[Titan6]

This question comes from a conversation I had with a Muslim hunter the other day. He told me that in order to be able to eat an animal that is hunted it must only be wounded and then killed in the traditional slaughter method of slitting the throat and allowing the animal to bleed to death through the veins in the throat. I was curious about several things but time and language barriars prevented adequate explanation.

First is this generally accepted everwhere or is it a regional/sect thing?

Second what technique is used to wound the animal and not kill it with bullets or arrows so that the meat is not wasted?

Third are there other restrictions on hunting?

Thanks in advance.
PS: I may not be able to check back for a few days, the thread is not an orphan I just have connectivitiy issues like you would not believe.

[Ed4032]

Let him hunt a bear.

[waverace]

HA HA my thoughts exactly !! :what: But seriously I appreciate the guys religious philosephy but that sounds both dangerous and inhumane to me , I bet they dont have a section for that in the hunter training course .

[brighamr]

Titan6 - this is an interesting take. I don't know particularly for Muslims, but I do know certain other religions change hunting views depending on style of living.

Buddhists for example: in places where food is plentiful, one should not eat meat at all. The exception is if someone killed an animal for a special occasion, one should not let the meat go to waste. In other places, such as remote tibetan mountains where it is hard to grow food, one is allowed to hunt as long as it is only for food and is done as quickly, rarely, and painlessly as possible.

I'm thinking the Muslim guidelines you mention are much the same way (will vary depending on naturally available foods). Desert Muslims do traditionally kill raised goats by slitting the throat, but the one I talked to said it was to retain the blood for other uses, and not to let it go to waste.

JMHOFWIW

[Shawnee]

Attempting to slit the throat on a wounded Whitetail could get your friend seriously injured, if not killed. And I know firsthand that a "laying on of the hands" on a wounded woodchuck can get the Holy Deuteronomy bitten out of a person in a flash. Methinks your friend could be speaking with knowledge he doesn't have.

:cool:

[Titan6]

Ooops should have mentioned I am in Iraq, no Whitetail or black bears here. The reason I am asking is because as a military advisor we try to learn all about the culture so as not to offend.

My understanding of the animals we are to hunt is a "deer like" animal of about 60-80 pounds in body weight that lives in the desert as well as a "turkey like bird" that is 10-12 pounds. I don't think either is particularly dangerous.

But I did get a kick out of the mental image of sneaking up on a wounded bear to slit it's throat That was hilarious :D

Edit- Oh and blood is a definite no-go out here. These guys won't touch any meat unless it has been cooked to somewhere between well done and jerky. I have seen them slaughter at least 50sheep. It always the same way.

[bradm]

If you get an opportunity, look up "Halal" on Wikipedia or someplace similar - you will find some explanation for what you have heard. From what I have been told by Muslim acquaintances, the animal must not die prior to being bled, so no stunning or other typical slaughterhouse methods are allowed in order to prevent an accidental early death or animal suffering. Blood is considered unclean (due to health concerns, according to modern interpretation), and any meat contaminated should not be consumed. The throat slitting also follows prescribed rituals and includes a blessing.

There are also rules about how domestic animals should be housed, fed and otherwise treated which might surprise you - they are very similar to many of the discussions people have today about cage free chickens and grass fed beef.

If I understand correctly, religious Muslims take the dietary rules very seriously and do everything possible to follow the rules, including the "no killing prior to throat slitting" concept.

brad

[Harve Curry]

Titan6,
First I'd like to thank you for the tough job your doing and putting yourself in harms way.

"He told me that in order to be able to eat an animal that is hunted it must only be wounded and then killed in the traditional slaughter method of slitting the throat and allowing the animal to bleed to death through the veins in the throat."
First is this generally accepted everwhere or is it a regional/sect thing?
In slaughter houses hanging a animal as your slicing it's throat is a method of bleeding them out and production. In hunting I've met people from S. America, Europe, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, and all of them want to shoot to kill. I've not heard that about shooting to wound/disable and then run up and cut the critters throat. There is something basically wrong with religion being mixed with hunting.


Second what technique is used to wound the animal and not kill it with bullets or arrows so that the meat is not wasted?
Instead of aiming to hit in the heart, lungs, or neck vertebre, you would have to aim to break legs. Break the spine above the hips to paralize. Non of it sounds to good. All of these shots to wound/disable ruin more meat then shooting to kill. Plus they make the animal suffer.

