Geert Wilders comes out of the closet as an anti-semite

[Fragony]

I believe both Kosher and Halal Law require the animal to be conscious when it dies.

Can only speak for halal but the idea behind it is that animals shouldn't unnecesarily suffer, so sedating animals isn't such a big deal. Technically an animal that was confined isn't halal. Why jews are wailing I don't know.

[Greyblades]

After looking over wikipedia this is what I understand about the matter: the contention is that halal meat must be from an animal that has been slaughtered properly, (the head aligned to mecca, asking allah for permission/forgiveness, etc) particually that the animal is slaughtered by having it's neck sliced in a way that leaves the spinal cord intact as it left to drain of blood. That way the animal's heart still gets signals from the brain to pump expiditing the draining, this ensures as much of the blood as possible is removed from the body before it can clot. Meat that has blood clots in it cant be eaten because blood is one of the forbidden substances that a islamic person cannot eat (personally I think the thought process behind the laws forbidding other methods of slaughter is to avoid such blood clots).

The problem they have with physical blows, electrocution or drugs is that there is no guarentee that stunning the animal will not result in the animal dying before it has been drained, should that happen the heart will have stopped making the jugular cutting inefficient as there is nothing to drive out the blood, leaving enough in the viens and arteries to clot significantly before it can be drained any other way.

There is nothing in the Dhabihah artical about the tradition specifically demanding that the animal being concious, just that it's alive.

[Fisherking]

The whole Jewish Kosher thing is just about as much a red herring as the title of this thread.

I have not found where is says an animal must be concuss during the killing. Furthermore, the law is supposed to be open to new interpretations due to technological advancement or circumstance.

It would take a gathering of shochets and rabbis to decide what was to be done, not a politician who is not qualified in either field.

I am sure that religious communities will adapt without much hand wringing at all.

[Greyblades]

I am finding alot of the contentions about unfamiliar religions, on every side, are usually down to misenterpritations (intentional or otherwise) of beliefs and practices spread through ignorance, and a predisposition in humanity to believe the worst of anyone who is considered an opponant or enemy.

Actually that seems to be true of any subject of contention.

I also seem to be using "contention" alot and am hoping it means what I think it means.

[Hax]

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also​ halal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also​ halal.

Which means that whether you chose to be offended or not is a matter of choice... interesting.

Of course, Christians don't slaughter their meet in the name of anything, unless is tries to escape.

[Fragony]

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also​ halal.

Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.

[Fisherking]

Every method of slaughter is going to start with a live animal. You want them to bleed out.

Both the Jewish and Islamic practices are designed to be a humane as they could. For the Jews animals sacrificed could not be eaten and even knives used for sacrifice could not be used for slaughter.

I know Jewish practices allow that an animal be on its back or standing. I have not read up on the other.

These just seem to be so that the animal is known as healthy and not dieing from something else that could be transmitted to people. It seems more like ritualized quality control.

Is there any proof of anti-religious intent by any of the Dutch Parliament? How many were even aware that this bill would have religious ramifications? Were any religious groups lobbying against the law?

So far, it looks more like ignorance than intent.

[Fragony]

No proof at all, calling Wilders an antisemist is absurd, the neo-nazi's hate him for a reason. It was also backed by labour that by all means can be called a rather jewish-dominated lot, the Amsterdam part at least. Only the christian party's are opposed.

[Hax]

Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on pre-Islamic Arabia (Moros is, though) but I have two ideas:

1) Either its origins are contra-sacrifice: from what we know, Muhammad tried to eradicate superstition and idolatry throughout the Arabian peninsula. It could be that the verse is to be understood in the context of Muslim-pagan relations of the time.

2) It might have something to do with hygienical prescriptions, which actually makes more sense to me. It could be that people wanted to keep the slaughter of livestock within their own community, and this could very much be explained within the context of the prevention of diseases.

To be fair, I don't really know.

