Muslim Restrictions on Hunting Questions

[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]

Girodin

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.