Jhatka.

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

What is more painful, Jhatka or Halal from a scientific perspective?

[jaikaara]

Jhatka cuts off the nervous connectivity to the brain so pain is minimal.

[chatanga1]

in some halal videos, the people have been throwing cold water on the open necks of dying animals. that is incredibly insensitive of them.

[jaikaara]

check this : www.degtegfateh.0catch.com

Edited August 13, 2013 by jaikaara

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

check this : www.degtegfateh.0catch.com

Anything scientific contrasting both Jhatka and Halal.

[jaikaara]

everyone has a science to cover what they do , however the basic thing that makes sense is .even if i recive a cut it pains ..when the throat is slit during jhibaah or the halaal method ..the brain is still connected contrary to jhatka where with a swift the animal getting decapitated. there the feeling of pain would exist .

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

everyone has a science to cover what they do , however the basic thing that makes sense is .even if i recive a cut it pains ..when the throat is slit during jhibaah or the halaal method ..the brain is still connected contrary to jhatka where with a swift the animal getting decapitated. there the feeling of pain would exist .

I think I just found my answer, what do you think veer ji???

Unethical conventions, subtle plagiarism(s) and a subsequent ethnographic genocide of the Arabian Jewish populace catalyzed in the ascension of cynical pragmatism in the Islamic psyche. One such cognitive of the latter, the Halalethic, is nothing more than and nothing less than a paradoxical mimicry of the Jewish kosher. Constructed to stratify the Prophet’s own from the infidel the practice, as Leach defines it, is a Freudian ambivalence of religious censorship, censuring one from the perceived effects of another simultaneous sect. ‘In nearly all societies food is one of the tags by which members of the different social classes are differentiated. We eat this; they eat that. What we eat is "good," "prestigious," "clean;" what they eat is "bad," "defiling" and "dirty."' (1) Why such a censorship came into effect is a matter of extensive rational moot, it seems that Muhammad was duly concerned about the evolving religious and ethnographic ambiguity of his Arabian band and subsequently incorporated, what is perceived as being, pagan practices justified via Biblical fiction. To this end many Jewish and Christian norms were subtly engraved into the Arabian psyche, as Zwemer so critically analyzes it, 'Islam is nothing more nor less than Judaism plus the apostle-ship of Mohammad.' (2) The latter periodically abrogated his divine revelations as any concurrent situation rectified or evolved out of his control, consequentially many Islamists employ it as an excuse to purport the authenticity and veracity of their creed; yet fail to rationally answer as to the existence of simultaneous elements prevalent in both Islam and Judaism. Kosher and Halal are both deemed as cognitives of ritual slaughter and subsequently employ Argumentum ad Populum as justifications. Yet scientific rationality shreds the veil of religiosity asunder and manifests the truth. Inhumanely both Halal and Kosher declare the stunning of an animal, prior to the fundamental procedure being executed, an anathema. As the Halal Tayyib Meat organisation so critically asserts,Islamic ruling states that meat from a stunned animal will not be accepted even if it kills just one single chicken or animal...' (3) The latter diatribe is of great import in understanding the contemporary Halal debate, as the latter requires a prolonged (in comparison to other slaughtering techniques) demise of the said victim. The conclusive verdict is provided by Dr. A Majid Katme who compares stunning with carrion, thus highlighting the fact that preliminary stunning to an animal before Halal might as well violate Muhammad's dictums (4), 'Say: I do not find, in what is revealed, to me aught forbidden to him who eats thereof except it be carrion or blood outpoured...' (5)

The bloody pragmatism via which Halal is engineered and subsequently executed is devoid of any humanity. Despite the entire ideologies claim to promote and preserve animal rights, Islam's slaughter practice reveals it's often contradictory and hypocritical nature. Although Islamic organisations claim Halal to be an epitomic procedure of humane slaughter, the latter can be interpreted as being nothing more than a fallacious veil to justify the ideology'sArgumentum ad Antiquitatem. Let us now cast a glance at some common myths orbiting Halal.

1.) Ritual slaughter is instantaneous and painless.

