Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Balkaar

Is 'halal' Meat Really Halal?

Recommended Posts

As we know, from even a cursory reading of Islam through the works of it's best scholars, the Prophet Muhammad possessed no divinity and befuddled the Arab mindset with subverted and perverse logic. Owing to some local, and otherwise gullible, superstitions a majority of the bellicose illiterate Arabs commenced to address him as some sort of a religious figure and began following his wants. Muhammad had realized that if his incredulous bunch of misfits could be welded together, than maybe there was a chance for him to enjoy perennial prowess. Acting in the latter vein, he begin to manifest or formalize aspects of a so-called "new faith" point by point. Realizing that he was at times shooting himself in the foot, he commenced stating that Allah retained the prerogative to abrogate what he had revealed in the past. A typical Muslim will contend, "well a perfect God can change his words.." yet the fact that this God is supposed to be higher than humans but can commit the same errors as them obfuscates this notion. A perfect God would substantiate his divinity through a perpetual stand i.e. not abrogating or changing his perceptions/words. This will prove that he indeed is worthy of worship by otherwise fickle minded humans. Halal was Muhammad's emulation of Kosher. All systems advocating stratification (Caste, Semitic faiths etc.) divide adherents and non-adherents on many superficial basis. The most extreme mode of this division is food, where the foodstuff of another is utterly toxic because he/she does not subscribe to your faith. Is Halal viable? The below article is based on a recent study (2012) conducted in New-Zealand where it was found that the ECG-EEG method which Muslims employ to defend Halal is in fact faulty and riddled with loopholes. Of course the adherents of Islam will argue otherwise...

http://www.natalt.org/2012/03/29/animal-cruelty-and-kosherhalal-slaughter/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

It's a business tactic to win Muslim customers, Muslims are a huge percentage of the population, (and the fact that most of Europe has some love-hate relationship with them). Halal is basically killing an animal from the neck-up, (jhatka is from the neck-down), so these "Halal" groups got a check for no Daya.

No, halal is the slow method of killing the animal, jhatka is one swift move to kill the animal instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to find, most of the sikhs who eat dirty halal meat,are the new arrival freshys, who say they havnt heard of halal back in panjab/haryana. If u say to them its 'kuttha maas' then they may understand. But they seem completely oblivious to the fact that we cannot eat halal/kosher.

If they don't follow the Sikh dhari kesh rehat then why would it matter not to eat halal. The animal is dead regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

No, halal is the slow method of killing the animal, jhatka is one swift move to kill the animal instantly.

If you use a gun or other firearms, is it Jhatka or Halal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use a gun or other firearms, is it Jhatka or Halal?

I find it strange that fish are considered halal , when they die suffocating in nets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it strange that fish are considered halal , when they die suffocating in nets

It is one of the many inconsistancies of Islam

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one of the many inconsistancies of Islam

Can fish really be jhatka either?

Edited by Balkaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can fish really be jhatka either?

unless you have a fishing pole and do it straight away after hooking I really cannot see it ...

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use a gun or other firearms, is it Jhatka or Halal?

depends if the kalma was read over the bullet and whether the bullet was large enough to cleanly decapitate the creature after reading Chandi Dhi Vaar...sorry ignore me gotta laugh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can fish really be jhatka either?

I imagine it would be quite tricky to get a fish to lay still before doing jhatka. It would be flipping and squirming all over the place.

And now I can't stop laughing as I imagine a Singh trying to hold onto a fish in order to perform jhatka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine it would be quite tricky to get a fish to lay still before doing jhatka. It would be flipping and squirming all over the place.

And now I can't stop laughing as I imagine a Singh trying to hold onto a fish in order to perform jhatka.

I must admit to grinning like anybody's business when I posted too ... it has now changed to giggling ....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use a gun or other firearms, is it Jhatka or Halal?

It's not halal obviously, could be jhatka as long as it died quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Honestly, I don't know. I will look into the matter and see if some answers comes up. Bear in mind I was talking about regular Sikhs. Not the Gurus themselves. Even if there was a fire, it wouldn't have been Vedic in any sense. Well the difference is in what is meant and being suggested. To them "fire" means the whole Vedic shebang and a return to it. One can equally call out practises from Vedic times which are now obsolete and say "lets return to them!" right back to these groups. It's not hard to concieve in reality that certain things remained similar but the intention of disucssing the matter is important. In the case of weddings, there is very little information. Guru Sahib rejected the janeu for example, to which there is a Sakhi and Bani attached. But it is not until Guru Ramdas Ji that Sikhs get their own ceremony, and again I will repeat I was deducing with regards to the use of fire. Lots of ambiguity. Maybe the couple did just stay sitting or standing whilst Laavan were read by Sangat, maybe not. As for Sikhs such as my great-grandparents, that was just a matter of circumstance. One cannot use that argument to promote a return to Vedic style weddings.   Yes I'm aware that within Hindu weddings it is indeed Agni Devta. But we are talking about Namdharis, and from what I have seen, there is no invocation from Rig Ved - that's what I'm saying, we assume that the fire present in a Kooka wedding is considered as Agni Devta when in actual fact to me, it seems as though it's....just a fire. Which really has no particular meaning per se; just a continuation of one aspect of the ceremony. They read Suhi Mahalla 4. A fire is only Agni "Devta" if one believes and invokes.  
    • the fed is lying to all of us https://www.peakprosperity.com/the-fed-is-lying-to-us/
    • I have a english pdf of Rig veda , the oldest scripture of Hinduism, the oldest of the 4 vedas ,  and perhaps the most revered .  It starts with a hymn praising Agni and asks it to reside over the 'straw and fodder' of the havan. HYMN I. Agni. 1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
      The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
      2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
      He shall bring hitherward the Gods. Looking at the index of the scripture , I am surprised , Agni is like everywhere in it almost. So , yes the marriage rites are basically asking Agni devta . "Agni devta" is the main witness of hindu marriage .    EDIT ---- A hymn in another mandal says  HYMN LIX. Agni. 1 THE other fires are, verily, thy branches; the Immortals all rejoice in thee, O Agni So , I think Agni may not be the "fire" as in flames, but rather the heat energy pervading the universe, be it in form of fire energy, metabolic heat in body, nuclear heat inside sun, power plants, etc or the latent fuel inside wood , etc. It basically refers to the "heat" form of god . I could be wrong though. and I don't think I have enough time to go through the vast expanse of the text . 
    • So during marriages of 4th guru onwards , they married by fire ? and that includes Guru Gobind singhji as well ?  I am genuinely curious because of the many claims made by RSS about "reminding sikhs of their past" , this is also one that one commonly encounters, that ancient sikhs and gurus married by fire and that it wasn't until those evil pesky britishers who drove a wedge between hindus and sikhs and voila Anand karajs started  Whats the meaning of 'laav ' ? perhaps it could mean something altogether then ?  Anyways , regardless , I would reckon Hinduism have had far, far more changes to it considering its almost 10 times older than sikhism is (500 vs 5000 !) . Hinduism is so old infact, that rig vedic deities like Indra, Asvins , Maruts,  etc are not even heard of today , let alone worshipped  Sikhi is more pristine in comparison in the turmoils of time. 
    • Just use this:
×

Important Information

Terms of Use