Halal, is it meat you're looking for?

[RDM]

Why do people keep saying Halal? Why not use the Jew version, Kosher?

Thread should be renamed to:

Kosher, Is it meat you're looking for?

Let me guess, lets not use the word Kosher, as it will upset the Jew community. Now we don't want to be upsetting them now, do we?

One, the pun in the thread title wouldn't work.
Two, it isn't Kosher meat that is being supplied unlabelled to UK supermarkets.
Three, a ban on ritual slaughter would impact both.
Four, it's Jewish community and Jewish version rather than Jew community and Jew version.

 

[Tinders]

One, the pun in the thread title wouldn't work.
Two, it isn't Kosher meat that is being supplied unlabelled to UK supermarkets.
Three, a ban on ritual slaughter would impact both.
Four, it's Jewish community and Jewish version rather than Jew community and Jew version.

Arent Kosher and Halal the same method of slaughter though?

 

[Sho]

Kosher and halal are the same. Why are people getting confused about kosher?

 

[Efour]

Kosher and halal are the same. Why are people getting confused about kosher?

Jesus/Allah/prophet Mohammad (pboh) wept

 

[deanolfc]

Halal Slaughter person required in yetminster,Muslims only. Discrimination does not exist in this vacancy on jobsearch direct

 

[Uther]

I'm a Catholic. I no more want a Muslim praying over my food as a Muslim would want me praying over their food.

 

[Antar Bolaeisk]

Arent Kosher and Halal the same method of slaughter though?

They're not the same but may seem so from the outside.

I think stunning of the animal is not allowed at all under the Kosher system for instance. It's also much more restrictive on the type of animals, and even the parts of the animals, allowed.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Kosher and halal are the same. Why are people getting confused about kosher?

Kosher and Halal are simply ethical guidelines derived from religious texts, and while Islam has jewish roots, it also has its own text and therefore implications to draw from.

Like most things religious, the source text is often vague and requires interpretation. More often than not, this interpretation is skewed to some preexisting bias rather than focusing on the actual content and context.

For example, picking on a random internet source

http://www.chisty.freehosting.net/halal.html

The Christians no longer slaughter their meat according to the laws of Zibla as Hazrat Issa instructed them, so therefore their meat is Haram (not Makruh) for Muslims. The Jews still slaughter their meat according to the laws of Zibla so their (Kosher) meat is Halal for Muslims but a Muslim should always try to get Halal meat from Muslims. If a Muslim cannot obtain Halal meat then as a last resort he can consume kosher meat due to necessity.

Note while interesting, this commentary is not based on the source text, but is the writers own biased interpretation.

I'm a Catholic. I no more want a Muslim praying over my food as a Muslim would want me praying over their food.

Interestingly, there is a rather poignant piece of paulian writing on this subject:

1 Corinthians 8:1
1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3But whoever loves God is known by God.a

4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

From the above, to a Christian, the 'halal' is utterly meaningless so can be readily eaten, but care must be taken not to be seen to 'endorse' the idoloisation.

note: neither Kosher nor Halal have or pertain to have anything to do with welfare, unnecessary suffering or humane treatment. They only exist to bring the 'believer' in line with the religious text. Whether or not the belief holder also believes in animal welfare is totally irrelevant, misleading, misguided and ultimately a strawman.

 

[The Running Man]

You just needed to read the information given quite prominently on the website. In any case they comply with the EU regs.

One can only hope so. But that still leaves us with two organisations with opposing views on the stunning. It's easy to find Islamic bboards where only non stunning Is recommended or allowed. And I guess the reason halal meat is talked about more than kosher is because of the increasing volume of halal production in the uk. It's all linked to the quantity and distribution either unlabelled or as the only choice in retailers and establishments such as schools.

 

[Nitefly]

Less?

Could not be more wrong. It would be much simpler if everyone cared just a little more about their fellow man, and not about insignificant things.

You mean couldn't be more right

By caring less, I actually meant 'caring less about getting things their way'. Otherwise yes, life would be better if everyone cared more for one another, so that's a fair enough interpretation of what I wrote!

Tefal - I think BunnyKillBot addressed your point for me.

 

[The Running Man]

Kosher and Halal are simply ethical guidelines derived from religious texts, and while Islam has jewish roots, it also has its own text and therefore implications to draw from.

Like most things religious, the source text is often vague and requires interpretation. More often than not, this interpretation is skewed to some preexisting bias rather than focusing on the actual content and context.

For example, picking on a random internet source

http://www.chisty.freehosting.net/halal.html


Note while interesting, this commentary is not based on the source text, but is the writers own biased interpretation.



Interestingly, there is a rather poignant piece of paulian writing on this subject:



From the above, to a Christian, the 'halal' is utterly meaningless so can be readily eaten, but care must be taken not to be seen to 'endorse' the idoloisation.

note: neither Kosher nor Halal have or pertain to have anything to do with welfare, unnecessary suffering or humane treatment. They only exist to bring the 'believer' in line with the religious text. Whether or not the belief holder also believes in animal welfare is totally irrelevant, misleading, misguided and ultimately a strawman.