[Fragony]

Given the historical contest it's not unthinkable that the original verse is : "that which has been made forbidden to you is the sacrificing of animals in the name of any other than Allah". For Mohammed the christian gods were the same one as allah, it would make sense that it's about ending polythism

[Moros]

I have no knowledge of ritual slaughter that wasn't to do with sacrifice (do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves) or accompanying the death (especially camels, dromedaries or hybrids and horses). There was ritual hunting in eastern Yemen and Southern/Western Oman. I think the custom was mostly taken over from the Jews really.

So that would put it into quite another context. It depends on when these laws surfaced. Which is most certainly in the early Hellenistic age the latest. Probably even sooner. So that leaves us Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian customs that could have inspired or cause these laws. The latter had some strange laws about food and other stuff as well. So likely a lot of those rules might have Egyptian origins. Truth be told, I might be pretty wrong. But well what I can say is that as far as I known there wasn't a direct cause for these rules or that sentence in the Qur'an, when it comes to Arabia.

[Fragony]

So if I get this right I just thought of something really smart

[Moros]

So if I get this right I just thought of something really smart

Yeah, but my bet is on Egypt.

Also that article about the evolution of jewish identity and religion, I'll be able to pass it monday.

[Fragony]

Yeah, but my bet is on Egypt.

Also that article about the evolution of jewish identity and religion, I'll be able to pass it monday.

Gracias

[Hax]

I'm not sure if the verb to slaughter is literally used:

"innamâ harrama ³aleykum al-maytata wa ad-damma wa lahma alkhinzîri wa mâ uhilla bihi ligayru allah"

Translated:

"indeed he has only made forbidden unto you the deceased and the blood and flesh of the swine and that which has been incantated upon [it] something else from God".

uhilla being the passive form of form/stem II of "ahala" which carries the meaning of "to make fit or suited, to fit; to qualify; to make accessible; to welcome" (Hans Wehr, Fourth Edition).

So no direct notion of either "slaughter" or "sacrifice" there.

[Kralizec]

(do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves)

The jewish religion did this as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban

[Fragony]

I'm not sure if the verb to slaughter is literally used:

Translated:

"indeed he has only made forbidden unto you the deceased and the blood and flesh of the swine and that which has been incantated upon [it] something else from God".

uhilla being the passive form of form/stem II of "ahala" which carries the meaning of "to make fit or suited, to fit; to qualify; to make accessible; to welcome" (Hans Wehr, Fourth Edition).

So no direct notion of either "slaughter" or "sacrifice" there.

Hard to get anythin from that, but the swine? That's odd

[Hax]

Not so much. In the days of yore, pork was prone to all kinds of nasty diseases and infections, so it was actually a threat to public health. Apart from that, there's been a taboo on pork because of the fact that pigs are omnivores and roll around in mud and excrement.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hard to get anythin from that, but the swine? That's odd

Not when you consider hogs will eat pretty much everything including corpses.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not so much. In the days of yore, pork was prone to all kinds of nasty diseases and infections, so it was actually a threat to public health. Apart from that, there's been a taboo on pork because of the fact that pigs are omnivores and roll around in mud and excrement.

The diseases and the omnivorous nature of swine are intrinsically linked - as a rule you shouldn't eat meat eaters, and you should avoid direct contact with them. Most Europeans have taboos about eating dogs, badgers, foxes etc. it's actually quite strange that we eat pork. Until you consider how much curing most pork goes through prior to consumption.

[HoreTore]

Wrong. Some time ago a law was passed to outlaw the mink fur industry in the coming years, and the PVV was one of the parties in favour.

That fact closes the thread IMO.

I must confess that I have no deeper knowledge of PVV's policy, and have simply lumped them into the big group called "far-right parties of Europe". In particular, I transfer the policies of the the Norwegian Progress Party to them. They may not be very similar, however.

So, to conclude, Wilders is not proven to be an antisemite. I still believe demanding animals to be unconcious before slaughter is ridiculous, however, as we allow hunting and see nothing wrong with it(at least I don't...). Opposing jewish rituals, like kosher, has been the staple antisemitism in europe for centuries, so anyone specifically targetting kosher will normally out themselves in a rather gloomy light.

