Halal Or Not Halal: What Is The Difference? By Amar Prakash Singh

[sikh Engineer]

Medically Halaal is much hygenic.
In jhatka, the animal's head is severed in a single blow. Thus brain is separated from torso. Animal may not feel pain as brain goes immediately into comma due to blockage of blood to it and dies immediately. Also the heart stops pumping immediately and blood inside the body is not pumped out and is absorbed by the meat. Most of the harmful bacteria and virus are found in the blood and hence remain inside the meat and hence the meat may be harmful.

In Halaal, the wind pipe is cut, two veins which supply blood to the brain are also cut hence no blood is supplied to the brain resulting in the coma and hence animal may not
feel pain. The heart does not stop immediately resulting into pumping out most
of the blood hence less bacteria in meat.


dear brother u r mistaken by saying halal is much hygenic,

my first point is you cannot drain blood fully frm body when u do halal ok. and as u said in halal less bacteria is there becoz less blood remains but dear tell me if infection has to take place it can happen frm less bacteria also . so how come halal is hygenic????.

moreover its not animal will not feel pain when u do halal. as soon as u catch animal for slaughtering automatic that animal senses that something wrong is going to happen with this fear harmonal changes take place which may or may not be unhygenic ??? which is also there when u do halal.

tell me one thing now days lifestyle has totally changed life became more hetic people dont have time to eat. do u feel in this hetic life people got enough time to do halal. I am telling this that nowdays people r slaughtering with machines???? will machine cut first wind pipe???

lastly i just tell you that who told u that blood only contain harmful virus, I had a discussion with one doctor and you know what he told me...
He told me jatka is more hygneic as the blood inside it preserve the flesh and in case of halal less amount of blood remains inside that is why halal is not hygenic IF IT IS NOT CONSUMED IMMEDIATELY.

you make it sure in case of halal you cannot drain all blood ????// and if infection has to occur it can occur with one drop:yes:??

 

[Randip Singh]

Medically Halaal is much hygenic.
In jhatka, the animal's head is severed in a single blow. Thus brain is separated from torso. Animal may not feel pain as brain goes immediately into comma due to blockage of blood to it and dies immediately. Also the heart stops pumping immediately and blood inside the body is not pumped out and is absorbed by the meat. Most of the harmful bacteria and virus are found in the blood and hence remain inside the meat and hence the meat may be harmful.

In Halaal, the wind pipe is cut, two veins which supply blood to the brain are also cut hence no blood is supplied to the brain resulting in the coma and hence animal may not
feel pain. The heart does not stop immediately resulting into pumping out most
of the blood hence less bacteria in meat.

By the way I have lost taste in meat and have given it up.

I doubt Halal is more hygenic. What matters more is the welfare of the animal.

In the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, wheras in India, possibly the worst.

I have noticed that in Islamic countries that animals are cared for (before Halal slaughter) almost like family memebers. Well fed and well care for.

Also there are many cultures around the world that actually use the blood (as it contains most nutrition) for various dishes. The Masai actually mix it with barley and drink it.

I think this debate has gone a little off topic, the rationale for why Guru Gobind Singh do not touch "Kuttha meat" is simple. "Kuttha" mean that which has been sacrificed to God, or ritually purified. The Sikh rationale was there was no need for ritual, or purification, or offer to God. How can one offer to, or purify something that God has created?

Whatever a Sikh eats, meat, vegtable, do it not with ritual, but thanks to God. The native Americans, after killing an animal used thank their "brother" animals for giving up their bodies to provide food for them. In this similar way Sikhs thank God with Ardas for the food (meat or vegetable), that has been provided.

 

[sikh Engineer]

I doubt Halal is more hygenic. What matters more is the welfare of the animal.

In the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, wheras in India, possibly the worst.

I have noticed that in Islamic countries that animals are cared for (before Halal slaughter) almost like family memebers. Well fed and well care for.

Also there are many cultures around the world that actually use the blood (as it contains most nutrition) for various dishes. The Masai actually mix it with barley and drink it.

I think this debate has gone a little off topic, the rationale for why Guru Gobind Singh do not touch "Kuttha meat" is simple. "Kuttha" mean that which has been sacrificed to God, or ritually purified. The Sikh rationale was there was no need for ritual, or purification, or offer to God. How can one offer to, or purify something that God has created?