Fact: The optimism expressed via such a view is ironically nothing short of a whitewashed fallacy, asserted in Western spheres to provide an exemplary implication of a backwater Merchant's divinity. A majority of contemporary Islamists rely on a scientific study conducted in 1974-1978 A.D. to evidence such a claim. The study which was executed at the behest of Wilhelm Schulz at the Hannover University in Germany employed EEG techniques to essay animal brainwaves, whilst the latter were undergoing slaughter. The study duly concluded that Halal was a humane prerogative and subsequently worthy of mass employment, inflating the Islamic proletariat's ego. Yet even Schulz admitted that the techniques employed, at the time, had their own downfalls and via his perspective did not express a conclusive view over whether Halal truly was humane or not (6). A subsequent studied published in 2009, via the expenditure of Massey University in Palmerston North, New-Zealand, evidences otherwise. Conducted under the analyzation of Dr. Craig Johnson it purports to have reproduced ritualistic slaughter and gained an analysis which is 'surprising to the religious community.' (7) Via the latter even when animals were anesthetized, a painful response was detected up to two minutes after the preliminary incision dismissing any myths on the veracity of Islamic slaughter.

2.) Halal condones the drainage of blood. Once the blood is drained, an animal loses oxygen and subsequently is devoid of any responsiveness to pain.

Fact: Johnson simultaneously initiated a procedure where all the participants in his study essayed the distinct levels of responsiveness to pain. It was concluded that the Islamic excuse (as mentioned above) was nothing short of a superficial myth. Ironically Arabian science failed to realize that it is not blood which is the carrier of pain, but the nerve cells. The incision, propagated in Halal, slices the throat nerves birthing an extreme response in the victim, which temporarily suffers before it's demise. Subsequently the birth of varied toxins, as a response to the pain, renders the meat poisoned up to a superficial extent; birthing the possibility that an allergic reaction could easily catalyze in an unwary consumer. As Johnson stated, 'it wasn't a surprise to me, but in terms of the religious community, they are adamant animals don't experience any pain, so the results might be a surprise to them.' (8)Unfortunately for him, his Islamic critics are still in ardent denial.

3.) The Koran condemns stunning, subsequently Muslims are not allowed to consume blood due to it's harmful qualities. Simultaneously a stunned animal does not allow easy drainage of blood.

Fact: As Haluk Anil of the Bristol University, UK, concluded after a prolonged study stunning does not affect blood drainage. 'Stunning does not impede blood loss, therefore this objection cannot be used any more.' (9)

4.) The employment of a sharp knife renders any painful reactions nullified.

Fact: A sharp knife is a generic parcel of the problem. As the FAWC found in a study concluded in 2003, 'when a very large transverse incision is made across the neck a number of vital tissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins, major nerve trunks (e.g. vagus and phrenic nerves) plus numerous minor nerves. Such a drastic cut will inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal. We are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes.' (10)

5.) The Prophet has inunciated a singular incision for Halal. The latter pragmatically nullifies any pain.

Fact: D.K. Blackmore, an ardent educationalist of veterinary pathology points out that it is not the varied employment of the utensil, but it's preliminary conditions which renders Halal primitive. His cliched reiteration, however, does not seem to bear out on the concoctions of neo-Islamists. 'A BASIC requirement for humane slaughter is that an animal should be rendered insensible before exsanguination (bleeding) is initiated and this should last until the animal becomes permanently insensible from cerebral anoxia.' (Emphasis ours), (11). Simultaneously he evidences his rationalizations via several experiences, 'lambs collapsed after an average of 2.6 seconds and stopped attempting to stand after 10 seconds (not being able to stand does not mean inability to feel); in contrast calves were standing up to 135 seconds after their throat was cut and were attempting to stand up to 385 seconds after that. Even though the calves had both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed three out of four were breathing up to 11.6 minutes later and so were shot. Lambs were gasping for up to 3.8 minutes after carotid arteries and jugular veins were cut.' (12)

6.) A number of liberal muslims propagate reversible stunning.

Fact: Yet, as the 2008 Adams-Sheridan report concluded, even such a procedure is invalid. 'Reversible stunning is not in itself sufficient to lead to death of the animal. All stunning must be inextricably linked to the performance of slaughter using a reliable and fast means of exsanguination.' (13) In layman's terms such a procedure is even more painful, especially if the stunning proves fallible (the statistics are extreme) and the animal regains consciousness whilst undergoing a red-hazed orgy of slaughter in the name of Allah. Ironically however such a stunning itself is against Islamic norms, as the Sha'ria states that an animal must hear it's own slaughtering prayers.(14)

7.) Whether Halal is painful or vice versa, the procedure evidently drains the blood of an animal. Thus the meat is rendered consumable, digestible and fit for humanity.