That would normally go for male circumcision as well, an interesting point PVC brought up. Naturally, if all you do is oppose the jewish kind and none of the related practices, your label is crystal clear. But it can also be argued as part of a reasoning on where the right of the parents end and where the rights of the child begins. That's quite interesting, and I might bug you all with that one at a later date, particularly if I find an angle like I did for this thread...

[Fragony]

That fact closes the thread IMO.

I must confess that I have no deeper knowledge of PVV's policy, and have simply lumped them into the big group called "far-right parties of Europe". In particular, I transfer the policies of the the Norwegian Progress Party to them. They may not be very similar, however.

So, to conclude, Wilders is not proven to be an antisemite. I still believe demanding animals to be unconcious before slaughter is ridiculous, however, as we allow hunting and see nothing wrong with it(at least I don't...). Opposing jewish rituals, like kosher, has been the staple antisemitism in europe for centuries, so anyone specifically targetting kosher will normally out themselves in a rather gloomy light.

That would normally go for male circumcision as well, an interesting point PVC brought up. Naturally, if all you do is oppose the jewish kind and none of the related practices, your label is crystal clear. But it can also be argued as part of a reasoning on where the right of the parents end and where the rights of the child begins. That's quite interesting, and I might bug you all with that one at a later date, particularly if I find an angle like I did for this thread...

Usually he is accused of being a puppet of the zionist movement in Israel and the US because he gets funds from them (I assume this is true it was never proven though). Personally I think demanding excemptions from what is mandatory here, ie stunning animals, because you believe in fairytales is much more rediculous. Get with it or get out.

[HoreTore]

Usually he is accused of being a puppet of the zionist movement in Israel and the US because he gets funds from them (I assume this is true it was never proven though). Personally I think demanding excemptions from what is mandatory here, ie stunning animals, because you believe in fairytales is much more rediculous. Get with it or get out.

Do you have a ban on hunting as well? Or do you support a ban on hunting, at least?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you have a ban on hunting as well? Or do you support a ban on hunting, at least?

That's a complex question.

You need to define "hunting" before Frags can be expected to answer it.

[Fragony]

Do you have a ban on hunting as well

No ban, but it's very restricted

[HoreTore]

That's a complex question.

You need to define "hunting" before Frags can be expected to answer it.

I'm referring to the kind that's legal over basically all of Europe.

But meh, if you want specifics, have a go at the Moose hunt we do in Norway every autumn.

The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.

And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.

[Moros]

The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.

And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.

Well that's a bad argument. It's about the least cruel way of killing an animal in a situation. The amount of stress at slaughter house is already much more than a hundred fold that of those hunted, then we have those animals that do not die and are hooked and conveyor belted alive for production. (I'd post you some movies on animal slaughter practices that show how horrible standard practices are, especially in the US though we're not that much better) But as I said even when disregarding this, it's about the least cruel way possible considering the situation. During a hunt you don't have the same means for making the animal not suffer.

However that doesn't mean I'm pro hunting in general. Quite the contrary especially when performed as leisure. When needed for a sources of in come or food well then that's nature's nature. But if it is just a way to get away from the wife, well just go to a bar. No need to kill animals.

[Fragony]

I'm referring to the kind that's legal over basically all of Europe.

But meh, if you want specifics, have a go at the Moose hunt we do in Norway every autumn.

The point is that if one supports such hunting, one must assume that one is comfortable with animal lives being taken that way. If so, it seems weird that one wishes to implement restrictions in one field, but not the other. To conclude, if you support hunting, you should also support methods of slaughter which are no more cruel than hunting.

And no kind of either halal or kosher slaughter is worse than hunting.

They got an excemption because of their religion. You agree with that? These are our rules and we stun animals, basta.

[HoreTore]

They got an excemption because of their religion. You agree with that? These are our rules and we stun animals, basta.

We don't stun the animal while hunting. So it would seem that the jews already "play by our rules". What we want them to do, is play by rules we don't have. That seems weird.

As for the points Moros makes; I can't really see how any of that is relevant to a kosher/no kosher debate...