Whatever a Sikh eats, meat, vegtable, do it not with ritual, but thanks to God. The native Americans, after killing an animal used thank their "brother" animals for giving up their bodies to provide food for them. In this similar way Sikhs thank God with Ardas for the food (meat or vegetable), that has been provided.

randip ji

i agree with you but the thing i hate is that these fellows try to make fool by saying that jatka is not hygenic. we all shud respond to these question with scientific and logical answer bcoz this is the stragey of Muslims to attract people of other religion to convert by spreading these type of things.

randip ji you know the worst part is sikh's dont try to study there scripture that is why they get conviced by these types of things. At least I am on mission to spread awarness aboout all this misconceptions which muslims r spreading, and i must thanks you people ( randip ji, tejwant ji, nayaranjot kour, aman ji , gyani ji) bcoz i learned alot form all of you.

hope you all be with me in this mission:happy:

 

[Randip Singh]

randip ji

i agree with you but the thing i hate is that these fellows try to make fool by saying that jatka is not hygenic. we all shud respond to these question with scientific and logical answer bcoz this is the stragey of Muslims to attract people of other religion to convert by spreading these type of things.

randip ji you know the worst part is sikh's dont try to study there scripture that is why they get conviced by these types of things. At least I am on mission to spread awarness aboout all this misconceptions which muslims r spreading, and i must thanks you people ( randip ji, tejwant ji, nayaranjot kour, aman ji , gyani ji) bcoz i learned alot form all of you.

hope you all be with me in this mission:happy:

My view is this.

I genuinly wish all the major faiths of the world Islam, Hinduism, Christianity all the best.

I also wish to clear up misconceptions about the Sikh faith without attacking any other faith.:yes:

 

[P0TTER]

Thank you for your thoughtful words about Halal or Not Halal.
I thought I would share my thoughts that may be of use to Vegetarians.
Firstly I must point out to the vegetarians here that they have not escaped Halal by simply avoiding meat. E-numbers or E-Codes signify E-Ingredients - are all additives in foods that can sometimes be produced from animal by-products!
The halal industry have been developing substitutes for these from animals that have been Religiously Slaughtered or alternative Vegetable by-products which are put into foods that can then be Halal Certified.
So Are You Eating HALAL VEGETABLES... maybe those potatoes were grown in Halal Bonemeal... We really need to check the source of what we are buying, because we have UNLABELLED HALAL PRODUCTS THROUGHOUT OUR FOOD CHAIN!
Some vegetarian products just happen to be halal eg. because they do not contain Gum from animal Fat, Lard, Gelatine from Lard or Calf Skin or Shortening (animal) - other vegetarian products containing alcohol would not conform to Islamic Law & would be Haram. Well these two kinds of vegetarian products would be OK to eat.

This article is from a muslim who is concerned about Pork additives -
See the end of the article for E Codes that contain Pig Fat... not that we need to worry about this unless you are vegetarian or a muslim.
http://www.yanabi.com/forum/337461/WhyPigFatisnotmentionedinfoodbutcodesareprinted
As usual there is TAQIYYA used in that article... Truth mixed with Lies... The author of that last article is not being completely truthful. Many of the E-numbers listed do not relate to animal products. Some come from milk, which is most likely of bovine origin.
For example, E153 is Vegetable carbon, E214 is Ethyl p-hydroxybenzoate (A type of alcohol). Neither of those are from animal sources. E327 Calcium lactate is from milk, not pig fat!
Here's a list of E-numbers:
http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/additive.htm
and another one laid out differently, for cross-referencing:
http://www.ukfoodguide.net/enumeric.htm
*Some E-Numbers are missing from those lists and may need to be searched for elsewhere. I do not know why they are missing.

We have to remember the diet industry has more fraud than any other industry. Most articles are sponsored by companies with their own agendas.

