Talk:Halal

Requested move

Proposal  :	Halal → Halal
Rationale :	Why are we using the "halaal" spelling rather than "halal" for the article? A Google search yields 8,230,000 results for "halal", while "halaal" only returns 260,000 results. The Arabic pronunciation, at least in my mind, is better represented by the "halal" spelling. Would there be any objection to moving the article to "halal" instead?

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Support, although (a) Google not a reliable authority; (b) I'm no expert on Arabic transliteration; but (c) "Halal" is the only (public) way I too have ever seen it transcribed. David Kernow 09:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support every aspect of what David Kernow says above. --Stemonitis 14:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. AjaxSmack 07:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support yes, and we'll always have both spellings in the intro. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Eating of Frogs

I have never heard that frogs are forbidden because they live on land and water. However, there is a hadith in which the prophet said it is forbidden to kill frogs. Since we are only allowed to eat slaughtered animals, and to slaughter a frog would be forbidden, therefore it follows we can't eat frogs.

It IS common belief here in Southeast Asia that amphibious creatures are haraam. However, I am unable to find a source for this information and therefore I can't add a reference to that point in the article. --Hamster X (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a section on this. Not frogs, mind you, but things which are considered haram because it is forbidden to slay them and forbidden to eat them without slaying them? Peter Deer (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Among the forbidden eats are those that Quran and Hadith specifically direct, or forbid, to kill. Frog is among those that are forbidden to kill, hence making them forbidden to eat as well. As of Hamster X's comment, yes it's a widespread believe which I myself can't find any reference to it (I am a Moslem and I live in Indonesia). Furthermore, the ban against crab related to this base of amphibious reasoning are already lifted by the Indonesian Islamic Council of Scholars (MUI), which I believe attest to the fact that there is no valid reasoning of forbidding the amphibious creatures. Bayuamus (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Eating of turtles or their eggs?

Are turtles that swim in the sea (but able to crawl on land) or their eggs halal?

No, not really, but they're not actually haraam either. But, it is wise to err on caution. At the time, turtles were not an animal that would have been thought to be safe or thought of OK to eat for various reason, according to human nature, not so much as law against it. This is were common sense comes to play, so if there is doubt, about what animals may have been considered not edible or listed in the Koran as OK, it should not be eaten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.35.137 (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Method of killing fish

The methods forbidden for killing fish are mentioned, but the allowed/prescribed method or methods are not given. Can someone add this?

Halal similarity to kosher

I added this part; i'm not an expert on halal but the Muslims of my acquaintance assure me that what I have added is true. If those more learned than I feel that I am wrong, please feel free to correct and I assure you I meant no harm/slight/or slander. Gzuckier 17:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added "The Quranic verse 5:5 declares the food of the people of the book is halal..." to that. ;-) -- sabre23t 07:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to move this because "Halal" is much more common than "Halaal". WhisperToMe 00:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem with the factual accuracy of the line saying that some interpretations of Kashrut allow the mixing of milk and meat. Mixing milk and meat is one of the major definitions of what is not Kosher. Unless a specific, qualified source can be cited, it's an inaccuracy and should be removed. yonkeltron 10:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth adding that some Muslim immigrants to Western countries choose to settle near Jewish neighborhoods for this reason? For example, the large South Asian Muslim population in Midwood, Brooklyn.--Pharos 01:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Animal rights groups: Sources?

I'm curious to the sources of any statements by animal rights groups claiming that the Muslims' method of slaughter create unnecessary pain. Is there any?

There's some info in the shechita article. Supposedly the methods for slaughter are basically the same, so I guess it receives the same criticism. 惑乱 分からん 10:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Appears that the arabic equivalent to "shechita" is "thabiha", according to Muslim dietary laws. 惑乱 分からん 10:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just read an old article about it on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2977086.stm here. Arianna 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosher slaughter does not require a blessing to my understanding.

Hunting Halaal

Most tribesmen seems to operate on various modifications of halaal, particularly when hunting, and not necessarily when far afield of purely out of necessity. Although common, how can falconry be halaal?