Third are there other restrictions on hunting?
Not sure what you meant here. Some states have restrictions on cartrdge/caliber, to make sure your using enoough gun to make a killing shot.

Good luck to you and stay well,

[dogrunner]

An interesting discussion and VERY clear indicator of just how alien middle eastern cultural belief REALLY is.

[Loyalist Dave]

If Halal practices are required even for game animals..., then I'd say Muslims should not sport-hunt, for a basic principal is a quick, clean, humane kill, and shooting to wound is opposite of that. Further, if you mess up and don't wound the animal, and you kill it before bleeding...., do you let it lay and rot? Again, against sport-hunting ethics. (I write "sport-hunting" as in a survival situation, where the only viable source of protein is the game animal, and you have to follow your religious food practices..., it's a different situation.)

LD

[countertop]

Id just add that in addition to the ban on pork, halal (and kosher) dietary practices also ban other animal s- and I always thought it had to do with having split hooves (like horses, deer, etc) but folks only focused on pigs since its one of the 3 main protein sources.

I don't know. It might be different depending on where you are . . . and which sect. My neighbor does middle eastern cultural training for marines before they are shipped out, I'll ask him.

I always thought a lot of middle easterners hunted, and hunted to kill, but then not everyone is as religious as others.

[Cosmoline]

Folks, making judgments on complex religious matters based on double hearsay of what "some guy" told some other guy is unwise.

The actual answer appears to be quite a bit more complex:

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/hunting.html

[Harve Curry]

Thanks for that link. Now I'm trying to figure out what these words mean:
Pak
halal
haraam
Makrooh

[Thernlund]

halal = religiously proper
haraam = unlawful or forbidden
makrooh (makruh) = offensive, but not necessarily forbidden

Not sure about "pak". Judging from the context, maybe something along the lines of "sacred"?


-T.


EDIT: Apparently "pak" mean "ritually pure".

http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/index.php?word=pak

[LJH]

Pak translates to something like ritually clean.

halal , dont quote me on this but I think it is something in the order of ok to eat.

haraam ? dont know but haram, mean against the faith, sorta...

Makrooh, is to do something not recommended, or it could mean shameful but acceptable.

of course, I could be wrong on all of these I translated from a very old dictionary.

[Dr.Mall Ninja]

lol imagine a muslim in africa telling his guide he only wants to shoot to wound a cape buffalo. then sneak up and slit its throat.

[S4gunn]

You learn something new everyday.
Thanks, OP -- for your service to this country and for asking this question. I'm always curious about other cultures and how they handle things like hunting.



--
For every guideline like this:

(viii) One should take small bits of food.
(x) One should chew the food thoroughly.

theres one like this:

2640. * It is Makrooh to eat the meat of a horse, a mule or a donkey. If a person has sexual intercourse with them those animals become haraam, and as a precaution, their offspring become haraam also, and their urine and dung become Najis. Such animals should be taken out of the city and should be sold at some other place. And as for the person who committed the sexual intercourse with the animal, it will be necessary to give its price to the owner. Similarly, if a person commits sexual intercourse with an animal like cow and sheep, the meat of which it is lawful to eat, its urine and excrement become Najis, and it is also haraam to eat their meat, and to drink their milk. As a precaution, same will be the case with their offsprings. Such an animal should be instantly killed and burnt, and one, who has had sexual intercourse with the animal should pay its price to its owner.

Simply fascinating. Gives new meaning to "don't play with your food"
-g

[MCgunner]

Fortunately, I'm not muslim.

[XDKingslayer]

2640. * It is Makrooh to eat the meat of a horse, a mule or a donkey. If a person has sexual intercourse with them those animals become haraam, and as a precaution, their offspring become haraam also, and their urine and dung become Najis. Such animals should be taken out of the city and should be sold at some other place. And as for the person who committed the sexual intercourse with the animal, it will be necessary to give its price to the owner. Similarly, if a person commits sexual intercourse with an animal like cow and sheep, the meat of which it is lawful to eat, its urine and excrement become Najis, and it is also haraam to eat their meat, and to drink their milk. As a precaution, same will be the case with their offsprings. Such an animal should be instantly killed and burnt, and one, who has had sexual intercourse with the animal should pay its price to its owner.

Wait a minute...

If a person has sex with a horse, the horse is punished?

And people wonder why I want to bomb these people into non-existance.