Here are the 2010 HALAL RULES & List of E CODES - Rules of Halal Slaughter - Muslims only allowed in the slaughter, Diagrams of how to cut necks of animals, the level of low current for electrically stunning chickens, terminology, List of E CODE ingredients from pages 29-54.
http://www.jummahmasjid.org/docs/Jummah masjid halaal council 2010.pdf
The important products to avoid if we want to BOYCOTT HALAL are the Halal Branded Products and Food outlets & stores that promote Halal rather than normal products.

Food Guide & E-Numbers List
This section has lists of Food suitable for Vegetarians (this may or may not contain alcohol) and Muslims (Halaal lists - as vegetarian with no alcohol).
The following is a list of products containing animal by-products, such as animal fat, gelatine and fatty acids (fats). It is by no means certain that they are Haraam.

http://www.kingstonmosque.org.uk/Food/index.htm

Many non-meat foods can be halal... take for example these Halal Haribos for Muslim children...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417218/The-Halal-Haribos-Muslim-children.html
Old article - but clear example of HALAL LABELLING - the difference here is that HALAL Gelatine used in these halal sweeties - See about that here: http://www.ochef.com/909.htm
German firm Haribo, formed in 1920, is one of Europe's biggest sweet manufacturers, selling its products in more than 150 countries.

Hope that this has given you that are vegetarians some Food For Thought & if you care where the profits go that are on foods that you buy, then I think you will choose to avoid Halal Products... well as much as you can, because the more you look into the Food Chain, the more you will find so many Unlabelled Halal products.
If you want change please write to your MPs & MEPs & insist that Ritually Slaughtered meats & Bi-Products are clearly labelled RS. We don't need expensive Halal Certification... we just want it to be labelled in plain English. Find out who your representatives are in England on this website... www.writetothem.com

 

[P0TTER]

I doubt Halal is more hygenic. What matters more is the welfare of the animal.

In the UK we have some of the best animal welfare standards in the world, wheras in India, possibly the worst.

I have noticed that in Islamic countries that animals are cared for (before Halal slaughter) almost like family memebers. Well fed and well care for.

Also there are many cultures around the world that actually use the blood (as it contains most nutrition) for various dishes. The Masai actually mix it with barley and drink it.

I think this debate has gone a little off topic, the rationale for why Guru Gobind Singh do not touch "Kuttha meat" is simple. "Kuttha" mean that which has been sacrificed to God, or ritually purified. The Sikh rationale was there was no need for ritual, or purification, or offer to God. How can one offer to, or purify something that God has created?

Whatever a Sikh eats, meat, vegtable, do it not with ritual, but thanks to God. The native Americans, after killing an animal used thank their "brother" animals for giving up their bodies to provide food for them. In this similar way Sikhs thank God with Ardas for the food (meat or vegetable), that has been provided.

NOTE: My answer is to the post that Randip Singh was replying to...

Now we get to the issue of blood...

Note that ALL food animals are exsanguinated!!!

The red stuff which leaches out of meats is not blood - it's linign, a breakdown of protein (meat): don't tell me you've never noticed that this red stuff doesn't clot - or that it doesn't turn black when subjected to heat. Blood clots when exposed to air thanks to the thrombokinase and prothrombin contents, and turns black when exposed to heat or digestive processes due to the haemoglobin.

As for sacrifical animals not feeling any pain, see this:
http://issuu.com/florencebergeaud-blackler/docs/veterinary-concerns

 

[findingmyway]

I think the key is freedom of choice.

 

[Ambarsaria]

I think the key is freedom of choice.

findingmyway ji's why freedom of choice if a process is clearly confirmed to be cruelty to animals? An animal is not died for a while in Halal and people watching it (for public sacrifice) actually enjoy the bloody and gory scene as blood is supposed to take the evil and animal's soul out with it in this spectacle.

The same culture then sees nothing wrong with dragging dead bodies of US soldiers in the streets in Somalia or desecration of dead bodies of Kafirs (all of us) who are not muslims as the Kafirs are equaled to animals.

I think there is a wise saying that true sensibility of a culture is defined by

.... How they treat the animals!