Good question, depends on who you ask I suppose. There are a lot of more "fold Islam" rules that aren't publicized. They are often called "unIslamic" but, they are quite Islamic to those who practice them I suppose. gren グレン 11:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There are specific rules that permit the eating of meats captured when hunting with dogs and birds of prey; not sure about the

details. Palmiro | Talk 14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hunting with trained hunting animals (dogs, falcons) is permitted when three conditions are met: 1- The animal is trained to kill, not consume the prey 2- The animal responds to the orders of the hunter of release, return, and halt 3- The name of God is pronounced at the sending of the hunting animal

there are a few more details but that is the gist of it. other details include what to do when another animal is found with the hunting animal around the prey.Wilis.azm 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Halaal userbox

There is now a suggested userbox for practitioners of Halaal. To check out the proposal, go to Template:User_Halal and continue the discussion. 惑乱 分からん 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

separate Dhabiĥa page

The dutch wiki has a separate article on Dhabiĥa, I think this might be better, if anyone can translate ...

Can't translate Dutch, but I am creating another page for Dhabiĥa Starwarp2k2 23:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Islamically?

The adverb "Islamically" is used in this article. "Islamically, the prescribed method is to cut through the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and trachea with one swipe of a nonserrated blade and drain all blood and impurities from the animal, because as noted above, the consumption of blood itself is forbidden." Is this even a word? Can someone do something "islamically"? What is this adverb modifying? I'd change this to something like "According to the Quran...," or "According to Muslim customs..." but I've never read the Quran and I'm not well versed enough in Muslim eating habits to make this claim.

-- I believe the word "Islamically" is used widely, but it is technically not a word. I looked in various dictionaries but could not find it anywhere. I am changing the word "Islamically" to "According to Islamic tradition, the conventional method...".

My searches yielded that cutting through the arteries is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran, but is a tradition (sunnah?) followed since the time of Prophet Mohammed PBUH, and maybe even earlier, in order to minimize the pain of the animal being slaughtered, as well as to drain the blood of the animal. Someone please verify or deny this conclusion, because it is used to justify the change mentioned above. Starwarp2k2 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)--

A quick google search on the word "Islamically" shows it is in common use. I'm from the "language is use" school, so I think it's OK. 174.117.113.79 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Anesthetics not halal?

I find no source which states that anesthetics are not permissible as per Islamic law. Can anyone prove otherwise?--Starwarp2k2 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Major changes

Starwarp2k2, I know you mean well, but I think your major overhaul contains a number of problems that need to be addressed:

1. Is the distinction between the '1st type of Bismallah' and the '2nd type of Bismallah' generally accepted or something of your own invention? If it is the latter, it counts as Original Research.
2. This is a general encyclopedia, not an Islamic encyclopedia so we should be focussing on what actual Muslims do, and not try to determine what is correct according to Islam.
3. The multiple mentions on what is correct/incorrect and words that are 'mispronouced' is POV. Wikipedia describes, it doesn't tell people how to behave, or what is the correct religious practice.

To be honest, I've gone through and tried to figure out how to improve your changes, but at this stage I think reverting back and would be a better option. I'm interested in other people's opinions, before I do anything. Ashmoo 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism Ashmoo, I'm glad someone is ripping apart my work. Here are my responses to your concerns:

1. The distinction between the two types of "Bismillah Halals" is generally accepted. I have not been able to find any clear cut website which elaborates on the various definitions of halal and acknowledges this, but I am definately working on it. Halal, in general, is a difficult topic but hopefully I will post a source soon.
2. I realized this POV issue earlier today, and have already begun going back and replacing things such as "this is factually incorrect" with "this contradicts the Quran" and including my sources. I have not finalized the editting of this article, and if possible, I would appreciate messages from anyone who is able to find additional instances of this POV problem.
3. I believe the POV issue was addressed above. If you have anything else I missed, please let me know.

As far as the pronunciation goes, I believe you are referring to "dhabiha"/"zabiha". Few know this but "zabiha" arises from the Indian Subcontinent. The lettering of Hindi/Urdu of India and Pakistan is similar to that of Arabic, but different in some aspects. The introduction of "z" in place of "dh" is one place where Arabic is altered to be written in Hindi, and thus the pronunciation is altered. I personally cannot read Arabic, but in order to verify this claim, I had an Arabic speaker give me her opinion. She verified the claim, but I understand that this classifies as Original Research. I am continuously searching for an online source which acknowledges this. What is your suggestion in this scenario? I understand that as this piece of information stands in the article, it can be considered as Original Research.

