Okay thanks.
1. "words about Mohammed are spoken", is not correct brother. That's blasphemy here. Words such as
in the name of God, or
God is Great, yes, but nothing to do with prophet Muhammad (pbuh) here, ever!
2. "puts a bolt straight through the animals brain to give it a quick death", that would be irony in the extreme brother. The idea and this whole fuss over halal or not halal stems from the stun gun or bolt or whatever.
Why? Because the whole idea is to have the animal
100% alive without even a
0.01% chance that it died due to stunning. Dead animals are
Haram in Islam. So this whole controversy has stemmed based on the possibility that the stunning of the animal has a potential/possibility to kill it before its throat is slit.
3. "Over seas its all the same however there is no quick kill from the bolt.... And the animal suffers a cruel death", perhaps overseas in Indonesia, and only with imported live meat from Oz, otherwise the idea of stunning is a 100% foreign idea to Muslims worldwide.
And we don't believe that the animal suffers when its throat is slit, or at least, it doesn't suffer the way a stunned animal suffers.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Here's a copy paste which some may find very interesting indeed. Read with an open mind and decide for yourself please. Thank you.
Is Islamic slaughter cruel?
The question of how an animal should be slaughtered toavoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from thethroat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now boughtneatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean theanimal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that theanimal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usuallyachieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt intoa sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watchthe procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.
The scientific facts
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter.Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull ofall the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recoverfor several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halalway by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cuttingthe jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the tracheaand esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunnedbefore slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Westernslaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition ofthe brain and heart throughout. http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was notchange in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision wasmade, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself.This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, wedo not notice until some time later. The following three seconds werecharacterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about bythe draining of large quantities of blood from the body.Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading,indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and thebody convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is thisphase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that theanimal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensualmessages.
The Western method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparentlyunconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be muchmore peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe painimmediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases tofeel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, toput it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of theheart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightlyconvulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in themeat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to theefficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier todispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
Appearances can deceive
Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want tooutlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals forfood, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those ofthe animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makesmass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceivehimself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanlywrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the otherhand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have todie, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with aminimum amount of pain.