Fact: Another optimistic salvo, yet as the BVA concludes, the result of blood drainage would most likely catalyze in the creation of chemical toxins which would seep into the very meat itself (stress hormones) rendering the meat, at the most, exposed to bacterial infections.(15)

An Ineffectual Revulsion to Swine.

It will be highly ambiguous if one was to ignore the Islamic revulsion to swine whilst discussing the ideology's flesh consumption. It seems that the Islamic God is not solely capable of birthing an ambiguous, and oft an illogical text termed as a perfect book. The latter, in his perfect state, (emphasis ours) is also subsequently capable of birthing'abominations' although to what purposes or end(s) is ardently veiled. 'Say: I do not find, in what is revealed to me, aught forbidden to him who eats thereof except it be carrion, or blood outpoured, or the flesh of swine- that is an abomination.' (16) Paul Theroux, the imminent nomadic journalist, evidences the psychopathic hostility displayed by Islam towards swine whilst recounting his horror, and subsequent revulsion on the often graphic demonstrations held against the American caricature Miss Piggy in Islamic nations; 'you know you have travelled through the looking glass when you are in a country where Miss Piggy is seen as the very embodiment of evil. (emphasis ours).' (17) A keen analyzation of pre-Islamic Arabia furnishes an Arabia where the indigenous residents were fundamentally unaware of the presence of swine. Simultaneously even classic historians, in a parallel vein to Pliny, failed to recognize any subsequent presence of the said beast in the region. It seems that Muhammad mimed the Jewish ideologue in attaching a hostile significance to swine. Contemporarily Islamic scholars and pseudo-scientists, whilst envisioning the so-called rationality of Arabian norms, purport the swine's tendency to introduce Trichinosis into the human anatomy. Yet the latter is evidently a disease often preferring cold and temperate regions (18), subsequently it is more feasible in Europe and America rather than the humid Middle East. (19) Simultaneously, it is plausible for the organism to infiltrate undercooked meat (emphasis ours), yet it is significant to note undercooked meat. Simultaneously Islamic apologists often veil their ineffectual fallacies via highlighting the filthy habits of pigs. Yet the latter are not specifically worse than chickens and goats who also consume dung. Subsequently it is evident to note that all Islamic schools allow the consumption of the carrion consuming Hyena, surely Muhammad in all his perfectness must have realized that the latter's consummation possess an ardent danger to the human stomach; more so than swine? It was this illogicality which the Akali-Nihungs gleefully exploited to test an Islamic apostate's veracity in preliminary periodicals (20). It is however the imminent author, and a much demonized personality in the Islamic universe, Salman Rushdie who has the conclusive word. Whilst documenting and crafting a sitcom on Pakistani television he ran into several obstacles, positioned by subtle clergy, even whilst disseminating anti-swine propaganda. 'The character I played had a long monologue in which he described his landlady's dog's repeated attacks on him. In an attempt to befriend the dog, he bought it half a dozen hamburgers. The dog refused and attacked him again. "I was offended," I was supposed to say. "It was six perfectly good hamburgers with not enough pork in them to make it disgusting." "Pork," a T.V. executive solemnly told me "is a four letter word." He had said the same thing about "sex" and "homosexual," but this time I argued back! The text, I pleaded, was saying the right thing about pork. Pork, in Albee's view, made hamburgers so disgusting that even dogs refused them.* This was superb anti-pork propaganda. It must stay! "You don't see,' the executive told me, "the work 'pork'may not be spoken on Pakistan tevelevision." And that was that.' (21)

Sources:

(1) Russell, Bertrand. (1935). Religion and Science. Thornton Butterworth, England: London.

(2) Yohannes, B. (2013) Samuel Zwemer's Missionary Strategy Towards Islam. M. Phil thesis, University of Birmingham.

(3) The Fallacy of Stunning the Animal Without being Killed. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.Halaltayyibmeat.com.

(4) www.halalmc.org.

(5) Koran, Sura 6.145.