As you can probably expect, I believe that reverting back is a bad idea because the original article did not even recognize the fundamental distinction between "halal" and "dhabiha". I'm interested in hearing your reasons for reverting. Again, thank you very much for your editting and criticism.Starwarp2k2 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, Starwarp2k2, I'd like to say thanks for taking my comments in good faith. I was struggling with finding a way to make my point without sounding abusive, and wasn't sure how you'd take it. After rereading the article and the previous version a few more times I think we can solve the issues without a revert.

Regarding dhabiha/zabiha. From an outsider's point of view, I'd just say that Arabs call it dhabiha and Indians & Pakistanis call is zabiha. When words are loaned from one language to another they often change prononciation. For example, the French don't pronounce the 's' in Paris, English-speakers do. This isn't mispronunciation, it is just that French and English have different words for the same city. If the pronunciation is a major issue amongst Arabs speaking Muslims they the controversy needs to be described, with sources. But I think it is a minor point that probably doesn't need mentioning. This brings up an important point though. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article should not focus on describing the different meanings of the word 'halal'. But rather it should describe the idea of halal. It is a subtle difference.

More generally, all the different interpretations of halal (is that the correct phrasing) are only attributed to 'some people' or 'some believe'. We need to know how popular each view is. (And generally websites don't count as notable sources, we need quotes from scholars of Islam/notable Islamic scholars). Regards, Ashmoo 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you said, we both mean well.

Dhabiha/Zabiha: I see what you are saying, and I believe that your interpretation of the situation surrounding the pronunciation is pretty accurate. I'm signing off of wiki editting for a day or so, and will edit it after I get back. If you feel it necessary, go ahead and edit it yourself.

I'll do my best as soon as possible with the more reputable sources, as well as with changing the "some people". It'll be difficult and will take some time because of the scarcity of unbiased and legit sources, but rest assured, even if you don't see those problems solved within the next few days, I'll still be working on them.

Just a question, do interviews of religious clerics at the "local" mosque count as Original Research? Thanks.Starwarp2k2 04:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was you who did the interview I would say it would count as Original Research and also would be very hard to Verify, which is another pillar of wikipedia. A local cleric might also fail the Notability test. However, if you are talking to the cleric yourself, you could get him to point you in the direction of a well respected commentary which would pass the WP:Notability test and you could cite that commentary as a source. Ashmoo 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I believe the article now represents a neutral POV. What do others, especially Ashmoo, have to say about this? Can you point out any occurances which represent an non-neutral POV? I propose removing the -NPOV- tag from the top of this article.Starwarp2k2 01:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this source [1] as it fails the WP:Notability requirement. Ashmoo 04:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We are editting simultaneously. I noticed that, and agree with your decision.Starwarp2k2 04:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just quickly, could be standardise spellings, to save me going thru and editing all your changes?

• believe
• haraam

Ashmoo 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will keep them in mind. Sorry and thanks.Starwarp2k2 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another quick one: Does using the word ayat add anything over using the more commonly understood verse. Readers who aren't knowledgeable of Islamic terminology will instantly understand if 'verse' is used, but will have to remember what 'ayat' means. Ashmoo 04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no diffierence between "ayat" and "quranic verses". Just a different language.Starwarp2k2 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If their is no difference then I would prefer 'verse' as this is an English language encyclopedia. What do you think? Ashmoo 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly fine by me. If it helps to improve readability...why not? I'll take care of it.Starwarp2k2 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I removed the POV tag as I think it is ok now. I still think there are some slight POV problems, but believe they will be solved once everything conforms to WP:CITE. That is, opinions on what is/isn't halal are attributed to actual people/organisations, rather than stated as fact. Ashmoo 04:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Will keep working on it.Starwarp2k2 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Halal And Kosher Section

I propose changing "Although they bear significant resemblence, most Muslim authorities believe they are not interchangeable." to "Although they bear significant resemblence, most religious and secular authorities believe they are not interchangeable."