[Sergeant Sabre]

It is Makrooh to eat the meat of a horse, a mule or a donkey. If a person has sexual intercourse with them those animals become haraam, and as a precaution, their offspring become haraam also, and their urine and dung become Najis...and one, who has had sexual intercourse with the animal should pay its price to its owner.

:eek:

It happens / has happened so often that they have a special name for what the animal "becomes" afterwards, as well is it's offspring, fecal matter, and urine? As if that's not enough, it's so prevalent that they had to write a "you bang it, you buy it" policy in regard to making amends with the animal's owner?

Good gracious...

[scotjute]

Not a Muslim, but I try to follow the Old Testament restrictions about not eating blood. Always drain blood out of everything I kill. However first the animal is killed as quickly and as cleanly as I can, and then it is hung and the blood drained as best I can. Always shoot to kill, never to wound. Its certainly interesting that other cultures purposely shoot to wound and not to kill.

[TAB]

If a person has sex with a horse, the horse is punished?

And people wonder why I want to bomb these people into non-existance.


actually thats in the bible as well.

Something to the effect of kill both the man and the beast.

[waverace]

:eek::what::eek::what: Thats all I wanna say about that I'm gonna have nightmares :eek:

[dogrunner]

Ahhh, ALL the foregoing makes me eternally thankful that I am of Celtic ancestry! My folks may have kept a pig in their parlor, but at least they never slept with it!

[Thernlund]

...they have a special name for what the animal "becomes" afterwards...actually thats in the bible as well.

I think it's one of those situations where if they don't say it, then some idiot will think it's ok.

Kind of like how if your mom didn't actually tell you to be home before dark, you'd come home at like 1am and say, "You didn't tell me...".

:D


-T.

[TAB]

its also one of those things that "holy men" that have never had sex, think about it all the time... just like in the middle ages... people making rules about what you can and can not do, but have never tried it.

[Harve Curry]

This can't be real ?
Please tell me these are not believed or taught to millions of people in the 21st Century.

[Cosmoline]

interesting that other cultures purposely shoot to wound and not to kill.

I think we need to stop assuming that the generalization of the OP is the official word. The law I found would appear to have many areas of interpretation. The "slaughter" rules appear to require some twitching when taking place, but there are conversely edicts against killing an animal by wounding it. Given the long tradition of hunting in many parts of the Islamic world I strongly suspect priestly interpretations have ironed out these issues but unfortunately we don't have an Islamic scholar around these parts.

[Thernlund]

Modern Muslims just don't hunt I expect.


-T.

[Cosmoline]

I know they do a lot of hunting with falcons and trained dogs in SA. The Iranians have some very good safari hunts, though our current government won't let us partake. I believe they may be operating under different sets of rules as Sheit/Persians.

[countertop]

I think we need to stop assuming that the generalization of the OP is the official word. The law I found would appear to have many areas of interpretation. The "slaughter" rules appear to require some twitching when taking place, but there are conversely edicts against killing an animal by wounding it. Given the long tradition of hunting in many parts of the Islamic world I strongly suspect priestly interpretations have ironed out these issues but unfortunately we don't have an Islamic scholar around these parts.

Thats consistent with what my neighbor told me last night. Said in most instances, if you make the appropriate customary blessing to Allah afterwards, and then drain the blood out, it is largely ok . . . . but as with all things these rules vary by sect, by region, by class, and by income. As others have pointed out, there is a long and varied history of hunting in the region . . . but remember not all muslims are Arabs, let alone of the same sect (Iraq for instance has Sunnis, Shikhs, and Kurds - but they are largely Arab . . . unlike in Iran where they are Persian, or Egypt where they are Egyptian, or Africa where they are African or Pakistan where they are Pashtuns, or Afghanastahn, etc etc etc etc)

[mbt2001]

They are not the same, but Kosher and Halal are very close together. I couldn't find what I wanted under Halal, so I copied some of the Kosher rules concerning meat below. For a comparison between Kosher and Halal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Dhabi%C4%A5a_Halal_and_kashrut.

It does seem that there are some references in the Hadith (specifically to meat) wherein they just bless Allah and then can eat meat (supposing it isn't pork or other banned meats) the same as any other. Perhaps at the time of the Hadith there was some more or less uniform traditional slaughter method...

