Talk:Dhabihah

My contributions to this article, for the most part, are now incorporated into it. Please help improve it if possibleStarwarp2k2 05:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

why are there three articles describing muslim food

why cant we club halal and dhabiha and all into one article to describe muslim eating practices. why three different articles. nids 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: Because halal is anything permissible as per Islam, and dhabiha is the process of slaughtering animals as per Islamic tradition. I don't think these two articles should be merged. Also, for a parallel, look at the the conceptually equivalent Jewish "Kashrut" and "Shechita". And what is the third article?Starwarp2k2 21:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

third one is the Islamic dietary laws. nids 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the Islamic Dietary Laws page is rather unnecessary. Any information it has which Halal/Dhabiha pages don't have should be moved to the appropriate page, and I think in the end it should be deleted.Starwarp2k2 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the "Mechanical slaughtering" section trying to say?

To me, this section is highly confusing and ambiguous. What is the importance of this section? Is it saying that the mechanical process is better, since it absolves the blame of the slaughterer? Or is it forbidden according to Islam?

The whole section is poorly structured and therefore loses its meaning. I would correct it myself, but I am unsure what the importance of the section is and do not understand the laws of Islam. I'm tempted to delete it outright to be blunt. 130.88.186.123 13:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a strong argument

I agree with the above poster's comment on the abiguity (and poor sentence structure) of the section. Also, I do not see how the involvement of motors and electricity removes the intent of the butcher in the process of slaughtering the animal.

The given argument is similar to a man shooting another man. It's like saying that since the man pulls the trigger, which causes the hammer to strike the bullet, which in turns ignites the gunpowder in the bullet, which finally causes an explosion that propels the bullet out of the chamber, it is evident that the shooter is not directly linked with killing the other man.

I can understand an argument that the use of a machine perhaps decreases the personal effort the butcher may place in slaughtering the animal, but unless you can prove that the machine chooses to hunt down a cow, place it within itself, and automatically slaughters the cow, it's evident that a person is directly linked to the slaughter.

The first line of the paragraph states that the slaughter must be performed directly as a result of the butcher's physical strength. I assume that what the whole paragraph is trying to say is that in mechanical slaughter, the butcher is not using his physical strength to do the killing. Hence, mechanical slaughter is not acceptable.--220.255.237.241 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian Methods of Slaughter

The article currently says "Many Muslims conclude that the Christian method of slaughtering of the present age are lacking in Islamic methods and contradict Muslim belief, thus making their meat haraam."

If that makes any sense to you then please can you re-write it so that everyone can understand. As far as I was aware there was no Christian method of slaughtering... Even if there were then by definition, it would be a Christian method of slaughter and not halal. Please can someone who knows what this paragraph was supposed to mean go back and edit it (or remove it entirely)212.137.27.116 (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stunning

My understanding of the controversy regarding stunning was that it often kills the animal, or would have killed the animal eventually if it wasn't slaughtered. 87.194.191.177 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Name

The name of the article should be changed to "Zabihah" or "Zabiha", these are the more common spellings of the word. Otherwise it is hard to search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.35.0 (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I changed it back to Dh before I noticed your comment. I changed it because that's the standard Wikipedia transliteration according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style (Arabic). It's not a policy yet, but it seems pretty standard. Zabihah already directs here so I really don't think that's a big problem. Eatcacti (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As dhabh is, in fact pronounced Zabh with a z as in zoo, it does help to know this from an easy simple straightforward pronunciation guide in addition to the scholarly transliteration system. RPSM (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a widely-held belief in the Jewish community that Dhabiha halal is not equivalent to being kosher, because among other things kashrut requires that meat must be slaughtered by a Jew.

Not a belief at all. Meat is either kosher or treif according to Jewish law. This should be apparent from the article Shehitah. No need for repetition here. RPSM (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Stunning frowned upon but allowed?

According to this (from Chambers and Grandin 2001, Guidelines for Humane Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Livestock), "Many Muslim authorities permit electric stunning... because the animals subjected to this stunning method would recover if no bleeding was carried out". So stunning is technically allowed as long as the animal is not killed by the stunning? --Dodo bird (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Bold text

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) 13:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Zabiha

This word appears in the article with no further explanation, nor a link to an explanatory page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.87.164 (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

immediate brain death?

Cutting the jugular, esophagus, and trachea does NOT result in immediate brain death - there will be at least some time between the injury and the exhaustion of available oxygen, during which the animal would feel the injury... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.97.138 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"No scientific evidence" that the animals feel pain

In several places in the article, it says that there is no scientific evidence that the animals feel pain. Yet there are two paragraphs that describe precisely this kind of evidence. I think those sentences should be removed. You may as well claim that there is no scientific evidence that the animals don't feel any pain (which would be equally dubious as there are citations to such studies as well.) It would be more NPOV to say that the evidence is inconclusive. Benzocaine (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)