For a Muslim authority: [2] For a Jewish authority:[?] For a secular authorities: [3]

I tried to find a Jewish authority stating that kosher!= halal, but couldn't find one. If someone can find one, is this change acceptable?Starwarp2k2 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

is hen a haram

please tell if anyone has the requisite knowledge. since hen eats insects and small creatures, is it haraam in traditional fundamentalistic islam

please reply soon, and do leave a copy of it on my talk page. eagerly waitin.

nids 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Salaam,

Firstly, I do not think hen is haram to eat, as hens are decreed as a halal source of food. Hens do not have fangs and claws that tear flesh, compared to say, a hawk, that is haram to be consumed.

Items that the animal eat do take preference in determining halal status of a food source, but I think it is secondary, first you must look inside the Qur'an and hadith the spesific types of forbidden food.

Other than the described types of forbidden food in both sources, then other factors of determination could be taken note.

--Zaidey (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

merge this page with dabiha and islamic dietary laws

i strongly suggest to merge this page with dabiha and islamic dietary laws. but still, i m waitin for further suggestion.

nids 09:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that opinion, but not by merely deleting everything in the Dietary laws page and adding it to the Halal Page. This is because the article for halal already contains much of the information in the Islamic Dietary Laws page.Starwarp2k2 12:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The merge proposal looks like as good an idea now as it did in 2006. The two articles have a lot of duplicated content; as it stands Islamic dietary laws appears to be a more comprehensive article though. hajhouse (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

It says in the "Explicitly Forbidden Substances" section of this article that: Animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but Allah are forbidden.

However on the Islamic dietary laws page, it says:

For the meat of an animal to be halāl it must be properly slaughtered by a Muslim or a
Person of the Book (Christian or Jew), while mentioning the name of God (Allah in Arabic)

In the second case, God could represent Yahweh, Jehovah, Holy Trinity or the various other names of "God" used in Christianity or Judaism - which do not specifically represent the same diety as the Islamic God, "Allah". I understand that all these words translate to "God", but shouldn't we use the same name to be consistent? Ozzykhan 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You've touched upon a heated debate: "Is God the same as Allah?" As far as I know, there is no conclusive answer to this argument.[4][5][6] These are only the first few sites I checked, I'm sure that every site and scholarly opinion differs on the topic in some way.

In conclusion, I think that whichever terminology we use, "Allah" or "God", it will constitute a non-NPOV. For sake of simplicity and not wanting to delve into an argument that has no end, I vote to leave it as it is. Anyway, the information on the Islamic dietary laws page needs to be moved to either Halal or Dhabiha as necessary, and the then the page needs to be deleted.Starwarp2k2 00:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose when the two articles are combined/moved there won't be any "discrepencies"!Ozzykhan 02:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

various forms of halaal

i would just like to note that a number of these different Halal categories are virtually non-existent or extreme minority opinions, which per WP:NPOV, do not merit mention. please provide sources for these claims. thank you. ITAQALLAH 06:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, all but one are very common and widespread views. Backed by an authoritative opinion or not, there are significant quantities of people who follow all of them.

if they were common and widespread, they would have been documented somewhere. verifiability is the key here. WP is not a place for original findings. i personally don't think that this opinion is notable or widespread at all. ITAQALLAH 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that they need sources. The problem with the topic of halal is the lack of unbiased and valid sources.

there are plenty of fatwa websites out there. if this method has been endorsed, i am sure a few of them will have it. ITAQALLAH 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also reinserting the source you removed because of your reasoning: "the link merely says that saying bismillah, it says nothing about permitting haraam meat through this method". The source says: "In this hadith only Bismillah is mentioned, therefore the 'ulama say, if one only recites Bisrnillah before eating, it will suffice". It clearly states that there are 'ulama who support the first type of Bismillah halal, and so I can't see your reasoning. Had I used this same source for the second type, your removal would have been justified, but the source is adequate for this section. After this explanation, if you still want to remove the source, please discuss.Starwarp2k2 16:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i think you have misunderstood what is being said. here is the full quote:

"In this hadith only Bismillah is mentioned, therefore the 'ulama say, if one only recites Bisrnillah before eating, it will suffice, but it is better and recommended that the full 'Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim' be recited. The 'ulama have also written that it is better to say the bismillah audily so that others who may have forgotten may also remember it. "

it is discussing the permissibility of saying "bismillah" instead of "bismillah ar-rahmaan ar-raheem". it has nothing to do with making the meat halaal if it is haraam. the whole point of discussing the basmalah here is because they are showing that it is from the sunnah to say the basmalah before you eat (at all). please read the entire page in its correct context and it will become clear that it is discussing the virtue of saying the basmalah before one eats. nothing to do with the concept of "bismillah halal". to say that it is only in reference to forbidden meat is WP:OR. i hope the misunderstanding has been cleared. thanks. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Itaqallah. You are correct, I misinterpreted that website. I apologize.