I am a Christian and frankly happy that I don't have to conform to this stuff. Personally, I think they are being a bit over legalistic, but then again who knows in the end?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_foods

Jewish law states that kosher mammals and birds must be slaughtered according to a strict set of guidelines, the slaughter (shechita) (שחיטה). This necessarily eliminates the practice of hunting wild game for food, unless it can be captured alive and ritually slaughtered. The slaughter process has been branded as cruel as it may take a "considerable time" for the animal to lose consciousness.[1]

A professional slaughterer, or shochet (שוחט), using a large razor-sharp knife with absolutely no irregularities, nicks or dents, and checked carefully between killing each animal, makes a single cut across the throat to a precise depth, severing both carotid arteries, both jugular veins, the vagus nerve, the trachea and the esophagus, no higher than the epiglottis and no lower than where cilia begin inside the trachea, causing the animal to bleed to death. Any variation from this exact procedure invalidates the process; therefore, if the knife catches even for a split second or is found afterward to have developed any irregularities, or the depth of cut is too deep or shallow, the carcass is not kosher (nevela) and is sold as regular meat to the general public. The shochet must not only be rigorously trained in this procedure, but also a pious Jew of good character who observes the Sabbath, and who remains cognizant that these are God's creatures who are sacrificing their lives for the good of himself and his community and should not be allowed to suffer in any way shape or form. In smaller communities, traditionally the shochet was often the town rabbi or the rabbi of one of the local synagogues; large factories which produce Kosher meat have professional full time shochtim on staff. Koshat is now available either directly in local stores or by order everywhere in the world.

Once killed, the animal is opened to determine whether there are any of seventy different irregularities or growths on its internal organs, which would render the animal non-kosher. The term glatt kosher (although it is often used colloquially to mean "strictly kosher") literally means "smooth", and properly refers to meat where the lungs have absolutely no adhesions (i.e. scars from previous inflammation), thus there was never even a question of their not being kosher.

As Jewish law prohibits the consumption of the blood of any animal, all blood and large blood vessels must be removed from the meat. This is most commonly done by soaking and salting, but also can be done by a special broiling process. The hindquarters of a mammal are not kosher unless the sciatic nerve and the fat surrounding it are removed (Genesis 32, last verse). This is a very time-consuming process demanding a great deal of special training, and is rarely done outside Israel where there is a greater demand for kosher meat. When it is not done the hindquarters of the animal are sold for non-kosher meat.

Compromises in countries with animal cruelty laws that prohibit such practices involve stunning the animal to lessen the suffering that occurs while the animal bleeds to death. However, the use of electric shocks to daze the animal is often not accepted by some markets as producing meat which is Kosher.[1]

[shortround60]

I am working on my 9TH year of living in the Middle East (Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai, etc). In my time here, I have been told that when a man hunts for food it is "OK" to eat the meat of an animal killed as a result without utilizing the Halal method. Halal is strictly held when the animal is raised for consumption. At the moment I reside in Kuwait and there are many hunters and a few gun shops around. We even have public hunting grounds and private ranges.

[Zoogster]

My understanding of the animals we are to hunt is a "deer like" animal of about 60-80 pounds in body weight that lives in the desert as well as a "turkey like bird" that is 10-12 pounds. I don't think either is particularly dangerous.

If you look up the amount of animals that have gone extinct in the last few hundreds years in and around the Middle East it is astounding.
They once had many more hunting opportunities than now though.

That is one of the oldest places inhabited by people. So the fauna can be pretty used up and limited in various areas.

They used to have wild ostriches in many parts of the Middle East. They became extinct in the last remaining places during the 1960's.

[j-easy]

purposely shooting an animal to only wound and then trying to slit its throat is not only extremely cruel but very stupid.

[X-Rap]

Europe is now trying to figure out how to give Muslims rights in their own law. It will tear their countrys apart. We are also considering the same in some circles. Add this to the list, what happens when the practicing Haji misses and kills the animal stone dead and edcides it is to unclean for him to eat? Does he follow our game laws and eat it anyway or violate wanton waste laws and leave it lay and continue to hunt and then break limit and possetion also.
This will come up and in our PC wimp world we are buckeling under any hint of religious or racial bias. Better wake up soon.

[Titan6]

Thanks Cosmoline your post was very helpful. In the Islamic world since there is no recognized head of the entire religion there is no one "doctrine" that addresses issues for all people therefore there is very rarely one answer that addresses a question. While there is often a consensus opinion arriving at that can take some doing. Some Iman's interpretations are more widely accepted than others. Throughout the ME there are literally hundreds of channels of religous TV programming with many shows that do nothing but answer questions from viewers about the interpretation of the Quaran some of which are at odds with others. Once you add in all the differing regional beliefs it is difficult to express a consolidated viewpoint for any of the distinct cultures in the ME. I do not think I will find a consensus on this suject easily.

