Do Muslims slaughter the animal in a ruthless manner by painfully torturing and killing it?

To answer this allegation

Let’s see first what science says:

In an authentic study by

K. Nakyinsige, A. B. Fatimah, […], and A. Q. Sazili

The (Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences) Mentioned the following:

“Halal slaughter without stunning may be a favorable option compared to gas stun-killing due to high bleed out. This study affirms that religious slaughter can be used successfully as an alternative to conventional stunning methods in order to improve the keeping quality of meat. However, the procedure should be carefully conducted without compromising animal welfare.

Peer Review AJAS

(Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences)

«The higher bacterial growth exhibited by the GK group can be attributed to low blood loss due to more readily accessible nutrients available for bacterial growth in the retained blood. Blood favours multiplication of spoilage microorganisms! »

Pseudomonas aeruginosa و E. coli

slaughter method had no significant effect on microbial growth. However, at d 3 postmortem, greater growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and E. coli were indicated by meat samples obtained from the GK group》

higher blood loss in halal slaughter was associated with lower bacteria count in 4

«Our results indicate that stunning and bleeding methods do affect the shelf life of rabbit meat, and halal slaughter without stunning may be a favorable option compared to gas stun-killing due to high bleed out. This study affirms that religious slaughter can be used successfully as an alternative to conventional stunning methods in order to improve the keeping quality of meat. However, the procedure should be carefully conducted without compromising animal welfare

Reference:

Bleeding Efficiency and Meat Oxidative Stability and Microbiological Quality of New Zealand White Rabbits Subjected to Halal Slaughter without Stunning and Gas Stun-killing,K. Nakyinsige, A. B. Fatimah, Z. A. Aghwan, I. Zulkifli, Y. M. Goh, A. Q. Sazili

Link:

https://www.ajas.info/m/journal/view.php?doi=10.5713/ajas.2013.13437#b35-ajas-27-3-406-14

And

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093272/

Article information

Asian-Australis J Anim Sci. 2014 Mar; 27(3): 406–413.

doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13437

PMC4093272

PMID: 25049968

Second Study

Neck Cutting and Scalding

“Even if birds are adequately

stunned, they may regain consciousness during bleed-out and enter the scald vat while alive if the neck-cutting step is not performed quickly or if it is ineffective—if it fails to sever vessels supplying oxygenated blood to the brain.  A ventral neck cut, which severs both carotid arteries, is more effective at inducing a rapid death than a neck cut that severs only one carotid artery (Gregory & Wotton, 1986)

Reference:

Critical Review of Electrical Water-Bath Stun Systems for Poultry Slaughter and Recent

Developments in Alternative Technologies

Sara J. Shields

[email protected]

A. B. M. Raj

University of Bristol

Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, United Kingdom

Third study

Humane slaughter regulations aim to minimize anxiety, pain, distress or suffering at slaughter. In mammals, stunning and stun-to-kill methods should induce unequivocal and immediate loss of consciousness and pain sensation and when not immediate non-aversive

(EFSA-AHAW/04-027, 2004).

According to the CD scores there is a slow decrease after neck-cutting and an immediately large decrease after captive bolt and electrical stunning ..which indicate a slow induction  of unconsciousness after neck cutting and a possible pain sensation during neck cutting

Reference:

This research was performed for and sponsored by the Dutch Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. BO-07-011-038_004 Stunned slaughter of cattle in accordance with Islamic rites Report on restraining and neck cutting or stunning and neck cutting in pink veal calves

Authors:

E. Lambooij J.T.N. van der Werf H.G.M. Reimert V.A. Hindle September 2010

Publisher: Wageningen UR Livestock Research

Fourth Study

As to the set of factors under the above points b and

c): Collectively, the authors of the studies on stunning have shown in cattle a relatively high risk of brain damage and disseminating infectivity resulting from stunning with a pneumatic stun gun that injects air under pressure, particularly if air is injected over an extended period, or from any stunning method accompanied by pithing

(At a lower but still significant level).

However, there is no clear-cut evidence of such a risk from the other penetrative stunning methods though, on the basis of limited and preliminary data, it cannot be excluded for any form of penetrative stunning. For those situations where dispersion of contaminated CNS material cannot be prevented (point c), the tissues and organs that are most at risk to be contaminated are listed previously. Level of risk to consumer health Cattle

The risk of contamination of tissues and organs with BSE-infectivity from CNS material as a consequence of the stunning method used for cattle slaughtering depends on three factors:

a) the amount of BSE-infectivity in the brain of the slaughtered animal.

b) the extent of brain damage.

c) the dissemination of brain particles in the animal body.

Reference:

Scientific opinion on stunning methods and base risks adopted by the scientific steering committee at its meeting of 10-11 January 2002 following a public consultation via internet between

10 September and 26 October 2001 European commission health & consumer protection directorate-general

Fifth study

halal slaughter without stunning may be a favorable option compared to gas stun-killing due to high bleed out. This study affirms that religious slaughter can be used successfully as an alternative to conventional stunning methods in order to improve the keeping quality of meat. However, the procedure should be carefully conducted without compromising animal welfare.

Reference:

This project was funded by Universiti Putra Malaysia through Research University Grant Scheme, grant no. 02-02-12-1713RU.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Articles from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (AAAP)

Read what the Guardian wrote:

Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter prioritise animal welfare

By Shuja Shafi and Jonathan Arkush

Thursday 6 March 2014 15.19 EST

“The head of the British Veterinary Association has said that religious slaughter methods need to change to prevent animal suffering. It is unfortunate that the BVA and other animal welfare organisations in the UK tend to view religious slaughter as incompatible with humaneness; quite the contrary is true – compassion and animal welfare stand at the centre of the entire process.