Also, you said: "if this method has been endorsed, i am sure a few of them will have it". A method does not need to be endorsed for people to follow it. Nevertheless, I apologize and have replaced the incorrect source with another one. The site does not agree with the ideology, but in denying it, it recognizes it's existance: '"Finally, there are some people who say “it is permissible to eat it (i.e. non-Zabihah meat) after saying Bismillah at the time of eating”"'. I hope this clears things up.Starwarp2k2 19:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony

Is it just me, or does it seem odd that the provided picture of an Australian Halal certificate is for a chocolate Easter Bunny? Maybe it just appeals to my sense of humor! Fizban 11:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point! If anyone is offended, maybe they can find something to replace that with. The truth is, there are plenty of kosher-certified Easter bunnies as well, so I really shouldn't be surprised about the Halal ones. It's all marketing. --Keeves 11:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? They believe in Jesus too. Now if it had been certified kosher, then it'd be worth a giggle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs) 18 July 2007 07:48 (UTC).

Easter is the celebration of Jesus' death and resurrection, which Muslims do not believe in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.185.151 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• You don't need to be christian to enjoy chocolate :P 72.77.145.26 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Genetically modified foods

Does anyone know if genetically modified foods are approved/not approved by Halal laws? Kurieeto 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything that can be harmful to your body/health is considered not halal. Thus drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc are all not halal. So you can draw inferences from these prohibitions and if GM foods are being so bitterly contested (as they are in many countries) then there has to be a reason for that. I am not aware of any specific suras/ayats that touch on GM in the Holy Qur'an, but I am curious to know if any learned posters could pls point these out, anyone? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.214.12 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

There should be a mention of cruelty-free methods. A fair share of the slaughtering currently still involves a *conscious* animal, which will bleed to death for several minutes (not a pretty sight). In our era, this is not acceptable anymore, especially since there is nothing requiring the animal to be conscious or pain-sensitive and cruelty-free methods come at a negligible cost, merely mentioning them would help raise awareness (and defuse cruelty attacks). 82.229.207.75 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

yes - maybe a link to a video of an animal bleeding to death slowly could be added? this would add to the excellent issues raised towards the end.... and hopefully put people off eating it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.72.172 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Takes several minutes to bleed to death? Only if you mess it up, otherwise its over for the animal in seconds. Cls14 (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the most authoritative experts. It is from Temple Grandins site - click on Kosher and Halal - and then on the article A Discussion for Meat Scientists

Time to loss of consciousness

Scientific researchers agree that sheep lose consciousness within 2 to l5 seconds after both carotid arteries are cut (Nangeroni and Kennett, 1963; Gregory and Wotton, 1984; Blackmore, 1984). However, studies with cattle and calves indicate that most animals lose consciousness rapidly, however, some animals may have a period of prolonged sensibility (Blackwore, 1984; Daly et al, 1988) that lasts for over a minute. Other studies with bovines also indicate that the time required for them to become unconscious is more variable than for sheep and goats (Munk et al., 1976; Gregory and Wotten, 1984). The differences between cattle and sheep can be explained by differences in the anatomy of their blood vessels.

RPSM (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

USA?

The section regarding USA is very un-encyclopaedic. I propose it to be changed to "Halal products in non Muslim countries". Those who have objections, please say, otherwise I will change it in a week.--Scheibenzahl 14:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The halal/kosher method of slaughter is carried out upon a fully concious animal and that is unacceptable according to current humane ethics. Edward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.195.5.94 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Halallogo.gif

Image:Halallogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Detractor?

Detractors, most notably some animal rights groups, contend that this method of slaughter causes unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal when compared to modern methods, which involve stunning the animal prior to slaughter.