I do find it interesting that Western culture widely thinks it is humane to keep an animal locked up in a factory day and night from birth to death never to see the light of day or touch the earth while another finds it inhumane to slaughter an animal where another of it's kind can see it. This shows a wide disparity between what is acceptable when it is out of sight out of mind.

I have not found a significant amount of hunting in Iraq or Kuwait, on the scale of the US although there is some. Mostly it seems reserved for the upper classes here, although I have yet to live in any remote rural regions so it maybe different in the countryside. Falconry is still alive and well but that is really reserved for the wealthy and the straphangers to them.

Rightly or wrongly whatever your particular POV on this subject I do find it refreshing in some ways that there are people that still follow a practice in hunting because they believe it will please God. For those with religous beliefs I think you will likely agree with that even if you find whatever the practice is unpaletable.

Does he follow our game laws and eat it anyway or violate wanton waste laws and leave it lay and continue to hunt and then break limit and possetion also.

Don't know, but I do know of plenty of trophy hunters in the US who do not eat an ounce of meat that they shoot but give it away to the poor.

[koja48]

I guess I just don't comprehend the whole "throat-cutting/beheading" compulsion. I have tried to avoid prejudice my entire life, but it becomes exceedingly more difficult after the "Nam" and the present-day atrocities. I don't get it & would NEVER purposefully abuse any living thing . . . . ain't built that way. Kill it clean & give it away if you must hunt. If one can't, don't hunt. That being said, hunting a giraffe conjures-up a visual, though I'd be inclined to suggest the saltwater croc, cape buff, African lion, tiger, coastal brown bear, a rabid wolf, or 2-step viper as worthy quarry. I'm sorry, but some beliefs and those who fanatically follow said beliefs are just plain sick, IMHO. Don't bother to ask me to "understand;" I don't AND won't. Finis.

[Phyphor]

It's not for me, either.... A swift kill and a full bleed out should be good enough by God/Allah.

[freakshow10mm]

And we think our system of law and order can be draconian.

[Jim Watson]

John "Pondoro" Tayor converted to Islam and describes running to cut the throat of a critter shot for the pot before it quit kicking. Doubt he did that on his many elephants, though.

[freakshow10mm]

The only conversions I do are 40 S&W to 10mm, .357 Mag to .41 Mag, semi auto to full auto, etc.

[Girodin]

Second what technique is used to wound the animal and not kill it with bullets or arrows so that the meat is not wasted?

With salukis. Salukis are the only dogs cosidered clean and are named specificaly in the Koran. I'm suprised by those assuming every one hunts the same way they do. The world doesn't end in your backyard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtblKj_NmE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPxsrteWBc4&feature=related

Good sight hounds catch and retrieve live to hand.

[Guns and more]

He told me that in order to be able to eat an animal that is hunted it must only be wounded and then killed in the traditional slaughter method of slitting the throat and allowing the animal to bleed to death through the veins in the throat.
Aw, jeez, now all the hunting instructors will have to include this so as not to offend.
It works well for goats.
(am I being insensitive?):neener:

[koja48]

I said "Finis," however . . . "the world doesn't end at in your back yard," but brutality certainly ends far short of there. I'll tolerate difference of opinion, religious belief, political persuasion, etc., but I will never tolerate cruelty and terror. Being at the top of the intellectual hierarchy brings
obligation . . . deliberately inducing suffering or terror is in NO WAY a part of that obligation. I acknowledge anyone's right to hunt in a manner unlike I do . . . but . . . I expect their choice to be both ethical & humane. Anyone who would accept something to the contrary as appropriate is as jaded as those who would practice such methodology. Your comment that "I'm surprised by those assuming every one hunts the same way they do" surprises me.

[paintballdude902]

Kind of like how if your mom didn't actually tell you to be home before dark, you'd come home at like 1am and say, "You didn't tell me...".




were u talking to my mom today? haha

this is kinda strange to me but i guess its their culture. i was always raised to aim for the heart or neck to make a clean kill so the animal doesnt suffer....and cause its easier to find

[Jamil Rashid]

Hi All,

I stumbled upon your forum and by chance read this thread.

<---------------->

I am thought extremely comforted by some of the level headed participants, who actually want to understand the issue or at least are trying to shed some light onto it, I thank you sincerely.