Sorry but I can not sugar coat some of this.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[findingmyway]

Ambarsaria ji,
The which way is more cruel debate goes round and round in circles so that is not the way to achieve what we want as it goes nowhere. It is not upto us to dictate to Muslims that they cannot eat halal as we perceive it to be more cruel. Do you think some US and UK soldiers have behaved in a way that is any less horrific? Culture and religion are not the same. When we are trying to separate Sikhism from bad cultural practices then it is not right that we don't do the same to Muslims. I know many Muslims who do not agree with cruelty to other people whatever the circumstances. A more realistic outcome is freedom of choice for whoever wants to eat halal and for those who do not want to eat halal.

 

[Ambarsaria]

findingmyway ji it does not have to do the following,

The which way is more cruel debate goes round and round in circles so that is not the way to achieve what we want as it goes nowhere.

In this case cruelty to animals is defined by the host country or the country people reside in. Why would Muslim states not allow non-Halal meat? Because each country has some rights in such areas. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander!

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[spnadmin]

The issue becomes more heated as a controversy because options are closed down for those who do not want to eat halal. That is the point made by findingmyway ji. Events in Britain are making is less not more likely that those who choose to eat meat, Sikh or Muslim or otherwise, will have any choices. Perhaps the choice becomes to refrain from meat. Why should that be the default for those who do not want to eat halal for religious or moral reasons? Between government tactics that (e.g., making halal in school lunchrooms the only meat choice to curry favor with voters, and corporate tactics that seem to be making business decisions in favor of halal because of profitable markets, freedom to choose is going under the knife along with the animals.

 

[P0TTER]

findingmyway ji's why freedom of choice if a process is clearly confirmed to be cruelty to animals? An animal is not died for a while in Halal and people watching it (for public sacrifice) actually enjoy the bloody and gory scene as blood is supposed to take the evil and animal's soul out with it in this spectacle.

The same culture then sees nothing wrong with dragging dead bodies of US soldiers in the streets in Somalia or desecration of dead bodies of Kafirs (all of us) who are not muslims as the Kafirs are equaled to animals.

I think there is a wise saying that true sensibility of a culture is defined by

.... How they treat the animals!

Sorry but I can not sugar coat some of this.

Sat Sri Akal.

The fight is not against flesh & blood, but must be against Islamic ideology, the dictates of Sharia Law & Halal.
The British people have aimed to be tolerant with all faiths and cultures.
However it is not so much the people, but the Labour Government & the EU, that have embraced globalism, multiculturalism & political correctness... now we have to somehow deal with the consequences.
Profits from Halal do not benefit the British economy, but are stored on Halal Bonds & Halal Gold & Silver Dinars & the indirect ZAKAT TAX is also applied, one eighth of which goes to Islamic Freedom Fighters like the Mujahideen!
http://www.halaljournal.com/article/3362/gold-dinar-as-halal-money
British Law states that ALL livestock must be stunned before slaughter, but the following amendment was made to accommodate the dietary requirements of Muslims & Jews as follows...
UK Statutory Instrument 1995
No. 731 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, SCHEDULE 12 Regulations 21 and 22
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR SLAUGHTER BY A RELIGIOUS METHOD specifies that meat is slaughtered by a muslim - for the food of muslims (or by a jew - for the food of jews).
Nowhere does it state that the religious exemption can be used to slaughter for the mass market.
The Halal Slaughterhouses are getting around the law by giving a low-stun before the blessing to Allah & cutting the throat of animals. To be halal the animal must be conscious throughout - so this low-stun makes the animal's plight even worse... unable to move or vocalise, but conscious of the entire bloody ritual!
Britain is a secular society based on Christian principles and it is extremely disrespectful of some in the muslim community to think that they can try to take control of our food chain in the way they are trying to do.
95% of the UK population are NOT muslim and these consumers are not interested in any kind of Religious Regulation or Certification in the name of allah or anyone else.
How dare the World Halal Forum designate the UK to be a pilot project (2009 WHF) and then last year declare that they aim to "Take Halal Mainstream in the UK... and then Europe"
There are two issues here. The ethical issue of animal cruelty in ritual slaughter and the lack of transparency in Labelling RS meat and its products.
This article, Halal: The most humane slaughter, has been discredited by more recent scientific research:
http://www.halaljournal.com/article/3360/halal:-the-most-humane-slaughter
UNLABELLED Halal has been sold & fed to unsuspecting shoppers & consumers throughout the UK for over ten years, but especially in the last five years... AND they dared to even shove it down the throats of our elected politicians in the House of Commons - which made them very angry (unlike the Scottish Parliament who have foolishly accepted going halal at Holyrood).
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/163408/MPs-served-Halal-meat-on-the-sly/
...But that was last November & since then there seems to be a distinct lack of news about Halal Meat AND still no transparency in labelling.
The British public need to know what they are eating and I would encourage you to write, ring and speak to your representatives in power, suppliers and food outlets about the need for an RS Label on anything that is Ritually Slaughtered or any Product that has a Religious Standard... ie. Halal.
I'm not so interested in protesting about the Kosher trade... the Jews have never sought to take over our food chain or product market... but Halal products are everywhere and this threatens the British economy and British Jobs too... because Halal can only be produced by muslims... or it becomes Haram.
To get some idea of the immensity of this lack of labelling of Halal products, which not only involves meat, but many other products too Cosmetics, Furniture, Financial Services, IT etc.... See this:
http://www.zabihah.com/