"detractors" criticize..thus its in the criticism section. it is in NO way pov. also, the previous edit made it seem as if only animal rights group are detractors, which is false)

Detractor means to "take away something desirable from..." so it is POV since it indicates that critics are incorrect in their criticism. It could be changed to critic or some other neutral word, but detractor definitely is POV and should be changed. Bob98133 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree. Yet, "critic" is just as effective in conveying the meaning which is intended. I'll change it. All in good faith.Starwarp2k2 20:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture Choice

To whomever is adamant about keeping the picture of a butcher in his shop, please discuss here before adding it again. The picture, although mildly relevant to "Halal", is more relevant to "Butcher" and other articles. It is also a bad picture for an encyclopedia: the random person is just as prominent as the random meat is, if not moreso.Starwarp2k2 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Halal/Kosher Link Reference

The link [7] contains at least two fallacies about Kashrut. First of all, all wine is NOT kosher. In fact, wine is one of the most heavily regulated of all kosher foods. Some wine may not even be handled by non Jews without being rendered non kosher. Second, gelatin coming from non kosher animals such as swine can never be kosher. Gelatin coming from any animal source is not kosher unless it is certified by a reliable authority. Certified kosher gelatin often comes from fish sources. I believe that these major issues bring into question the authority of this reference. Also, there are brachot (blessings) that a shochet (the person doing the slaughter) must recite at the beginning and end of his work, though not necessarily for each animal he slaughters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.45.143.226 (talk)

Explicitly forbidden substances

Mea culpa - was working on my own page in prep. for a trip to the Middle East when guess what?

Yeah, hit save here rather than my own work.

While I'm sure the (immediate) undo undid anything - my apologies in advance for anyone who feels my do-then-undo botched things. Meandean 12:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, there's absolutly NO verse in the Qur'an which exspecially forbids alcohol. It's said you shouldn't drink it (see Link from this Wiki-Site), but it's no you mustn't! That is a clearly mistake and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreos (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quran fobid "khamr" (alcoholic beverages), not alcohol: though they both are usually interrelated. Forbiding Alcohol in this article hence, would also rules out most of the fruits as naturally they contains Alcohol. Please review. Bayuamus (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Article being inappropriately tampered with

I believe the user "GodBlessUSA" has tampered with this article, adding sections that make no sense and doesn't provide a working link to credit his opinions -

"Other forms of halal include halal pork products and halal gammon. These are all available in most Halal butchers."

Another section which was removed was the section on fish being haram because fish is not haram.

If someone sees a problem with these actions please let me know but otherwise, this seems like vandalism. Feel free to check history comparisons to compare.

Thanks. ZeroFC (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This was tampered with again. Check the logs and whatnot, so it will help you. --64.93.152.96 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

This article seems to have degraded in quality over the last year. We must remain focused on describing how Muslims practice their dietary laws, with reliable sources as proof. Arguments for how various practices are actually halal according to what God wants are best left to Islam literature. Any mention of these arguments needs to be attributed to a Notable commentator, with an indication of how well accepted it is by practicing Muslims. Please see the article on Kosher for an example of a good article on a religion's dietary laws. Ashmoo (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Animal welfare

Can somebody please step in and help me with this section? I have added a couple of, I believe, well-sourced and balanced paragraphs outlining concerns about animal welfare with regards to halal (and kosher) food. I have been careful to include counter-opinions from the referenced news articles where possible. However, certain other editors have been consistently removing my additions. Certain other paragraphs have been added that provide counter-evidence, which I, of course, think is fine, and I have left these alone. But likewise, my sections should also not be removed without a valid reason. Weasel words have also begun to crop up with the aim, presumably, of discrediting the evidence supporting the belief that ritual slaughter is less humane than slaughter with pre-stunning. Templetongore (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think your edits are good. Unfortunately a vandal, using a number of sock puppets: KingKong2000, Krister..., etc keeps making changes. There is nothing to do except keep reverting their changes, as they seem to have no interest in dialogue. Failing that we can get the IP address blocked. Ashmoo (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ashmoo. I've got plenty of time and patience to keep reverting vandalism in this section. Templetongore (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I have made an investigation request on Krister9000 and his sockpuppets : [8] --Flying tiger (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Thus the Muslim (or Jewish) religious slaughter is brought forward in Europe as an infringement of animal welfare based on an assumption of Western Enlightenment that cannot accept the idea that traditional practices might actually be as good as or better than stunning based on the unproven assumptions about stunning that have become part of the religious belief of secular rationalism." [9] What these authors are saying is that 1) It seems to be that Religious Slaughter has not yet been improved upon 2)That adding stunning (there are many forms) to religious slaughter has not yet been proven to reduce the pain and suffering of animals.