I just want to clarify a few points:

1) In Islam animals exist for the benefit of human beings but they are to be treated with respect and kindness. They serve a purpose and are not to be abused. Islam follows the anthropocentrism thought in this regard.

2) Islam for over 1400 years doesn't tolerate suffering to animals. Even when you slaughter an animal (breed for consumption) you're not allowed to show the blade of the knife to it and you're not allowed to slaughter it in front of other animals. I'd like to see that much compassion in the slaughter houses we find in some parts of the world today (even in the so called Muslim countries).

3) Muslims are NOT allowed to::

a) treat animals cruelly
b) over-work or over-load animals
c) neglect animals
d) hunt animals for sport, hunting for food is permitted if the animals are killed humanely (to be mentioned below)
e) cut the mane or tail of a horse
f) participate in animal fighting
h) be involved with factory farming
i) slaughter an animal with a blunt knife (pre-longing its pain and death).

4) In Islam there are many stories about people going to paradise due to being kind to animals, it something not seen in many religions.

5) In Islam as long as you mention God's name before you shoot an animal you can eat it. The bullet has to penetrated the animal and it (the bullet) has to be the cause of death. Of course, the animal first has to be Islamically consumable, so wild bore or any predatory animals are out of the equation.

6) Islam clearly states that the weapon of choice must be sharp and be an item that pierces the animal. It has to be a quick and painless death.

7) BUT, if the animal is not killed by the bullet and is only wounded then it is not allowed to be consumed. This opinion is generally accepted BUT I need to find references for this in the Islamic sources so as to be sure.

8) Also, if the animal is killed but by another object and not the bullet, then its not consumable. An example would be if you shot at an animal and it died due to falling into a river or into a ditch/hole, it would not be consumable due to it not being killed by the bullet.

9) In Islam its forbidden to shoot an animal and then slaughter it, as this increases the pain for the animal. This clears all those comments!

10) In Islam you are not allowed to hunt for pleasure only for necessity. BUT if you need to get rid of pests like rabbits, this is allowed and they are considered consumable. Again the same rule applies of saying God's name when shooting.

11) In Islam your not allowed to tie an animal and then shoot it, again its cruel.

12) A dog can be used to catch game for you BUT when you send it out you have to say God's name first. If it catches game then it must not eat from it and it must be caught by that particular dog. If the dog returns with another dog then the game is not consumable as the other dog could have killed it and it was not the dog that you send out (with the pronouncing of God's name).


I have much more to say but I think this should suffice. If you have any questions please FIRE away ;)

[Girodin]

I'll tolerate difference of opinion, religious belief, political persuasion, etc., but I will never tolerate cruelty and terror. Being at the top of the intellectual hierarchy brings
obligation . . . deliberately inducing suffering or terror is in NO WAY a part of that obligation. I acknowledge anyone's right to hunt in a manner unlike I do . . . but . . . I expect their choice to be both ethical & humane. Anyone who would accept something to the contrary as appropriate is as jaded as those who would practice such methodology. Your comment that "I'm surprised by those assuming every one hunts the same way they do" surprises me. Perhaps you're living in the wrong country?



That is a nice little diatribe but it misses my point entirely. My point was more that it is amusing that everyone would automatically presume that the only way to hunt is to shoot an animal with a firearm or an arrow. A huge and eronious presupposition was made by many on this thread that the hunting would have to include “shooting to wound” or like practices. My post was to point out that such assumptions were not well founded. There are many other ways to hunt. The use of sight hounds being one of the oldest. Lest your xenophobia turn you off to it immediately it is practiced not only in the Middle East, Australia and Europe but even with in the good ‘ol U.S. of A. Catch dogs are also commonly used to hunt boar which are then killed with a knife. This is done in various parts of the world and is common in the US where there are pigs to hunt.

Are these unethical ways of hunting? My opinion is not more definitive than anyone else’s, but I do not believe so. Are they humane? I do not find them less humane than other forms of hunting. In fact I think hunting a boar with dogs and a knife is more ethical than shooting a boar at a feeder from a blind. I do not go so far as to tell others that doing so is unethical however. Does allowing a dog to track game and then shooting it have a moral superiority to a dog making a catch? Is peppering a duck with shot and having a retriever bring him live to hand greatly different in these aspects than a lurcher catching a hair and bringing it to hand?