 

[pervez]

Guru Nanak Ji Sahib is using the "language" of the Brahmins to convey His message. The words used are MALECHH and ABHAKHIAH ka KUTHA. Now the Brahmins referred to the Muslims as Malecchh (dirty/filthy) due to their doing the inspaekable...killing and devouring cows, breaking stone idols and places where these stones were worshipped..etc. The Brahmins called the language spoken by the malechh muslims as ABHAKHIAH..unspeakable...as opposed to the "Sanskrit" holy language of thewir Vedas and Gods.
In Private these fraudy Brahmins said such things about the Muslims...BUT in PUBLIC..they wore Blue clothes, spoke the Filthy language and ate the filthy "kutha bakras" of the Masters...WHAT A FRAUD ???
IN MUSLIM INDIA..no non-muslim was allowed to keep a knife..slaughter meat..ride a horse..keep weapons. All these were reserved for the Masters..and NOT for SLAVES. The Wily Brahmin spoke "double speak"..one thing to the Hindus and another to the Muslim Masters. This DOUBLE SPEAK is exposed by Guru nanak ji in Abhakhiah ka kuttha bakra khanna.( IN PUBLIC to win over the Musims masters ).matt bhitteh ve matt bhitteh ve at home ( to fool the Hindus as to their holinity !!)

SACRIFICE..and "offering THANKS" to God are two different things. The Maya Indians..the Babylonians..the Meccans....the Hindus..almost everyone offered SACRIFICE. In the Bible it was Abraham that was ORDERED by God to sacrifice !!! Hindus scrifice Goats to Kali Goddess !!! In SACRIFICE....BLOOD has to be SHED. It is the BLOOD that the GOD DRINKS and is satisfied..no difference if it is God of the Mayas..or Babylonians..or Meccans..or Kali or Allah...the CONCEPT is the SAME...The SACRIFICE is to APPEASE god..bring down RAIN..end droughts..etc etc etc.

The Sikh Ardass is just like the GRACE said at the Table..THANKS to the PROVIDER for His MERCY. That is why BHOG LAUNNA is Brahminism and not Gurmatt. Bhog is launna to IDOLS..not to Guru Granth Ji. The ARDASS is thus DONE at each and every Function in a Gurdwara..at every MEAL a Sikh has at home....this itself shows it is different from the SACRIFICE..the Kalmas read over an animal being killed.

Hallal Meat was FORCED UPON all non-Mulsims in those times...This is still done in MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES...like in MALAYSIA even though there is almost 40% NON MUSLIM population..the ruling Muslim Govt makes it MANDATORY for ALL MEAT and other products to be Hallal ONLY. Non Hallal meats..are ONLY the HAM and PIG Products..NO other Meat can be NonHallal. This si the Sole reason why a SIKH who follows only and only AKAL PURAKH MUST never eat Hallal Meat that is SACRIFICED to a Diety that "needs" such sacrifices.
Gyani Jarnail Singh

This is regarding the Sacrifice of animals at time of Hajj. The slaughtering of animals for regular eating has slightly different rules and does not constitute sacrifice.

