Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Holy Cow: What’s wrong with eating beef?

What is objectionable is the torture that goes in the name of halal.


Eating beef is good for health! It is rich in protein and makes for cheap diet for the poor starving Muslims. What about the old cattles which are left to starve anyway?

I am not saying this. This is how the secular media defends cattle stealing by the Muslim community on Hindu terrains. Now, eating beef is a secular issue. Granted, everybody in the west does it. The western diet chiefly consists of beef in the hamburger. And why the hullabaloo about the holy cow by the Hindus?
Now the question about beef is not so simple. In India, cow is not just bovine, it is divine and an object of veneration. Besides, cattle slaughter is banned in India. In fact, in furtherance of jehad, the Muslims do make it a point to steal cattle as they know it angers Hindus. In fact, a Mullah had made it abundantly clear that beef eating is also a part of jehad in India since it angers the kafirs. Besides, the Muslims don’t have anything called as mercy killing. They go ahead with halal which can be quite a gruesome torture for the cattle. Since halaal involves slow killing. It must be also mentioned that halaal is banned in Europe. To ban halal in India is surely a holy cow for the pseudo-secular Indian Government.

11 comments:

vikasgoyal said...

have you heard of Dr. Zakir Naik an inslamic scholar from Mumbai. he has a website called islamic research foundation of India, http://www.irf.net

On the webstite he ahs posted the PDF version of a book called replies to the questions asked by non muslims, and in one of the explainations in the books he has quoted Bheeshm pitamah in Mahabharatha ( with the verses) as telling Yudhishthir to offer Cow's meat and pig's meat to Pitir ( Ancestors)as a part of shradhh Ritual.. Can u please clarify... And I think some one like u shud try to counter his agenda..

DEEPAK KAMAT said...

I have heard of it. But actually, it is a buffalo not a cow.

I don't think so. There are so many interpolation and extropalation. Besides, Hinduism is democratic. There is nothing binding a Hindu to scriptures unlike Muslims who are bound my Koran.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Kamat,
Please find below the answer for the big question about the halal way of slaughter being more painful for the cattle or less painful..

Is Islamic slaughter cruel?
The question of how an animal should be slaughtered to avoid cruelty is a different one. It is true that when the blood flows from the throat of an animal it looks violent, but just because meat is now bought neatly and hygienically packaged on supermarket shelves does not mean the animal didn’t have to die? Non-Islamic slaughter methods dictate that the animal should be rendered unconscious before slaughter. This is usually achieved by stunning or electrocution. Is it less painful to shoot a bolt into a sheep’s brain or to ring a chicken’s neck than to slit its throat? To watch the procedure does not objectively tell us what the animal feels.
The scientific facts
A team at the university of Hannover in Germany examined these claims through the use of EEG and ECG records during slaughter. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all the animals used in the experiment and they were then allowed to recover for several weeks. Some of the animals were subsequently slaughtered the halal way by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus but leaving the spinal cord intact. The remainder were stunned before slaughter using a captive bolt pistol method as is customary in Western slaughterhouses. The EEG and ECG recordings allowed to monitor the condition of the brain and heart throughout.
The Halal method
With the halal method of slaughter, there was not change in the EEG graph for the first three seconds after the incision was made, indicating that the animal did not feel any pain from the cut itself. This is not surprising. Often, if we cut ourselves with a sharp implement, we do not notice until some time later. The following three seconds were characterised by a condition of deep sleep-like unconciousness brought about by the draining of large quantities of blood from the body. Thereafter the EEG recorded a zero reading, indicating no pain at all, yet at that time the heart was still beating and the body convulsing vigorously as a reflex reaction of the spinal cord. It is this phase which is most unpleasant to onlookers who are falsely convinced that the animal suffers whilst its brain does actually no longer record any sensual messages.
The Western method
Using the Western method, the animals were apparently unconscious after stunning, and this method of dispatch would appear to be much more peaceful for the onlooker. However, the EEG readings indicated severe pain immediately after stunning. Whereas in the first example, the animal ceases to feel pain due to the brain starvation of blood and oxygen – a brain death, to put it in laymen’s terms – the second example first causes a stoppage of the heart whilst the animal still feels pain. However, there are no unsightly convulsions, which not only means that there is more blood retention in the meat, but also that this method lends itself much more conveniently to the efficiency demands of modern mass slaughter procedures. It is so much easier to dispatch an animal on the conveyor belt, if it does not move.
Appearances can deceive
Not all is what it seems, then. Those who want to outlaw Islamic slaughter, arguing for a humane method of killing animals for food, are actually more concerned about the feelings of people than those of the animals on whose behalf they appear to speak. The stunning method makes mass butchery easier and looks more palatable for the consumer who can deceive himself that the animal did not feel any pain when he goes to buy his cleanly wrapped parcel of meat from the supermarket. Islamic slaughter, on the other hand, does not try to deny that meat consumption means that animals have to die, but is designed to ensure that their loss of life is achieved with a minimum amount of pain.
The holistic view
Islam is a balanced way of life. For Muslims, the privilege of supplementing their diet with animal protein implies a duty to animal welfare, both during the rearing of the animal and during the slaughter. Modern Western farming and slaughter, on the other hand, aims at the mass consumer market and treats the animal as a commodity. Just as battery hens are easier for large-scale egg production, Western slaughter methods are easier for the meat industry, but they do neither the animal nor the end consumer any favours. The Islamic way guarantees a healthier life for the animal and a healthier meat for the consumer.

chandan said...

the biggest problem with the muslims throughout the world is they do not want to co-exist with people form other religion whether in kashmis,israel,chechnya.

Anonymous said...

Mr Chandan,
can I attribute your comment as an intolerance when learning that you understood that which was not pleasant to you when read about both the ways of slaughter?
C'mon we are talking about beef eating and slaughtering . and question of co-existance should not be discussed here.
pathetic

Anonymous said...

DEAR GUYS.. JUST SEE WHAT VEDAS SAYS,BLAMING MUSLIMS AND CRISTIANS OR OTHER RELIGION IS NOT AN EXCUSE..
ACCORDING TO:Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.
Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”
Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”
Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”
Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.”
Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) writes, “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.

Anonymous said...

Whether you eat meat or fish or vegetables, they are all alive and created by God. They all have to die to be serving you when you are hungry. Whether you are Hindu Muslim or Christian, you have to eat. God made all and we are hence brothers and sisters to each other. Is it not time to praise God and respect each other and let everyone eat what is good for them? Why do we want to talk and act like children....or talk like "I am better than you"?

Vic

Anonymous said...

so every orgnagism is edible,now would u like me to eat
ur mother,mr ans.

Anonymous said...

islamisic thionker justify every misdeed,in hyd one islamist justified rapig his daughter and mullahas agreed.

Brave Indian said...

There is no animal slaughter in Vedas. The above reference to Manusmriti is all bullshit. Hinduism is against consumption of meat http://agniveer.com/no-beef-in-vedas-film/

andrea chiu said...


I am so glad to read your wonderful article. Im looking forward to read more of
your works and posts. You did a good job! Try to visit my site too and enjoy.

triciajoy.com

www.triciajoy.com