There is a fair amount of literature on the subject (Animal Welfare and Religious Slaughter). It is a mix of politics, ethnic conflicts, financial interests etc. There are books, as well as academic articles. I think overall, the range of the subject matter extends wider than Halal, which, strictly speaking is not slaughter but rules and guidelines for living, including permitted food. RPSM (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Good religious slaughter may actually be more humane than “humane slaughter” This is a quote from Professor Regenstein, who teaches Food Science at Cornell University. RPSM (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Public schools in France and Canada

I've read about stories that claim that secularists in France and Canada are upset that certain public schools are offering free halal meals. They feel it goes against Church-State separation laws. It would be interesting if the article could look into that. ADM (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, they made it mandatory for all the schools. Halal meat is served whether there are any muslim kids or not. Adjusting tot he minority. Should be the other way around. This simply does not make any sense. Norum 16:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are based on the following....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=halal+food&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.212.209 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood elimination.

The elimination of blood from the carcass is considered essential for religious purity. However, simply allowing blood to drain from the living animal does not eliminate all traces of blood. Blood droplets, both visible and microscopic, may remain in the vascular system. As a result the the meat, if being honest to Allah, remains religiously unacceptable for muslim consumption. A muslim can get around this problem either by becoming a vegetarian or vegan, or by flushing fresh water through the blood vessels after the death of the animal.Flumstead (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting point. It is nigh on impossible to flush blood out of the Capillaries. --Panzer71 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement in Islam or Judaism to eliminate all blood from the carcass. You are right, it is impossible. You are wrong that it is a religious requirement. There are some errors that have crept into the veterinary literature: this is one of them. Levinger points this out. RPSM (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Islam forbids running blood, but allows liver which Quran refers as blood as well. Past practices during the live of the Prophet did not reveal any method of removing the blood completely, and there's no specific hadith forbiding it, hence I believe traces of blood left from regular slaughtering and preparation are acceptable Bayuamus (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Halal and discrimination

The practice of halal in a globalised food system and in multicultural societies is a potential source of discrimination against non-muslims. In many parts of the world employers are expected to fulfill equal opportunity employment rights, which a halal slaughterhouse may come into conflict with if they refuse to employ non-muslims to slaughter animals. Flumstead (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Usage section

The usage section was taken out on the 21st in an odd looking edit. Was this a real update to the page? adouglass (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Original Research: Halal and Christianity

This section needs a specific citation linking these verses to halal meat. As the scriptures given predate the existence of halal meat, and the commentary doesn't mention halal, this appears to be original research. twilsonb (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to understand why this has been added? The consumption of halal meat[not in citation given] is expressly cautioned against for Christians in several passages in the New Testament, including Acts 15:29, while 1 Corinthians 8:1-8:13, though primarily a discussion of causing another person to sin, takes as its example eating food sacrificed to other gods. Here, in Coffman's reading, the Apostle Paul attacks the "knowledge party" who argued that because food sacrificed to that which is not God, is sacrificed meaninglessly, there could be no prescription against "eating in an idol's temple..."[23] Islam teaches worship of the same God as Jews and Christians, The difference being Jesus is a Prophet only and not a God in Islam, as Islam is a monethestic religion. It is offensive to muslims to imply they are worshipping a false god, or an idol. It has no relevance to Halal meat, which is a lot like Kosher and I think it should be taken off. 78.148.242.199 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Ameenah

I'm sorry, but to say that the God of Christianity is the same as the God of Islam all the while not recognising Christ as part of the Holy Trinity is failing to understand a core tenet of the religion. It is a fundamental part of Christianity as Trinity and God in Christianity fully explain. 'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.' - John 14:6. --Panzer71 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To call this "research" is a euphemism. Unless one understands by the word "idol" (usually Greek "eidôlos" = image, statue) any non-Christian god and misunderstand halal meat as meat that was sacrificed to God, the passages quoted are irrelevant. The primary reference is to the meat provided by the civic sacrifices of Mediterranean cities. I am removing this as I think it is not only wrong but is also defamatory. Perhaps it could be replaced by something saying that some Christians don't like halal meat and why. Barzabouzath (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism" section belongs in "Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter", is slanted and full of factual mistakes and bad grammar

"Criticism" section belongs in "Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter", is slanted and full of factual mistakes and bad grammar. It is being appended to every one of the six of seven religious slaughter articles. Perhaps it should have an article of its own. "Modern Animal Welfare Societies and their oposition to ritual slaughter" But NOT at the bottom of every article on Halal, Kosher food rules etc. It has no references and and is full of wishful thinking and factual errors.

