulse, lust) (Arabic: Hawahu) for his God (Arabic: Illahahu)? Will you then be a protector over him?"
 
This is a very serious matter. A desire can amount to 'shirk' if one is not careful.

At times, wisdom from a particular aspect of the Quran may take a great period of time to manifest. However, we must always try to remain true to the text even if we may not understand the wisdom behind it immediately.

Of course, as you will surely appreciate, we do not want to repeat the mistakes of those who displaced words or changed words out of their proper context (4:46; 5:41), probably because it didn't fit in with their world or religious views.

May God help me and others and if we err, to show us the error of our ways InshAllah.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph. 

[chadiga]

dear brother Joseph

yes, sure, you are-like always-completly correct. I seek refuge by God to interpret his Book without knowledge. I'm far from anything like that. Maybe it's also the language, what is make that i can't exactly tell you what i mean.
i'm agree completly when you say:
002:067
"And remember Moses said to his people: "God commands that you sacrifice (Arabic: Tadhbahu) a heifer." They said: "Do you make a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "God save me from being an ignorant (fool)!"

002:071
"(Moses) answered: Indeed! He says: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she ploughs not the soil nor waters the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now you bring the truth. So they sacrificed her (Arabic: Thabahu), though almost they did not"

In my humble view, there is no need to consult the Torah for this matter when the Quran is clear. The Jews clearly used a process of 'thibah / dhibah' to kill an animal. At no place in the Quran is this manner of ending a life of the animal challenged. Therefore, those who listened to the Quran clearly knew the correct and lawful method of killing an animal (thakaytum).

the crucial difference between the two words are the point: thabahu=sacrifice and thakaytum=kill for purpose (eating)
i don't know if you see my other post about the sacrifice? there i was try to share -my only view- about this two words and the difference. for me is the question:was  the sacrifice the "shlaughter" from before ( sacred, holy based) and the thakaytum could maybe include also other methods to kill an animal (for eating)?
again, i'm not specialist for killing. and it's not the point that i don't  like to follow the Law from Allah or to change them .. it's allowed to eat meat so we must kill the animal. i don't challenge this! But why Allah didn't used the same word if he means really the same? I believe that Allah used every word in the quran in the best manner in it perfect meaning.
Sorry i don't want to razz you...Allah may forgive me.

[Joseph Islam]

Dear sister,

Salamun Alaikum.

If this is the crux of your contention, then this may be somewhat easier to answer. In my humble opinion, we don't need to challenge the language of the Arabs if we are simply questioning why a particular word is used in a particular context.

The word thakaytum has been used in a specific context. The animal is partially eaten by another animal (akala-sabu'u illa ma thakaytum). This is not a normal situation where a fresh animal has been brought specifically to be killed for food.

So in my humble view, the most appropriate Arabic word known to the Arabs has been used to capture the context. The Arabs know what it means to 'thakaytum' (kill in a lawful manner). So when an animal has come to them in a specific partially eaten state yet still alive, then they are being instructed to end the life in a lawful manner. That is all.

It is not prescribing a new procedure of sacrifice. It is recognising an existing procedure of lawful sacrifice which is to end the life of the animal in the name of God in a specific way. It is also distinguishing between the simple 'dhiba' that the idolaters would perform and the 'dhiba' a believer or the People of the Book would be expected to perform (Hence why their meat was lawful to each other 5:5).

In my humble view, the most appropriate Arabic words have been used to capture the context.

I hope that helps, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph.

[chadiga]

thank you

[Saba]

Dear sr Chadiga and br. Joseph,

Aslamaolaikum - Can I thank you both for a great discussion on this thread which I followed quite closely. Nice step by step discussion and with mutual respect. Though I didn't have much to add, I did find it interesting and very informative. thanks - Saba