Question: Since plants lack a central nervous system, they cannot feel pain; thus, they do not suffer when killed for food. Animals, however, possess a central nervous system and can feel pain. Consequently, it is argued that killing animals for food is sinful. What is your response to this? Please explain.
P.M. Azeez, Thiruthuraipoondi.
Answer: Is their argument about how a life is taken and consumed? Or is it about whether pain is felt or not?
They need to clarify this.
We live in the 20th century. It is possible to slaughter animals like goats and cattle after rendering them unconscious so they do not feel pain. They should only make this argument if they are willing to consume meat obtained through such methods.
They ought to campaign for—and themselves consume—animals slaughtered in a pain-free manner.
But they will not eat it; instead, they will insist that one should not eat it at all.
If that is the case, then distinguishing based on the sensation of pain is hypocritical.
Following their logic, wouldn't it imply that killing a human without causing pain is not a sin? After all, it is entirely possible to kill a human today without them feeling pain.
If they consider such acts to be crimes, then the "pain sensation" argument is clearly false. It is an innate intuition regarding the taking of a life that drives the avoidance of non-vegetarian food.
This same principle applies to plants.
The question remains unanswered: what is the justification for killing and consuming a plant—a living being—even if it does not feel pain?
Do you know one more thing? Scientific findings indicate that when animals are slaughtered according to Islamic guidelines, they do not perceive pain, much like plants.
People employ various methods to kill animals and birds for food.
Some kill birds like chickens by submerging them in water until they suffocate. In Western countries, a similar approach is often used where animals are stunned by being shot in the head with a pistol before being killed. Just as Islam provides guidance for every aspect of human life, it prescribes a specific method for this area as well—namely, the slaughter of animals for food. Islam prohibits the consumption of animals that have died naturally (carrion) and the blood that flows from the animal's body.
It mandates that animals be killed by severing the throat with a sharp instrument.
This process simultaneously severs the blood vessels supplying blood to the head and those draining it away, as well as the windpipe and the esophagus. Consequently, the blood is completely drained from the slaughtered body. However, in the ensuing seconds, the animals may thrash about due to involuntary muscle spasms.
Observers of this process often argue that the Islamic method constitutes animal cruelty and is inhumane.
Is this accusation valid? Is the Western method superior to the Islamic *Halal* method? Do animals die painlessly and without suffering when that method is used? Is the meat of animals killed in that manner more suitable for consumption than *Halal* meat, from which the blood has been drained? To address these questions, a study was conducted at the University of Hanover in Germany. The study was conducted by Professor Schultz and his research associate, Dr. Hazim.
We present below the details of the experiment they conducted and its findings.
1) First, animals intended for slaughter were selected.
2) Through a surgical procedure, electronic sensors were implanted in various parts of the animals' heads to monitor brain activity.
3) After recovering from the surgery, the animals were left to recuperate fully over several weeks.
4) Subsequently, half of the animals were slaughtered according to the Islamic *Halal* method.
5) The remaining half were killed using Western methods.
6) During the process, EEG and ECG readings were recorded for all the animals; the EEG monitored brain activity, while the ECG tracked heart activity. Let us now examine the results of this experiment and their explanations.
1) When the animals were slaughtered in this method, there was no change in the VOA for the first three seconds. It continued to be in the same state as before slaughter. This showed that the animals were not suffering from pain when slaughtered.
2) After three seconds, the VOA recording showed that the animals fell into a deep sleep or unconscious state for the next three seconds. This state is caused by excessive blood loss from the body.
3) After the above six seconds, the VOA recorded a zero level. This showed that the slaughtered animal did not suffer any pain or suffering.
4) At the time when the brain state was recorded as zero, the blood was completely drained from the body due to the continuous beating of the heart and the pain in the body. Therefore, the meat reaches a healthy state suitable for eating. Western method:
1) Animals killed in this way immediately become unconsciousand unconscious.
2) The OCD record showed that the animals suffer from severe pain at that time.
3) At the same time, the heart of the animals stops earlier compared to animals slaughtered in the halal method. As a result, the body accumulates excess blood. The meat with congealed blood does not reach a healthy state for consumption.
The above studies have shown that the Islamic halal method is the best and has proven that it is the most humane method. When animals are killed in the halal method, they do not suffer from pain or torture. Here it is appropriate for us to remember a saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Allah seeks mercy and compassion in all matters. So sharpen your weapons well before you slaughter (animals). By doing so, you will relieve the animal of suffering. (Muslim: 3615)
Even if they assume that the reason is to feel pain, they can eat what has been slaughtered according to Islamic law.
Another proof that what they are saying is a false argument can be shown.
They should say that we are ready to eat animals that have died on their own without us killing them. Because they did not kill them. Even if we cut them into pieces after they die, they do not feel pain. So will they eat this? Will they eat eggs? Will they eat dead fish? They will not eat them. They will say that these should not be eaten either. In that case, why should they give a false reason?