I suggest a simple delete. Any objections? RPSM (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Have moved Criticism section to discussion page of Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter. This material belongs in that article.RPSM (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "Criticism" section should remain here in some form. The "Criticism" section here gives more information than just "legal aspects". For instance, just now I was following a line of investigation using Wikipedia and came across this "halal" page, whereupon I found mention of the humane/inhumane controversy of which previously I was not aware, so I learned something new. But if instead of the "Criticism" section there had been a link to "Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter" I would not have followed it as I had no interest in the legal aspects of it, and therefore would not have learned this new information on the humane/inhumane controversy. Therefore if the ultimate consensus is to move this section, some mention should still remain here of the humane/inhumane controversy, and if the bulk of the text is moved then a link should be provided to a new page that is labeled something other then "legal..." Notstuckinthemud (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the Criticism section somewhere else and it has been cut and pasted here (it was in every related article in the group : halal, kosher, legal aspects of ritual slaughter...) Here are the simple facts: The history of the anti-shehitah (Shechita) campaign has been documented in a series of books and articles. The Blood libel phenomenon which started in the 12th century in Norwich, England eventually conflated with the anti-shehitah campaign, when shohetim (Jewish certified slaughters) were prosecuted and declared innocent in Tiszaeszlár, Xanten and Polnia and one other place.

The Animal Protection Societies were open to anyone to join, and, especially in Germany were dominated by Nazis (National Socialists) as they provided an opportunity for them to mount a political campaign and push through anti-Jewish legislation. Today, the Animal Protection Societies would dearly love to erase all memory of this, as it is no longer Politically Correct.

The essence of the antisemitic legislation in Switzerland (Pascal Krauthammer has proved it is antisemitic) as well as in Sweden and Norway today is stil the same definition of "stunning" and "bleeding out" or "sticking" or "exsanguination" (it's all the same thing" being separate from "stunning" (in German and the Scandinavian languages "anesthetisation" which was traditionally done with a mallet hitting the animal on the head (or with a pole axe). So, at bottom, it is about two culturally different methods going back to the origins of the debate in 1840.

The easiest method to pull it apart is to go back to the arguments used from the start of the campaign in 1840. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) definition of Antisemitism is an opposition to Jews having equal civil rights. The purpose of the anti-shehitah campaign was to prevent Jews from having equal rights, and a medical/scientific antisemitism had replaced host desecration accusations where making the holy bread bleed in order to make Jesus suffer some more did not hold up as an argument any longer.

Muslims existed in Europe in small numbers, eg in the UK as Indian Maharajas and such, but the public debate was a Jewish one and the main subject heading is Anti-Semitism so what is it doing on an article on Halal if not just as a footnote? Constant lobbying by Animal Rights sympathisers makes it difficult if not impossible to write an article with the open edit policy that prevails in Wikipedia, and more reliable sources are those that are protected by eg copyright. RPSM (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

[10] See heading The Struggle for Shechitah RPSM (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To do a complete and fair review of the anti-Halal campaign, it would be necessary to start with the very fraught anti-Shehitah campaign that welled over into false accusations of murder that were usesd by Nazi Germany as a campaign against the Jews. (This is Berman's argument in The Right to Practice Shehitah - "Claiming Jewish slaughter is cruel is a way of casting a slur over the fair Jewish name."

RPSM (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

New Info

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Dutch-approve-ban-kosher-and-halal-animal-slaughter/articleshow/9028454.cms

Pretty much says it all. Now, the only question is whether it should be included in the article; and if so, where?--81.151.154.126 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Religious text as primary source tag

This was present since October 2011 in the section on halal food, and I've removed it. It is nonsensical in this context, as the Koran is THE source for which foods/drinks/etc are halal. The tag is meant to be applied when religious texts are used as primary sources in non-religious contexts. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)