There is ample scientific evidence that religious slaughter is at least as humane as conventional mechanical slaughter. Research in the UK and the US, including by Dr Temple Grandin – one of the authorities on animal welfare – have supported this view. By contrast, many of the studies that suggest that religious slaughter causes unnecessary pain

have been agenda-driven and methodologically flawed, stretching data in a distinctly unscientific fashion to unsupported conclusions.

Traditional British methods of stunning by use of a captive bolt, gassing or electrocution, it is impossible to know whether the animal is feeling pain or not”.

So even if one believes, despite the lack of scientific consensus, that religious slaughter is cruel, it is deeply troubling that the BVA has chosen to focus its attention on religious slaughter rather than other, far more pressing animal welfare issues. For example, between 2009 and 2011 the campaign group Animal Aid filmed secretly and found evidence of unspeakable cruelty and illegal activity in eight of nine randomly chosen British slaughterhouses: animals were kicked, slapped, stamped on, and even burned with cigarettes. We are yet to hear of a campaign by the BVA to root out this kind of cruelty

Reference: The guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/06/jewish-muslim-slaughter-animal-welfare-humane

Another evidence

French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing has published ASIDCOM’s Bibliographical Report on Religious Slaughter and the Welfare of Animals, as a contribution within the framework of a meeting on animals and society organized in the first half of the year 2008. This report quotes scientific papers and French veterinary PhD which support the equality or even possible superiority of religious slaughter to other methods of slaughter. This report quotes in particular the Ph. D work of Dr Pouillaude which concludes by:

“Religious slaughter would thus be a less stressing mode of slaughter. Conclusions of all the scientific experiments converge towards a firmly supported certainty: properly carried out, religious slaughter is the most humane way because it leads to less trauma to animals to be killed to be consumed for its meat”

Reference:

Ironic conversation:

We relate an incidence about a discussion between a Sikh and a Muslim, once a Sikh asked a Muslim, “Why do you slaughter the animal painfully by cutting the throat instead of the way we do with one stroke i.e. jhatka?”

The Muslim replied “We are brave and courageous and attack from the front. We are marad ka baccha (macho men), you are cowards and attack from behind”.

Now jokes apart, one may consider the following points, which prove that the Zabiha method is not only humane but also scientifically the best:

1. Islamic method of slaughtering animal

The word Zakkaytum im Quran is a verb derived from the root word Zakah (to purify). Its infinitive is Tazkiyah which means purification.

The Islamic mode of slaughtering an animal requires the following Conditions to be met:

Verily Allah has prescribed ihsan (proficiency, perfection) in all things. So, if you kill then kill well; and if you slaughter, then slaughter well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slaughters.” [Muslim]

Muslim’s slaughter eaten animals from their front two vein (jugular) and don’t cut the whole head or cut from the back by by slaughtering we let the veins attached between the heart and the brain. IMMEDIATELY after the slaughtering the brain sends quick messages to the heart help!!

The heart squeezes with all its strength the blood and sends it but the blood sent comes out and the animal dies comfortably in few seconds. However, by cutting the head or through electric death few or no blood comes out at all therefore the microbes and illnesses occurs too fast.

Conditions are

  • Animal should be slaughtered with sharp object (knife)The animal has to be slaughtered with a sharp object (knife) and in a fast way so that the pain of slaughter is minimised.
  • Cut windpipe, throat and vessels of neck Zabiha (Slaughtered animal by Halal method) is an Arabic word which means ‘slaughtered’. The ‘slaughtering’ is to be done by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord.
  • Blood should be drained

The blood must be drained completely before the head is removed. The purpose is to drain out most of the blood which would serve as a good culture medium for microorganisms. The spinal cord must not be cut because the nerve fibers to the heart could be damaged during the process causing cardiac arrest, stagnating the blood in the blood vessels.

2. Blood is a good medium for germs and bacteria Blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, toxins, etc. Therefore, the Muslim way of slaughtering is more hygienic as most of the blood containing germs, bacteria, toxins, etc. that are the cause of several diseases are eliminated.

3. Meat remains fresh for a longer time Meat slaughtered by Islamic way remains fresh for a longer time due to deficiency of blood in the meat as compared to other methods of slaughtering.

4. Animal does not feel pain The swift cutting of vessels of the neck disconnects the flow of blood to the nerve of the brain responsible for pain. Thus, the animal does not feel pain. While dying, the animal struggles, writhers, shakes and kicks, not due to pain, but due to the contraction and relaxation of the muscles deficient in blood and due to the flow of blood out of the body

Conclusion

Science is saying today that Dhabiha= (Slaughtered animal by Halal method) meat is always of light color due to the fact that it allows the animal to drain out most part of blood, even from the very tiny veins present inside the meat– contributing to the red pigmentation. That makes Dhabiha (Slaughtered animal by Halal method) meat, even less injurious to health, then the meat of same animal cut by captive bolt stunning (CBS) which includes Electrical stunning, Gas stunning and Percussive stunning the animal before killing it

Now compare all these dangers to the Islamic way dhabiha (Slaughtered animal by Halal method) in which blood is spilled out and that blood which is dirty and contaminated with bacteria remains inside the animal via captive stunning bolts and gas killing

Not to forget that the animal dies within 1 minute and half but dies 5 deaths through stunning up to 10 minutes or more

So, which is the Merciful way then We let you decide which is barbaric.

Allah knows Best.