It is interesting that a hunter is so quick to condemn forms of hunting with which he is not familiar given the indignation that might rise in him if it were suggested that hunting with a high powered rifle was cruel and unethical. . “deliberately inducing suffering or terror” some believe that all hunting meets your criteria of unacceptability, are they right? Are all your shots instant kills? I do my best to make mine such but must say that not 100% of my shots are instant one shot kills. Do those animals suffer? Is it terrorizing to be pursued and shot and at times pursued more? You must realize that many people take the view that your form of hunting is unethical and cruel.

Unless you consider the above hunting methods unethical and inhumane please tell me where in most post I condoned such actions or even suggested that they were taking place. If you do, please explain why.

Part of being open minded, as you insist you are, is educating ones self before condemning things. Just think if all the anti gunners and anti hunters would make a genuine effort to do so. Sadly many on this thread are guilty of the same type of willful ignorance and irrationality simply in relation to a different matter.

I thank Jamil for his contributions to this thread. I do not know if all of his info is sound or not, but it is certainly a jumping off point for more research for those interested.

[Mp7]

(i) The weapon used for hunting should be able to cut through, like, a knife or a sword, or should be sharp like a spear or an arrow, so that due to its sharpness, it may tear the body of the animal. If an animal is hunted with a trap, or hit by a piece of wood or a stone, it does not become Pak, and it is haraam to eat its meat. And if an animal is hunted with a gun and its bullet is so fast that it pierces into the body of the animal and tears it up, the animal will be Pak and halal, but if the bullet is not fast enough and enters the body of the animal with pressure and kills, or burns its body with its heat, and the animal dies due to that heat, it is a matter of Ishkal to say that the animal is Pak or halal.

(ii) The hunter should be a Muslim or at least a Muslim child who can distinguish between good and bad. If a non-Muslim, other than Ahle Kitab, or from those sects like, Nawasib - enemies of Ahlul Bait (A.S.) who are classified as Kafir, hunts an animal, the animal is not halal. As a matter of precaution, an animal hunted by Ahle Kitab is also not halal, even if he may have uttered the name of Allah.

Shoot it - eat it.


(as an atheist i must add, that IMHO the ancient bible texts
carry many more quotes, that i´d classify as "lies for children".
Judaism, Christianity & Islam don´t make much of a difference
if you stick to the letters. )

[Titan6]

Jamil Wrote:

7) BUT, if the animal is not killed by the bullet and is only wounded then it is not allowed to be consumed. This opinion is generally accepted BUT I need to find references for this in the Islamic sources so as to be sure.

If it were only wounded it might be hard to eat anyway. :D

Seriously, thank you for your answers and welcome to the forum. I guess I don't really need to mention that many people follow these to different degrees? For example I see donkeys worked literally to death hauling stuff nearly every week.

[tinygnat219]

Is this why I see so few Muslim hunters?

[Zip7]

With salukis. Salukis are the only dogs cosidered clean and are named specificaly in the Koran. I'm suprised by those assuming every one hunts the same way they do. The world doesn't end in your backyard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtblKj_NmE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPxsr...eature=related

Good sight hounds catch and retrieve live to hand.

If I had a couple of these mutts, I bet I could make an all night coon hunt last 5 minutes!

I bet that kind of hunting was rather strenuous before the advent of automobiles.

Really it looks interesting. I have been hunting with dogs all my life - for various game, and I love it.

[koja48]

Sorry I missed your point . . . the most important aspect is, that I didn't miss mine. I'll continue to live within my ethics & my conscience . . . feel free to do the same with yours. I didn't "automatically presume;" I expressed my personal beliefs. IMHO, deliberately causing an animal to be subject to other than a swift, humane demise is wrong. And I spend enough time behind a trigger to ensure my rounds go where intended . . . if there is doubt, I don't shoot. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't disparage me or otherwise cast aspersions on my ability. Suffice to say that I take "sure shots."

[Flyboy]

I think we've covered the ethical rules pretty well, but I'd be interested to know just how prevalent hunting is in the Middle East? I know it will vary by geography, but is hunting as deep a part of the culture in the Middle East as it is in the US and parts of Europe? Is it considered "normal" to go hunting there, or is it more of a survival/subsistence activity?

I understand the prohibition against hunting for sport, but I don't consider sport to be my primary purpose when I hunt--I'm out to fill the freezer. Is there a stigma attached to hunting for meat when you can afford to buy meat that's been slaughtered according to traditional rules? Is choosing to hunt, when you have other options, culturally acceptable?