(7)ibid.

(8)ibid.

(9) Religious Slaughter. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.animalfrontiers.org.

(10)http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf

(12)ibid.

(13)ibid.

(14)ibid.

(15)ibid.

(16) Koran, Sura 6.145.

(17)Warraq, I. (2003). Why I am not a Muslim. New York City, NYC: Prometheus Books.

(18)ibid.

(19)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichinosis

(20) Akali-Nihangs. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.sarabloh.com.

(21) Warraq, I. (2003). Why I am not a Muslim. New York City, NYC: Prometheus Books.

[PAL 07]

Jatka is part of Shatriya maryada. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji states they are Shatriya as opposed to Brahim maryada. A brahmins maryada is to never eat meat, this is further evident from the sakhi at Anandpur Sahib when Sri Guru Ji asked the Brahmins to eat meat in return for greater wealth than the vegetarian langar.

I know of certain Nihangs along time ago who were probably the first to create a website with videos of jhatka and they contacted the biggest animal cruelty organisation and showed them the videos and asked whether it would be okay to put them in the public domain online.

And they replied that they have no problems and they said it is far more humane than halal or kosher

[Amarjeet Singh_1737]

Jatka is part of Shatriya maryada. Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji states they are Shatriya as opposed to Brahim maryada. A brahmins maryada is to never eat meat, this is further evident from the sakhi at Anandpur Sahib when Sri Guru Ji asked the Brahmins to eat meat in return for greater wealth than the vegetarian langar.

I know of certain Nihangs along time ago who were probably the first to create a website with videos of jhatka and they contacted the biggest animal cruelty organisation and showed them the videos and asked whether it would be okay to put them in the public domain online.

And they replied that they have no problems and they said it is far more humane than halal or kosher

Can you expand on the saakhi veer ji?

[chatanga1]

I know of certain Nihangs along time ago who were probably the first to create a website with videos of jhatka and they contacted the biggest animal cruelty organisation and showed them the videos and asked whether it would be okay to put them in the public domain online.

And they replied that they have no problems and they said it is far more humane than halal or kosher

I sent a jhtaka video to a farmer friend who kills his own animals. he replied that it was a very good method of despatch.

[Genie Singh]

ਰਾਜ ਸਾਜ ਹਮ ਪਰ ਜਬ ਆਯੋ ॥ ਜਥਾ ਸਕਤ ਤਬ ਧਰਮ ਚਲਾਯੋ ॥

Raaja Saaja Hama Para Jaba Aayo ॥ Jatha Sakata Taba Dharam Chalaayo ॥

When I obtained the position of responsibility, I performed the religious acts to the best of my ability.

ਭਾਂਤਿ ਭਾਂਤਿ ਬਨ ਖੇਲ ਸਿਕਾਰਾ ॥ ਮਾਰੇ ਰੀਛ ਰੋਝ ਝੰਖਾਰਾ ॥੧॥

Bhaat(i) Bhaat(i) Bana Khela Sikaara ॥ Maare Reechha Rojha Jhaankhaara ॥1॥

I went hunting various kinds of animals in the forest and killed bears, nilgais (blue bulls) and elks.1.

ਦੇਸ ਚਾਲ ਹਮ ਤੇ ਪੁਨਿ ਭਈ ॥ ਸਹਰ ਪਾਂਵਟਾ ਕੀ ਸੁਧਿ ਲਈ ॥

Desa Chaal Hama Te Puni Bhaeala ॥ Sahara Paavttaa Kee Sudhi Laeala ॥

Then I left my home and went to place named Paonta.

Sri Dasam Granth 143 - Guru Gobind Singh http://searchgurbani.com/dasam_granth/page/143/line/10

[GtLoc]

Would you rather be punched once or poked over a long period of time.

Which is more annoying?

Science aside, Muslims and Jews have one enemy to do halal or kosher of.

We have 125,000 at the minimum..

Jhatka is quicker and more efficient.

Also the battlefield skill part is true, you do not want to do something for the first time (the worst time) in a fight for your life.

Post is kind of off-topic but will also add this as veggie vs meat debate rages this is from Prem Sumarag Granth

The most strongly recommended article of food is meat. It is the great food (maha prasad). A Khalsa must eat meat every day.

Will find p. # etc. after..

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |