Is it true asda is selling halal meat..

[hard2miss]

You also shouldnt forget that the number of conventionally slaughtered carcasses far outnumbers the halal slaughtered ones, so that 10% represents a very significant number indeed.

It does not mean a hill of beans to the animal being killed.

Its about what we put up with as being humane and if your willing to turn a blind eye to 10% of animals being killed inhumanly then you cant then argue that 10% of animals are not killed immediately with the humane way if you get my meaning ?

Forget the numbers for a moment, your trying to excuse 10% bad practice by bringing into it 10% failure in good practice. Its that that I don't get.

[boyfriday]

Well, neither is yours, really. But you insist on contributing to every thread ... even if it means repeating yourself ad nauseum.

But Im not moaning about it, and obviously repeating myself ad nauseum appears necessary since there are some who still are unaware of the position regarding halal meat supplied to supermarkets

Cruelty to other living creatures does offend me grievously, that much is true.

Yes me too

[boyfriday]

It does not mean a hill of beans to the animal being killed.

Its about what we put up with as being humane and if your willing to turn a blind eye to 10% of animals being killed inhumanly then you cant then argue that 10% of animals are not killed immediately with the humane way if you get my meaning ?

Forget the numbers for a moment, your trying to excuse 10% bad practice by bringing into it 10% failure in good practice. Its that that I don't get.

Lord have mercy, Im not turning a blind eye to it, I object to those 10% the same as you do. But the thread is about halal meat in Asda, which is pre-stunned not some back street slaughterhouse.

[anywebsite]

Well now you're justifying a controversial activity because you believe it controls the fox population, when in reality it's the most brutal form of animal cruelty imaginable-and they don't even eat the bloody thing!

 

What do you think Reynard would say, given the choice-to be chased to exhaustion by a pack of pursuing hounds, then torn to shreds by them when captured, or to have his throat cut by someone skilled in the use of a knife? Neither is good, but if he could speak I bet he'd opt for the latter.

 

It's the most humane way to control vermin foxes. Foxes get shot now, it isn't always a clean kill & some get away too injured to survive, leading to a slow & painful death.

 

When the hounds catch a fox, it's ripped to shreds in a few seconds.

[boyfriday]

It's the most humane way to control vermin foxes. Foxes get shot now, it isn't always a clean kill & some get away too injured to survive, leading to a slow & painful death.

 

When the hounds catch a fox, it's ripped to shreds in a few seconds.

 

So do you object to an animal being killed by having its jugular vein severed?

[hard2miss]

It's 'often' enough to the 10% who have to go through the procedure twice!

..well Id ban meat that hadnt been pre-stunned, but in any event the 10% that hasn't been stunned is in far smaller numbers than the 10% of livestock that suffer a failure of the captive bolt method.

Ok so if its about how many are killed and we are talking about percentages in that sense, then what happens as hal hal becomes more accepted and the percentage of none stunned hal hal keeps its percentage ?

Are you saying that Muslims would not prefer the none stunned method and would opt to have it stunned ? because Im not willing to believe that point from anyone. The only reason 90% of hal hal is stunned now is because the majority population see it as inhumane, is it actually True hal hal anyhow or just a cop out to conform ?

 

There is no middle ground here, its either hal hal or its not, its either inhumane or its not, you cant be moderately inhumane like you can be moderate Muslim.

[quisquose]

Yes, which is why I've consistently said I've no problem with any meat, provided it's pre stunned.

 

I never claimed it did. Frankly I don't care, but the meat should be labelled so that those that do can make an informed choice about it.

 

With the exception of the bit I crossed out I agree. But you said it was "disingenuous to talk about pain and suffering of the animal, when conventionally slaughtered cattle are stunned by means of a cartridge bolt fired into their skulls which often fails to have the desired effect so is done again".

 

I actually think that bringing up the failings of secular methods in a discussion about religious slaughter is disingenuous, because it ignores intent in the process. The intent of modern secular methods is to reduce suffering, the fact that there are failures is unfortunate but irrelevant. The intent of religious slaughter is that the animal is alive when the throats are cut.

 

I don't think religion should make any demands in this process at all, none, zilch.

[boyfriday]

Ok so if its about how many are killed and we are talking about percentages in that sense, then what happens as hal hal becomes more accepted and the percentage of none stunned hal hal keeps its percentage ?

I think the reverse will happen, those Muslims who start to eat the meat now available in supermarkets will continue to do so and he demand for the non stunned stuff that they were buying previously because there was no alternative, will fall.

 

Are you saying that Muslims would not prefer the none stunned method and would opt to have it stunned ? because Im not willing to believe that point from anyone. The only reason 90% of hal hal is stunned now is because the majority population see it as inhumane, is it actually True hal hal anyhow or just a cop out to conform ?

I've no idea what muslims think and don't care, but when I was in the ASDA in Dewsbury they were around the halal meat like bees to a honey pot-in other words they're buying it. I agree, if there wasnt such objection to the non stunned meat the supermarkets would stock it without a problem.

There is no middle ground here, its either hal hal or its not, its either inhumane or its not, you cant be moderately inhumane like you can be moderate Muslim.

Well all I'm supporting is meat that has been pre stunned, whether it's halal or not isn't an issue for me.

[steiner]

It tastes exactly the same, just has a prayer said beforehand, and is butchered in a specific way.

 

I don't see why this is a scandal? It makes no difference to non-muslims, surely?

 

er animal cruelty.

[boyfriday]

With the exception of the bit I crossed out I agree. But you said it was "disingenuous to talk about pain and suffering of the animal, when conventionally slaughtered cattle are stunned by means of a cartridge bolt fired into their skulls which often fails to have the desired effect so is done again".

I was referring to the article another poster linked to which appeared one sided, not the views expressed here.

I actually think that bringing up the failings of secular methods in a discussion about religious slaughter is disingenuous, because it ignores intent in the process. The intent of modern secular methods is to reduce suffering, the fact that there are failures is unfortunate but irrelevant. The intent of religious slaughter is that the animal is alive when the throats are cut.

Secular or not, you're missing my point-when contemplating the enjoyment of the burger Im about to consume I rarely have any political considerations for it's origin. I once visited a family in Spain, they were farmers and slaughtered their own meat, by slitting the throat, it didnt overly trouble me if Im honest about it. If the prime motivation was to 'reduce suffering' there would be no animal slaughter at all.

I don't think religion should make any demands in this process at all, none, zilch.

I'm not convinced they are, the supermarkets have simply responded to their commercial interests-I dont think many Muslims have been banging at their doors demanding pre-stunned halal meat.