Holy Quran Chapter 22 Surah Hajj verse 37: 37It is not their (the sacrificial animal's) meat nor their blood that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you that ye may glorify Allah for His guidance to you: and proclaim the good news to all who do right.

We see in most sacrifices around the world that blood forms a critical part of the sacrifice. Those in tantra eat the blood or smear it on themselves. In various parts of the world eating the blood or smearing or eating some vital organs constitutes an important part of sacrifice. In other instances blood or organs collected are subject to chanting of etc and then subsequently used to eat or distributed/superstitiously smeared or fed to others to ward of evil or to make evil come on them. In even others the person sacrificing himself does not eat the meat and it is used to expiate sins by making others eat it.

Islamic sacrifice has none of this. In fact blood is strictly prohibited and the method of slaughtering has to take care that maximum amount of blood is pumped out of the body of the animal.

The purpose of the orignal was to test obedience to Allah. The believers are asked to follow it to remember the obedience and to Allah. Also since an Animal represents a substantial investment in food the spirit of brotherhood is encouraged through this sacrifice ie to share food with relatives and poor. The distribution of meat is in three equal parts ie one part for own family, one part for relatives and friends and one part for the poor who are neither relatives nor friends.

Emphasis on family and community is very strong in Islam and is reinforced with food habits, socialising habits, method of praying together and in sharing of wealth and food.

As far as the Name "Allah" is concerned it is meerly a most favoured and honored name of the creator. But it is still a Name and muslims cannot even postrate(do sajda/put forehead on it while bowing down in prayer)to the written name of Allah. The concept of the creator is that we cannot confine him or consider it a complete representation of creator even in name.

 

[namjiwankaur]

Bawa Muhaiyaddeen has explained the problems that led to the halal method of slaughter. I can't remember which book its in. I'll see if I can locate it tomorrow. The gist of the story is this:

Muhammad was very upset with the Muslims because they were slaughtering animals, but ended up wasting much of the meat. Muhammad, as some of you may know, was very much interested in the welfare of animals. He prayed to God about all the wasted lives and God gave him the halal method of slaughter. The first things commanded were to sacrifice one goat rather than four chickens or one cow vs. four goats. This still didn't create much change in the Muslim community so more rules were added.

It included not showing the animal the knife or allowing it to see other animals being slaughtered. The one who would slaughter had to look into the animals eyes and thank it for sacrificing its life to become food. And, of course, the Bismillah had to be spoken over each animal to be sacrificed (I hear some are now saying only one Bismillah for all the animals to be slaughtered that day). According to Bawa, the point was for the person to become so sensitive to the animal's life that they could no longer slaughter it.

I have been a vegetarian for almost 3 decades. I don't have the heart to eat meat. My hope is to become vegan, but I tend to ignore the eggs in certain foods I eat by numbing myself to the horrible conditions of chickens who are factory farmed. And the same goes for the milk & cheese I would stop eating immediately if I didn't shut myself off from the reality of factory farming.

I don't even step on ants if I can avoid it. I said to someone today, "who are we to say we are the smartest or most loving or most just species? For all we know, ants are geniuses. If a Monarch butterfly flies thousands of miles when it migrates, why do we think our human bodies are what is made in "the image of God"? (I'm referring to what I learned to believe every week in Sunday School at church).

Take care, y'all.

 

[pervez]

Bawa Muhaiyaddeen has explained the problems that led to the halal method of slaughter. I can't remember which book its in. I'll see if I can locate it tomorrow. The gist of the story is this:

Muhammad was very upset with the Muslims because they were slaughtering animals, but ended up wasting much of the meat.Muhammad, as some of you may know, was very much interested in the welfare of animals. He prayed to God about all the wasted lives and God gave him the halal method of slaughter.

The first things commanded were to sacrifice one goat rather than four chickens or one cow vs. four goats. This still didn't create much change in the Muslim community so more rules were added.

it.

I doubt the veracity of this story. I have seen this story(not the same as you have quoted from memory) in Bawa Muhaiyaddeen website and it is supposed to be an Hadith. There is no reference number of the Hadith so it is difficult to veryify how strong and accepted this Hadith(if it is a Hadith)is.