[Girodin]

IMHO, deliberately causing an animal to be subject to other than a swift, humane demise is wrong.

I couldn't agree with you more.
I think our disagreement or misunderstanding was over whether there are methods of hunting outside shooting (bullets or arrows) that do not forcedly cause undue suffering.

I didn't "automatically presume;"

If you re read the thread you will see that many people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that all hunting involved guns or the like. I offered a few examples of alternate hunting methods. Perhaps I am reading to much into the quotation "'the world doesn't end at in your back yard," but brutality certainly ends far short of there." It seems to me however, that the implication was that any hunting method wherein an animal was killed by having its throat slit was a priori an act of brutality. Perhaps, you evaluated ALL possible hunting methods that would allow for the animal to be killed in such a manner and came to that conclusion. I may be mistaken but I do not believe that to be the case. Do you feel that hunting an animal with a sight hound and cutting its throat is cruel? Do you feel that catching a hog with catch dogs and cutting its throat is cruel? If you do not then you did indeed jump to a hasty conclusion (or given your statements can reasonably be seen to have done so). If you do find these methods cruel and unacceptable I could not definitively tell you that you were mistaken but I would certainly be interested to hear your reasoning.


And I spend enough time behind a trigger to ensure my rounds go where intended . . . if there is doubt, I don't shoot. Feel free to disagree with me, but don't disparage me or otherwise cast aspersions on my ability. Suffice to say that I take "sure shots."


I do not doubt that. I was not insinuating that you (or anyone inparticular) lacked ability or sound shot selection. Rather, I was alluding to the fact that hunting rifles are not death rays. Even animal that are shot right through the “boiler room” do not forcedly die instantaneously. Some do of course and that is ideal. I have the antlers in my basement of a 6x6 elk that took a bullet form a .270 right behind his shoulder fell where he stood without so much as taking a step. I have seen other animals shot much the same way and run for 100 yds. Even good shots do not kill INSTANTLY 100% of the time.

I’ve seen the same with game birds, some drop out of the air dead as a door nail others do not. The latter is not an indication of lack of the shooters skill per se. If one shoots enough animals they are bound to see one that doesn’t die the instant it is struck with a bullet. An important point to be clear about is that both here and in my previous post I am differentiating between instant death (where one could reasonable argue there was no suffering) and a very rapid death.

[koja48]

Peace. Suffice to say that one should stack the odds in his/her favor to the extend possible to offset those times when things don't proceed according to plan . . . use an adequate tool, practice, be selective, take good shots. Adrenalin, sticks/twigs, exceptionally tough critters among other things can influence a timely outcome.

[Zoogster]

Mostly it seems reserved for the upper classes here

I think the same would happen in America if the amount of game was limited.
Supply and demand.
If there was little game in America the price of tags would be exceptionaly high, accomplishing the same thing.

Widespread cheap hunting with limited game means you don't have game for very long.

In America there is an abundance of game, and so the cost of hunting tags is within reach of the average person without threatening the species.


I do find it interesting that Western culture widely thinks it is humane to keep an animal locked up in a factory day and night from birth to death never to see the light of day or touch the earth... This shows a wide disparity between what is acceptable when it is out of sight out of mind.
Yes the modern lifestyles most Americans live have led to a very distorted perception of reality for some.
Many see something wrong with a person killing an animal in the wild that has run free, lived a good life, and is dispatched with a bullet.
Yet they love thier meat from the supermarket which requires an even less ideal lifestyle of the animal. Those animals are born, often with the assistance of humans, think they can trust humans, and live a very restricted life. They then are killed on an industrial scale without ever being free in a less humane and more cost effective way while being led and proded by the very species they think they can trust.

People do not realize the balance that must be met to eat meat because they are removed from the killing. It just magicly ends up at thier grocery store, and as a result they believe they are nothing like the hunter that goes out and kills some poor bambi.
People were far more balanced when personal farms were a more common way of life. When eating meat on your plate meant you had to kill an animal that grew up with you and trusted you.
You had to be finely aware of the necessary 'evils' in life. Rather than detached from reality like so many are today.

You end up with naive people that enjoy a good steak or burger, but think hunters are bad, when in fact the hunted animal usualy lives a more free life than thier steak ever did.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with purchasing and eating meat, just that actualy hunting it is even more humane to the individual animal, a logic which escapes many naive individuals today.