Short answer
No. Islam forbids cruelty to animals and commands that even halal (lawful) slaughter be done well. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said to sharpen the blade and spare the animal suffering. He forbade tying up an animal to kill it as a target. Muslim scholars add that the animal must not see the blade or another animal killed. Islam does not claim that any death is painless. Welfare scientists say an animal cut without stunning (first being made unconscious) feels pain until it loses consciousness. Islam's law forbids the cruelties people add: a blunt blade, fear, torment, any cutting before death. Many Muslim scholars accept a stun that leaves the animal alive at the cut. The Sikh code of conduct forbids initiated Sikhs to eat kutha, meat slaughtered the Muslim way. God (﷾) gave the animal its life, and He permits its meat when His name is spoken over it.
Full explanation
Kabir's lines on killing
The Bhagat (devotee) Kabir was not one of the ten Gurus. But his hymns are in the Guru Granth Sahib, which Sikhs honour as their living Guru, and Sikhs revere his hymns as part of it. Verses are cited by Ang, a page of its standard 1,430-page edition. At Ang 1350 Kabir asks why people kill fowls if they say the one God (﷾) is in everything. At Ang 1375 he warns those who kill living beings by force and call it halal (lawful). God (﷾), he says, will call them to account. Macauliffe, who translated much of the Granth in 1909, notes that Kabir objected to the killing of animals.
“Say not that the Hindu and Musalman books are false; false is he who reflecteth not on them. If you say that the one God is in everything, then why kill fowls?”
In a couplet of the Bhagat Kabir, who is in the Guru Granth Sahib and was not one of the ten Gurus, he asks what will become of those who kill living beings by force and call it lawful (halal) when God calls for their account. The next couplet says that using force is tyranny and that the Lord will call the doer to account.
The Sikh code of conduct and jhatka
Sikhism (Sikhs also say Sikhi) has a code of conduct, the Sikh Rehat Maryada. Its article on initiation lists four transgressions. One is eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way, called kutha. The article gives no reason, and it does not forbid meat as such. Sikh views on meat differ. Guru Nanak (Sikhs say Guru Nanak Dev Ji) says at Ang 1289 that fools quarrel about flesh while they know nothing of meditation. The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism says the Sikh religion neither recommends nor forbids meat. It describes jhatka, killing with a single stroke, as meant to give the least suffering.
The Sikh Rehat Maryada is the Sikh code of conduct issued by the SGPC. In its article on the ceremony of initiation (Amrit), it lists four transgressions that the initiated Sikh must avoid. They are dishonouring the hair; eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way (kutha); sexual relations with anyone other than one's spouse; and using tobacco. One who commits any of them must be initiated again, but one who does so unknowingly is not liable to punishment. The article gives no reason for the rule on meat.
In a salok of Var Malar, Guru Nanak says that fools quarrel about flesh while they know nothing of meditation and spiritual wisdom. He asks what is to be called meat and what green food, and in which of them sin lies. He rebukes those who hold their noses at meat and make a show of it before others.
Defines jhatka as the Sikh way of killing an animal for food: the head is severed at a single stroke, and the entry also names killing by gunshot or electrocution. It says the idea is to kill with the minimum of suffering to the animal, and it contrasts jhatka with kuttha, which it describes as meat of an animal slaughtered by a slow process in the Muslim way known as halal. It records that Sikh codes of conduct and chronicles count eating kuttha as one of four major violations. It adds that the Sikh religion neither recommends nor prohibits eating meat, that not many Sikhs are habitual meat-eaters, and that some Sikh groups keep strictly to vegetarian food.
What animal welfare scientists found
Two expert reviews looked at slaughter without stunning. Stunning means making the animal unconscious first, for example with an electric current to the head. In 2003, the British government's Farm Animal Welfare Council heard the view that a swift cut with a very sharp knife is not painful. It found pain hard to measure. But it judged that so large a wound causes very significant pain until the animal can no longer feel. It put that time at 5-7 seconds in sheep, and 22-40 seconds in adult cattle, or longer if the cut arteries close. It urged the government to end the legal exemption that lets Jews and Muslims slaughter without stunning. In 2004, the European Food Safety Authority found that such an animal feels pain and fear until it loses consciousness. It put the time at up to 20 seconds in sheep, and up to 2 minutes in cattle. It concluded that animals should always be stunned before the cut. It also said that no way of stunning and killing is perfect, and that bad practice makes any way worse. Islam's answer, below, does not rest on calling any death painless.
