Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35664849›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Islam and Veterinary Science: Rethinking Animal Suffering Through Islamic Animal Ethics and the Evolving Definition of Halal Slaughter.

En-Chieh Chao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Veterinary anthropology: Samples from an emerging field.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

En-Chieh ChaoSociology Department, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the midst of recent European activism against religious slaughter, the idea that religious slaughter is cruel to animals is often seen as commonsense, and the mandatory pre-slaughter stunning is often portrayed as the moral technology that assures animal welfare. Nevertheless, this portrayal seems to blur the fact that the current notion of animal welfare itself is built upon a changing selection of value assumptions, which are not without problems or academic debates. It also ignores the fact that contemporary veterinary scientists and Muslim scholars have been working together for four decades to learn more about farm animals and their suffering. Despite stereotypes, the idea of animal ethics is not foreign to Islam. In Islam, animals represent God's wisdom and wonder, and humans are obliged to attend to their health and living conditions. When killing animals for food is conducted, the slaughter must be done in the name of God as a sacred ritual in order to assure that the life of the animal is not taken lightly and that the slaughter is not a sign of hostility toward the universe. Before the act of sacrifice, the animal must be healthy, and no harm should be forced upon it. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-slaughter stunning has posed a question to Muslim scholars: Does stunning kill the animal or cause harm? What defines harm, and whose definition counts? This paper reconstructs a socio-technological history of halal slaughter through scientific research on animal suffering since the 1980s. On the basis of archival research of New Zealand veterinary scientists' works and in-depth interviews with Malaysian veterinary scientists, this article outlines three phases of the evolution of halal slaughter that aims to fulfill multiple sets of moral obligations toward farm animals, and demonstrates how veterinary scientists establish common ground between secular and Islamic animal ethics. In this vein, I am envisioning a possibility of veterinary anthropology that recognizes the field's trans-cultural characteristics, and continues to challenge the rigid binaries between the West and the Rest, and between science and culture.

Indexed as

animal ethics and welfarehistory of veterinary ethicsIslammulticultural history of scienceveterinary anthropology

Identifiers

PMID35664849
PMCPMC9159294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.