Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mononoke" data-source="post: 5890366" data-attributes="member: 238323">I think I said killing by slitting it's throat is better than what you see in most local slaughter houses. But that doesn't mean it's better than electrocution or any other modern slaughter technique. The experiment, as described in hafizaads original post, clearly fails to provide for the null hypothesis. But the original paper is a proper scientific test that provides for a null hypothesis. You can find a translation of it <a href="http://www.halalfocus.com/artman2/uploads/1/Hanover_report_1978.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.And I suggest you chaps read the original 1978 paper carefully. The paper compares a hydrolic throat  slitting device to a bolt stunning device, and not the more modern mechanism of electrocution which introduces immediate paralysis. But the question remains whether all instances of halal slaughter are equivalent to a hydrolic knife? furthermore, the paper itself is somewhat inconclusive given that Schulze himself says that the bolt device they have used is defective.It is silly to assume that technology used then has the same efficacy as modern equipment. Moreover, a more recent study has shown clearly that modern slaughter techniques are much more humane than archaic ritual slaughter(see my earlier post). Moreover, I find it distrubing that the Muslim, and even the Jewish, community are staunchly opposed to paralyzing the animal before killing. If your religion is truly concerned about animal welfare then you have to paralyze the animal before killing it.</blockquote>

Verification: Asuwa dahayen wadi kalama keeyada?

Top Bottom