First the story is not about meat getting wasted but of Muhammad(PUBH) showing the way of slaughter to muslims and asking the muslims to come to an official slaughter.

According to the story, earlier people would wring a neck of chicken and also slaughter animals on their own in anyway and anytime they wanted at homes.

Later on this official slaughterer was often not be available and thus people came complaining that they couldn't get their meat. So as per the story he asked the people to slaughter two goats instead of hundred chickens, 10 cows instead of hundreds of goats, 3-4camels instead of ten cows and share the meat among people according to the size of the family the Idea was lesser number of animals had to be slaughtered so the task becomes easy for the official.

Even without going into the sources this story seems implausible. Considering that Islam does not even appoint a priest it is not conceivable that an official slaughterer would have been appointed. There is ample evidence that no such official slaughterer was used by muslims during his time and immediately after him. Second the advice to slaughter animals and share among families raised a question whom did these animals belong to? if they were bought who paid for it? Is everyone in the city eating meat all the time? It an totally illogical story as far as this issue is considered. Islam is not to be confused with communism. Property rights are sacrosanct as far as Islam is considered.

The story goes on to state that in this way only a few animals were slaughtered instead of thousands daily. Desert does not provide the facility to maintain lakhs of animals in one city so that thousands can be slaughtered on a daily basis. Meat was a rare part of diet those days an occasional treat for even the well off.

This story goes on to say that Prophet(PUBH)told Ali(as)(His son In law) that eating meat continuously for 40 days is not good and the qualities of the animal will come on you if you do so. Thus Ali never ate meat continuously for 40 days. This is a very laughable story. Ali(as)(the person who all sufis consider their original master) was know for his very austere life style just like the prophet. He would not even eat honey once in a while. He restricted his diet to very simple food often just dry bread and water. His clothes were all simple and patched up. One of the names that he was given (by the Prophet(PUBH)) was Abu-Turab. Turab means dust. This was to signify the humility and simplicity with which he lead his life.

The word Sufi is derived from Suff ie a rough woolen cloth often the only one available to the poor to Arabia. The poor were often called Suffa. These were the garments worn by Ali(as). The Sufi's ultimate role master is considered Ali(as)due to his simple life and his closeness to God. To imagine him trying to abstain from meat so that he does not eat it continuously for 40 days is to say the least shocking and hilarious at the same time.

It included not showing the animal the knife or allowing it to see other animals being slaughtered. The one who would slaughter had to look into the animals eyes and thank it for sacrificing its life to become food. And, of course, the Bismillah had to be spoken over each animal to be sacrificed (I hear some are now saying only one Bismillah for all the animals to be slaughtered that day). According to Bawa, the point was for the person to become so sensitive to the animal's life that they could no longer slaughter it.

Again there are many problems with this part of story as this is not supported by texts that I know s of. Also the quran mention in more than one place that he has made some animals for food of humans and sacrificing animals is an important part of the ritual of Hajj. It also mentions one story where Prophet(PUBH)abstained from Honey for some time and was asked by God not to do so as it is one of the things he has permitted to eat and abstaining(willingly when it is available) from what has been permitted causes displeasure of God.

That said Sufi's often talk in metaphors and try to relate to level of understanding of their audience so taking their stories as a literal truth is not advisable.

why do we think our human bodies are what is made in "the image of God"? (I'm referring to what I learned to believe every week in Sunday School at church).

Islam is completely opposed to such a concept and I think it is doubtful that even your religion takes such a stand. Islam has an concept of god which says if you can imagine it then that is not the god.

Of course the story could be different in the book you have, still this is not an accepted anecdote. Often we like to believe in stuff that matches our sensibility so I don't blame you in thinking this may be likely true story.

 

[P0TTER]

The meat prepared on Eid and at haj to maccah "may" be constitute a sacrifice, but I don't think the day to day meat preperation is seen or treated as a sacrifice, could you kindly provide proof of your assumption.

Thanks.