Saul saul saul. Very interesting. Was he a false prophet as the apostles of jesus stated he was or was he the founder of the Christian faith by preaching in jesus but completely ignoring jesus life and his messages?

There are mixed arguments that rest on whether saul was a true apostle - which only he and possibly Luke claimed him to be or was he a false teacher ignoring the requests of the real apostles?

I guess it depends how much credence you put onto revelations or whether you trust pauls word.

a nice afternoons read can be found here popurting evidence to indict paul/saul as a self made apostle who was shunned and ignored the religious teachings, lied, etc

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Saul saul saul. Very interesting. Was he a false prophet as the apostles of jesus stated he was or was he the founder of the Christian faith by preaching in jesus but completely ignoring jesus life and his messages?

There are mixed arguments that rest on whether saul was a true apostle - which only he and possibly Luke claimed him to be or was he a false teacher ignoring the requests of the real apostles?

I guess it depends how much credence you put onto revelations or whether you trust pauls word.

All very interesting, but not really relevant here, and given its very much contained in the new testament of the christian bible, all rather irrelevant

The jews have the dubious old testament and kosher, the muslims have the dubious quran and halal, the christians have the dubious new testament, and 'anything goes/love conquers all'. All of which has **** all to do with animal welfare, unless we bring in the buddhists pagans and new age hippies

 

[dowie]

Kosher and halal are the same. Why are people getting confused about kosher?

I don't know - why are you getting confused?

Firstly they're not the same necessarily, halal is mostly pre stunned kosher is mostly not. Muslims can eat kosher meat, Jews can't necessarily eat halal. Kosher isn't a mass market product, it's sold in specialist butchers not not en mass in supermarkets, chain restaraunts and fast food chains.

The reason the headlines are about halal is partly because it's halal not kosher being sold without people being made aware and partly because.... Muslims....

Regardless killing without stunning is dubious and food should be labeled. I don't see a conflict between eating meat and wanting the animals to be looked after to certain standards... people try to buy free range, British meat etc.. for valid reasons. People might want to avoid halal for valid reasons just as a vegetarian might not want to eat meat for ethical reasons or a muslim/jew not want pork a strict Sikh might not want halal for religious reasons.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

I don't see a conflict between eating meat and wanting the animals to be looked after to certain standards

Eating meat and animal welfare is a strawman, where the 'eating meat' deliberately abstracts and removes itself from the anti-welfare act of 'killing'.

The correct logical sentence is 'killing animals for meat and wanting the animals to be looked after to certain standards'

or

'No unnecessary suffering up until the point of necessary suffering'

Genius marketing and denial has made you oblivious to the connective 'killing to eat', resulting in a cognitive dissonance between two unrelated things. There is no conflict between 'eating meat' and 'animal welfare'. There is a conflict between 'Killing animals' and 'animal welfare'

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 disproves position Y, thereby concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Textbook strawman. Here, the claim is 'killing an animal to eat it's meat is in conflict with the welfare of that animal.' Which you have misrepresented as 'eating meat is in conflict with animal welfare'. Nobody has claimed 'eating meat' is in conflict with animal welfare except you.

 

[The Running Man]

All very interesting, but not really relevant here, and given its very much contained in the new testament of the christian bible, all rather irrelevant

Yes and no because the whole situation is messed up.

Saul told the gentiles they could eat non kosher. But saul was instructed to tell the gentiles that:

"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." **Acts 15:19-21***

Now neither Judaism or Christianity believe in Islam or that the god is actually the same god. Therefore halal infringes upon this. Christians really should be eating kosher.

the issue chrustians have with islam is that the god of islam doesn't beget a son and has two daughters there fore it is argued that the two cannot be the same? Therefore Christians must see allah as a false idol or god or not be Christians as that is a core christian belief.

 

[dowie]

No bunny kill bot there isn't a straw man in the idea that eating meat and being concerned with animal welfare are conflicted. I don't see animal welfare and killing animals to be conflicted either. You might but that is merely an opinion it doesn't negate the opinion of others.

 

[Castiel]

Now neither Judaism or Christianity believe in Islam or that the god is actually the same god.

Categorically incorrect...All three Abrahamic faiths recognise that their respective God is the same God.

Your reasoning is flawed...in pretty much everything you have said in the rest of that post also.

 

[thep02]

Categorically incorrect...All three Abrahamic faiths recognise that their respective God is the same God.

Concur.

 

[deuse]

Categorically incorrect...All three Abrahamic faiths recognise that their respective God is the same God.

How can they know this if they've never met her? Oh that's right make it up as they go along.

 

[The Running Man]

Categorically incorrect...All three Abrahamic faiths recognise that their respective God is the same God.

Your reasoning is flawed...in pretty much everything you have said in the rest of that post also.

Im not sure that is possible if you look at it from the perspective of someone within each of those faiths, otherwise Christians would have to follow islam (if they recognised the god allah as being their own) but they cannot because the god allah begot no son - a fundamental and 3ssentially a pillar of the Christian faith. Therefore to a Christian allah can not be their god. It is a fictitious creation creation or a false god to them. That is the strict modern interpretation of islam. It has to be.

Superficially they seem to be the same god but paradoxically cannot be the same according to the respective faiths and their beliefs.