The British government's advisory council on farm animal welfare heard the view that a neck cut is not painful if it is swift and made with an extremely sharp knife. It found pain at slaughter hard to measure objectively. But it was persuaded that so large a wound causes very significant pain and distress until the animal becomes insensible. It reported that sheep become insensible within 5-7 seconds of the cut, while adult cattle may take between 22 and 40 seconds, and longer when the cut arteries close up. It noted that many halal slaughterhouses use stuns shown not to kill the animal. It concluded that slaughter without stunning is unacceptable and that the government should repeal the exemption that allows it for Jewish and Muslim slaughter. Until then, it recommended an immediate stun after the cut for any animal not stunned before it.
The European Union's food safety agency reviewed the welfare of animals at stunning and killing. It found that an animal cut without stunning loses consciousness only after a certain loss of blood. Until then its welfare is poor because of pain, fear and other harm: the cut damages tissue rich in pain receptors, and the fall in blood pressure brings fear. It puts the time from the cut to insensibility at up to 20 seconds in sheep and up to 2 minutes in cattle. It concludes that, because of the serious welfare concerns of slaughter without stunning, the animal should always be stunned before the cut. It adds that there are no ideal methods of stunning and killing, and that bad practice increases the disadvantages of any method. The panel says it did not consider ethical, cultural or religious aspects.
Meat in the Pali canon
In a discourse of the Pali canon, the scripture of Theravada Buddhism, the Buddha tells Jivaka, a physician, when a monk may eat meat. He may not if he has seen, heard or suspected that the animal was killed for him. Otherwise he may. The same discourse says that whoever slaughters a creature specially for the Buddha or his disciple does much wrong. Two of its five reasons are the creature's pain as it is led along and as it is slaughtered. For a Buddhist the weight falls on the act of killing.
“In three cases I say that meat may not be eaten: it’s seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may not be eaten. In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.”
Excellence even in slaughter
The Prophet (ﷺ) said that Allah (﷾) has prescribed ihsan, excellence and doing things well, in everything. So when you slaughter, slaughter well: sharpen the blade and spare the animal suffering. Islam forbids cruelty to animals outright. The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade tying up an animal to kill it as a target. He said a woman entered the Fire because of a cat she tied up and starved. He also said that a man was forgiven for giving water to a thirsty dog. He said there is reward for kindness to every living creature.
Shaddad ibn Aws reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said Allah has prescribed excellence in everything. So when you slaughter, slaughter well: sharpen the blade and spare the animal suffering.
Hisham ibn Zayd reports that he visited a house with his grandfather Anas ibn Malik, where people had set up a hen as a target and were shooting arrows at it. Anas said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade tying up animals to be killed in this way.
Ibn Umar reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said a woman entered the Fire because of a cat she kept tied up, neither feeding it nor letting it go to find its own food.
Abu Huraira reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) told of a thirsty man who drank from a well, then saw a dog licking mud from thirst. He climbed down again, filled his shoe with water and gave the dog a drink, and God thanked him and forgave him. Asked whether there is reward for kindness to animals, the Prophet said there is reward for kindness to every living thing.
What the law requires at the cut
The International Islamic Fiqh Academy (fiqh is Islamic law) is a body of scholars from Muslim countries. In 1997 it set out the rules of slaughter after hearing jurists, doctors and food experts. The cut goes through the windpipe, the gullet and the two great veins of the neck, with a sharp blade. A blunt blade is forbidden. Allah's (﷾) name is spoken, as the Qur'an commands. The Academy lists manners of slaughter, for gentleness and mercy to the animal. The blade is not sharpened in front of the animal, and no animal is killed in sight of another. The animal is not tormented, and nothing is cut, skinned or scalded until it is dead. The Qur'an also forbids the meat of an animal killed by a violent blow, unless you are able to slaughter it. Scholars read this as slaughtered while still alive.
Issued after hearing jurists, doctors and food experts. Lawful slaughter cuts the windpipe, the gullet and the two jugular veins, with a sharp tool and the name of Allah. If the slaughterer forgets the name, the meat is still lawful. The Academy lists manners of slaughter, for gentleness and mercy to the animal. The blade is not sharpened in front of the animal, no animal is killed in sight of another, no blunt tool is used, and none is tormented. Nothing is cut, skinned, scalded or plucked until death is certain. On stunning, the Academy keeps slaughter without stunning as the basic rule. Its reason is that the Islamic method with its conditions and manners is the best, out of mercy to the animal, excellence in its slaughter and lessening of its suffering. It asks slaughterhouses to improve their methods for large animals, so that this rule is met in full. It asks Muslims in non-Muslim countries to seek legal permission for slaughter without stunning. It rules that animals slaughtered after stunning are lawful when technical conditions make sure the animal does not die before the cut. It names an electric stun to the head within set limits. It forbids stunning by a penetrating captive bolt, an axe or a hammer. It forbids the electric stunning of poultry, because experience showed that it kills a good number of birds before slaughter. It does not forbid an animal stunned by a carbon dioxide mixture or a mushroom-headed bolt, if this does not kill it before the cut.
