-
Why Not Slaughter Animals After Administering Anesthesia?
Ghamidi Sahib say in a video that if we have to kill any insect or animal we should use the least painful method. Same goes for any animal we slaughter in the name of Allah.
1400 year ago there was no anesthesia. Now that we have it, why not kill animals after administering anesthesia?
It will be painless for the animals and the blood will still drain.
So why not?
-
13 Replies
-
Why Not Slaughter Animals After Administering Anesthesia?
updated 3 years, 2 months ago
4 Members
·
13
Replies
-
Anaesthesia or bolt-kill either reduces heart beat or eliminate it suddenly, thereby blood egress from slaughtered body isn’t at optimum rate.
The pain-factor will always be there in animals; human advocates ‘health for himself’ over ‘pain for animal’! Between the two if one gives precedence to the latter than he/she better be vegetarian.
Survival instinct is always there in animals BUT the revenge-feeling & or perception that rights are abrogated doesn’t come to animals* even if you squat a mosquito!
*For animals / instances where this feeling of ‘being wronged’ comes into equation consumption of meat is forbidden e.g when mother is suckling a calf & or carnivores (including hawks) which no doubt are far intelligent than herbivores. Elephants / horses though herbivore are intelligent as well
-
Based on the video posted in this discussion,
I can say that as long as blood is taken completely out any method is permissible
Discussion 39350 • Reply 39673-
Thank you Ahsan for your reply. The video in the link doesn’t work, but I read the discussion.
Please see my response to Usama below. The fact is that 50% of the blood remains in the body even under the prescribed method of slaughter.
-
If its the case then it is matter of concern.
-
-
Thank you Usama for providing a great perspective.
The answer was relavent but it did leave many things unanswered.
First, I am a little confused with the statement that under anesthesia the animal will still feel the pain. This doesn’t sound right.
Second, it is true that under anesthesia the heart rate and blood pressure is lower. This means either it will take longer for blood to drain or perhaps the blood will not drain completely.
I am not sure about the difference in percentage of blood drain with or without anesthesia, but I do know for sure that not all blood drains even without anesthesia. Seems like more than 50% blood remains in tissues and in liver. Still the meat is allowed to eat.
So if with anesthsia a few more percent of bloods remains, I do not see a big issue.
For example if you take meat and wash it untill there is no visible blood, the meat becomes white and tasteless. No one washes it to that extent. Also liver is full of blood but still Halal to eat.
Considering the above, I am not totally satisfied that blood drain is the reason anesthsia would not be recommended. I think that was not the issue under consideration 1400 years ago. Also the benefit of not putting animal through pain using anesthsia seems to meet the higher principals of Islam than putting animal through pain, mental anguish and physical struggle even before the start of slaughter.
-
Refer to attached article mathematically stating kosher/hilal method is good at blood egress from meat
-
Usama, I will read the article later. Our discussion is to determine
1. Differencece in blood drain with or without anesthsia
2. Visible pain and suffering of animal with out without anesthsia
But would you agree, no matter what method is used, not all blood drains out?
-
1- The established fact is blood egress is not optimum under anaesthesia or bolt-action (multiple research articles empirically stated this)
2- Pain will be there! Under kosher/hilal methods this pain will be prolonged. No doubt modern capital punishment methods (for human) like hanging, guillotine, electric chair, beheading are adopted to minimize duration for ‘agony towards death’
No method will guarantee 100% egress of blood …no Dettol will guarantee 100% germ removal …we strive for the optimum!
-
Quoting an interesting portion:
For example if you take meat and wash it untill there is no visible blood, the meat becomes white and tasteless. No one washes it to that extent. Also liver is full of blood but still Halal to eat.
This very reason (& toxin filteration) that liver & kidney is not liked by many Muslims.
Meat is washed until there is no visible blood, the red color of meat is bcz of muscles saturated with myoglobin. This color also gives heart/kidney a strong red tint (& not the blood)
-
-
Great answers Usama🙂
We trust Allah and his guidance and strive to better understand his message.
Thank you.
-
1. As per my understanding only “flowing” blood is forbidden in Quran and therefore the blood clots in the meat should be ok to eat. Whether or not it’s healthy to eat is not necessarily relevant here for this discussion.
2. I have seen youtube videos of western slaughter houses. They hang the animal upside down before slaughtering and it stays in that position for long enough to let the blood drain out completely – even more effective than the conventional way.
3. Stunning before slaughtering doesn’t kill the animal.
4. The only issue is ‘tasmia’ pronouncing God’s name. I guess if we pronounce God’s name before eating anything this should rectify the omission of the ‘tasmia’ condition at the time of slaughtering.
-
I agree with everything you say, except the last one.🙂
-
-
It is critical that Allah’s name is pronounced before killing the animal; except hunted animal where it is not possible before, but right after… and fish.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