In answer to Shaheediyan's request for proof regarding halal meat preparation being seen and treated as a sacrifice.
Clearly Halal Meat is not the same as normal/ traditional meat in Non-islamic countries.
Halal is an Islamic word that is used by Muslims to signify what is permissible for them according to Sharia Law. We are not living under Sharia Law, because we are not muslims and therefore the word halal is a foreign word and we do not recognise the need to follow muslim rules for living... We do not recognise the need for Islamic dogma - especially concerning our food and the way it is prepared.
There are many differences between Halal Ritual Slaughter and any other slaughter.
The nearest to Halal Ritual Slaughter is Kosher Religious Slaughter... where there is no dedication of each animal... just a prayer said at the beginning of the day... as would be said by any Jew at his place of work.
Jews will not eat halal meat, because of the dedication to Allah and their need for strict adherence to Kosher traditions - yet muslims, in the absence of halal meat, will eat kosher meat rather than go vegetarian... Kosher is seen as the only acceptable substitute.
Many Halal Authorities insist that an Imam must be present at the kill. [Increasing costs]
The slaughterman MUST be a Muslim Male [issue of marginalisation of workers here]
The animal must be turned to face Mecca [indicating a Ritual] and presented as a living [must be alive] sacrifice.
A Blessing to Allah must be said out loud before the throat of a live animal is cut.
So that procedure for day to day Halal meat preparation certainly sounds very much like a Sacrificial Slaughter to me.

 

[Ishna]

Thank you P0tter ji for your concise summary.

I have a question about this part, if you don't mind:

and presented as a living [must be alive] sacrifice.

I've done some reading about the halal method of slaughter and I'm not sure how it is offered as a sacrifice.

 

[pervez]

The nearest to Halal Ritual Slaughter is Kosher Religious Slaughter... where there is no dedication of each animal... just a prayer said at the beginning of the day... as would be said by any Jew at his place of work.
Jews will not eat halal meat, because of the dedication to Allah and their need for strict adherence to Kosher traditions - yet muslims, in the absence of halal meat, will eat kosher meat rather than go vegetarian... Kosher is seen as the only acceptable substitute.
Many Halal Authorities insist that an Imam must be present at the kill. [Increasing costs]

The slaughterman MUST be a Muslim Male [issue of marginalisation of workers here]
The animal must be turned to face Mecca [indicating a Ritual] and presented as a living [must be alive] sacrifice.
A Blessing to Allah must be said out loud before the throat of a live animal is cut.
So that procedure for day to day Halal meat preparation certainly sounds very much like a Sacrificial Slaughter to me.

It is in recent times the Jews have accepted the method of kosher where in the prayer at the beggining and end of the day at a slaughter house suffices to make the whole days production kosher. This was not the case earlier. I dare say that there might be many non western Jewish communites who do not subscribe to this.
It is for this reason many Muslims reject present day kosher certification. I don't know where you came up with the idea Muslims don't go vegetarian and prefer kosher. Some do and some don't.
Animal facing the kaba is not a requirement for most Sunnis. It is mainly the Shia who follow that strictly.
"Halal Authorities" are bodies responding to a business need I'm the west. There are no such bodies in India, Pakistan Bangladeshi and most countries around the world. There are no imams present in these countries just Muslim tradespeople. Muslims are strictly prohibited from eating dead or sick animals. Also animals are required to be fed and rested for at least three days if they have been starving or have undergone strenous long journey. They are also expected to have been fed their natural diet ie animals can't be fed with animal products like blood meal, animal protien etc. This last two rules are often not followed and came up under scrutiny during the mad cow disease outbreak which is caused by animals eating protien form animals just like themselves.

 

[pervez]

findingmyway ji it does not have to do the following,



In this case cruelty to animals is defined by the host country or the country people reside in. Why would Muslim states not allow non-Halal meat? Because each country has some rights in such areas. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander!

Sat Sri Akal.

Non-muslims can have whatever food they wish to in Muslim countries. Thus pork and alcohol is available even in Saudi Arabia. In many Muslim countries Christians raise pigs and manufacture alcohol for their own consumption.

 

[Ishna]

LOL at the pre-slaughter animal welfare garbage (not at you, Pervez, at the idea). One just has to look at how live export sheep and cattle from Australia are treated once they get to Egypt and Indonesia. Its absolutely horrifying. :-(

Break their tails, gauge their eyes, put them in those god awful full inversion boxes, stuff them into the boots of cars; its tragic. :-(