“So eat of (meats) on which Allah's name hath been pronounced, if ye have faith in His signs.”
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form)”
What Muslim scholars say about stunning
The same Academy keeps slaughter without stunning as the basic rule. It gives its reason. The Islamic method, with its conditions and manners, is the best, out of mercy to the animal and to lessen its suffering. It asks slaughterhouses to improve their methods for large animals, so that this rule is met in full. It also rules that an animal stunned first and then slaughtered is lawful, if the stun does not kill it before the cut. It names an electric stun to the head within set limits. It forbids stunning with a penetrating bolt, an axe or a hammer. It forbids the electric stunning of poultry, because experience showed it kills a good number of birds before the cut. The animal must be alive at the cut, as the scholars read Qur'an 5:3. Muslims who must choose a method should ask a qualified scholar.
Issued after hearing jurists, doctors and food experts. Lawful slaughter cuts the windpipe, the gullet and the two jugular veins, with a sharp tool and the name of Allah. If the slaughterer forgets the name, the meat is still lawful. The Academy lists manners of slaughter, for gentleness and mercy to the animal. The blade is not sharpened in front of the animal, no animal is killed in sight of another, no blunt tool is used, and none is tormented. Nothing is cut, skinned, scalded or plucked until death is certain. On stunning, the Academy keeps slaughter without stunning as the basic rule. Its reason is that the Islamic method with its conditions and manners is the best, out of mercy to the animal, excellence in its slaughter and lessening of its suffering. It asks slaughterhouses to improve their methods for large animals, so that this rule is met in full. It asks Muslims in non-Muslim countries to seek legal permission for slaughter without stunning. It rules that animals slaughtered after stunning are lawful when technical conditions make sure the animal does not die before the cut. It names an electric stun to the head within set limits. It forbids stunning by a penetrating captive bolt, an axe or a hammer. It forbids the electric stunning of poultry, because experience showed that it kills a good number of birds before slaughter. It does not forbid an animal stunned by a carbon dioxide mixture or a mushroom-headed bolt, if this does not kill it before the cut.
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form)”
How halal animals are killed in England and Wales
The Food Standards Agency surveyed every slaughterhouse in England and Wales for one week in March 2022. It found that for all species most animals were stunned before slaughter. Of all sheep killed that week, 49.9% were stunned and killed by halal methods. Another 22.4% were killed by halal methods without stunning. In the 2018 survey the figures were 46.2% and 24.9%.
A survey of every slaughterhouse in England and Wales in one week, 7-13 March 2022, chosen to avoid religious festivals. It found that for all species most animals were stunned before slaughter. Of all sheep killed that week, 27.5% were killed by standard (non-religious) methods with stunning, 49.9% by halal methods with stunning, 22.4% by halal methods without stunning, and 0.2% by the Jewish method (shechita). Of all cattle, 3.7% were killed by halal methods with stunning and 0.1% by halal methods without.
The earlier survey of every slaughterhouse in England and Wales, in the week of 29 January to 4 February 2018. Of all sheep killed that week, 46.2% were killed by halal methods with stunning and 24.9% by halal methods without stunning.
Who gave the animal its life
Islam starts from the One who gave the animal its life. The Qur'an says God (﷾) created cattle for people, and of their meat they eat. It says to pronounce the name of Allah (﷾) over them, to eat, and to feed those in need. It says that their meat and blood do not reach Allah (﷾); piety does. It also says that every creature lives in a community like ours, and all will be gathered to their Lord. So in Islam the animal is a trust from God (﷾), killed in the way He allows, with His name spoken over it. The Qur'an invites every reader to consider it with care. The Prophet (ﷺ) who taught mercy even in slaughter is the one it calls the Seal of the Prophets.
“And cattle He has created for you (men): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat.”
“The sacrificial camels we have made for you as among the symbols from Allah: in them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment, and such as beg with due humility: thus have We made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful.”
“It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.”
“There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.”
“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.”
“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.”
Six replies answered
EFSA, Welfare aspects of stunning and killing (2004)
The European Union's food safety agency reviewed the welfare of animals at stunning and killing. It found that an animal cut without stunning loses consciousness only after a certain loss of blood. Until then its welfare is poor because of pain, fear and other harm: the cut damages tissue rich in pain receptors, and the fall in blood pressure brings fear. It puts the time from the cut to insensibility at up to 20 seconds in sheep and up to 2 minutes in cattle. It concludes that, because of the serious welfare concerns of slaughter without stunning, the animal should always be stunned before the cut. It adds that there are no ideal methods of stunning and killing, and that bad practice increases the disadvantages of any method. The panel says it did not consider ethical, cultural or religious aspects.
Cited for
Science shows that an animal cut without stunning feels pain, for up to 20 seconds in sheep and up to 2 minutes in cattle. So halal is cruel.
The response
Islam's answer does not rest on calling the cut painless. The Farm Animal Welfare Council heard the view that a swift cut with a very sharp knife is not painful. It judged that the wound causes very significant pain until the animal is insensible. Islam counts cruelty to an animal as a sin: a woman entered the Fire for starving her cat. Taking an animal's life for food is by the permission of the One who gave it. His law then forbids cruelty in the act. The blade must be sharp, and the cut swift, through the windpipe, the gullet and the great veins. The animal must not see the blade or another animal killed, and must not be tormented. Nothing is cut or skinned until it is dead. The Fiqh Academy keeps this cut as its basic rule, and gives mercy to the animal and less suffering as its reason. It also accepts a stun that leaves the animal alive at the cut.
Where it lands — In Islam slaughter for food is by God's (﷾) permission, and His law forbids cruelty in it. Its scholars weigh how best to lessen the animal's suffering (Muslim 1955; IIFA 95, 1997).
International Islamic Fiqh Academy, resolution 95 (10/3), 1997
Issued after hearing jurists, doctors and food experts. Lawful slaughter cuts the windpipe, the gullet and the two jugular veins, with a sharp tool and the name of Allah. If the slaughterer forgets the name, the meat is still lawful. The Academy lists manners of slaughter, for gentleness and mercy to the animal. The blade is not sharpened in front of the animal, no animal is killed in sight of another, no blunt tool is used, and none is tormented. Nothing is cut, skinned, scalded or plucked until death is certain. On stunning, the Academy keeps slaughter without stunning as the basic rule. Its reason is that the Islamic method with its conditions and manners is the best, out of mercy to the animal, excellence in its slaughter and lessening of its suffering. It asks slaughterhouses to improve their methods for large animals, so that this rule is met in full. It asks Muslims in non-Muslim countries to seek legal permission for slaughter without stunning. It rules that animals slaughtered after stunning are lawful when technical conditions make sure the animal does not die before the cut. It names an electric stun to the head within set limits. It forbids stunning by a penetrating captive bolt, an axe or a hammer. It forbids the electric stunning of poultry, because experience showed that it kills a good number of birds before slaughter. It does not forbid an animal stunned by a carbon dioxide mixture or a mushroom-headed bolt, if this does not kill it before the cut.
Cited for
Your own scholars keep slaughter without stunning as the basic rule. So Muslims prefer the method the scientists criticise.
The response
The Academy does keep it as the basic rule, and it gives its reason: mercy to the animal and less suffering. It asks slaughterhouses to improve their methods for large animals. The same ruling makes lawful an animal stunned without being killed. It sets technical conditions, defined by experts, to make sure of that. It forbids stunning with a penetrating bolt, an axe or a hammer. It forbids the electric stunning of poultry, because experience showed it kills a good number of birds first. Behind these conditions is the scholars' reading of Qur'an 5:3: an animal killed by a blow is forbidden unless it is slaughtered while still alive. A Muslim who must choose a method should ask a qualified scholar.
Where it lands — In Islam the fixed points are excellence in slaughter and, as the scholars read 5:3, a living animal at the cut. Within them, many scholars accept stunning (Muslim 1955; IIFA 95, 1997).
Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 1375 — Salok Kabir, the Bhagat Kabir
In a couplet of the Bhagat Kabir, who is in the Guru Granth Sahib and was not one of the ten Gurus, he asks what will become of those who kill living beings by force and call it lawful (halal) when God calls for their account. The next couplet says that using force is tyranny and that the Lord will call the doer to account.
Cited for
Kabir, in the Guru Granth Sahib, warns those who kill by force and call it halal. Calling a killing lawful does not make it right.
The response
In Islam, calling meat lawful does not make it lawful. Only God (﷾), who gave the animal its life, can permit its taking. He permits it for food, in His way, with His name (16:5; 6:118). That way forbids cruelty and commands excellence in slaughter: a sharp blade, a swift cut, and the animal spared suffering. Kabir calls killing by force tyranny. Islam forbids tyranny over any creature, and cruelty to an animal is a sin. But taking a life is not tyranny when the Giver of life permits it and it is done in His way.
Where it lands — In Islam a killing is lawful by God's (﷾) permission and His conditions, which forbid cruelty (Muslim 1955; 6:118).
Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, "Jhatka"
Defines jhatka as the Sikh way of killing an animal for food: the head is severed at a single stroke, and the entry also names killing by gunshot or electrocution. It says the idea is to kill with the minimum of suffering to the animal, and it contrasts jhatka with kuttha, which it describes as meat of an animal slaughtered by a slow process in the Muslim way known as halal. It records that Sikh codes of conduct and chronicles count eating kuttha as one of four major violations. It adds that the Sikh religion neither recommends nor prohibits eating meat, that not many Sikhs are habitual meat-eaters, and that some Sikh groups keep strictly to vegetarian food.
Cited for
Jhatka kills with a single stroke and the least suffering. The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism calls halal a slow process, so jhatka is the kinder way.
The response
The Sikh point is that death after a halal cut is not instant. That is so: loss of consciousness takes time, longer in cattle than in sheep, and Islam does not claim otherwise. Islam commands what the slaughterer controls. The cut is swift, with a sharp blade, through the windpipe, the gullet and the great veins. The animal is not frightened, and no animal sees another killed. Many Muslim scholars also accept a stun before the cut that does not kill. The European Food Safety Authority adds that bad practice makes any method worse. Islam commands that slaughter be done well.
Where it lands — Islam does not call the cut painless. It commands a sharp blade, a swift cut and no fear. Many scholars accept a stun that does not kill (Muslim 1955; IIFA 95, 1997).
Qur'an 16:5 — Surat al-Nahl (The Bee), verse 5
“And cattle He has created for you (men): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat.”
Cited for
Any killing for food is avoidable harm. Plants are enough, so slaughter is cruel however it is done.
The response
No one who becomes Muslim has to eat meat. The question is whether eating what the Creator gave as food is wrong in itself. Only the One who made the animal can say what He made it for. The Qur'an says He made cattle for people, and of their meat they eat (16:5). It also says not to forbid the good things He made lawful (5:87). God (﷾) has prescribed excellence even at the kill (Muslim 1955). And their meat and blood do not reach Him; piety does (22:37).
Where it lands — Meat is permitted, not required, and it is taken only as the Giver of life allows, with mercy (16:5; 22:37; Muslim 1955).
Majjhima Nikaya 55 — Middle Discourses, discourse 55 (With Jivaka), segments 5.1-5.6
“In three cases I say that meat may not be eaten: it’s seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may not be eaten. In three cases I say that meat may be eaten: it’s not seen, heard, or suspected. These are three cases in which meat may be eaten.”
Cited for
The Buddha says that whoever slaughters a creature for a monk does wrong. Two of his reasons are the creature's pain as it is led along and as it is slaughtered (MN 55).
The response
In Islam the question is whether the Giver of life permits the killing. He does, for food, with His name spoken (16:5; 6:118). He also binds the one who kills to spare the animal suffering: a sharp blade, a swift cut, no fear. So in Islam the one who kills is not left to his own judgement. He answers to God (﷾) for how he does it.
Where it lands — In Islam slaughter is permitted by the Giver of life, and the one who slaughters answers to Him for any cruelty (16:5; Muslim 1955).
Perspectives
Sikh teaching
The Sikh code of conduct forbids a Sikh who has taken the initiation to eat kutha, meat slaughtered the Muslim way. Kabir, whose hymns are in the Guru Granth Sahib, warns those who kill by force and call it halal. Sikh tradition names jhatka, killing with a single stroke, as its own way.
Kabir warns those who kill living beings by force and call it halal. They will be called to account by God (Ang 1375).
Rebuttal
Calling meat halal does not make it so. It is lawful only because God (﷾), who gave the animal its life, permits it, in His way and with His name. That way forbids cruelty and commands excellence even in slaughter.
Kabir asks why people kill fowls if they say the one God is in everything (Ang 1350).
Rebuttal
In Islam God (﷾) is the Creator, and nothing is like Him (42:11). The creature is not God or part of Him. He made cattle for people, and of their meat they eat (16:5).
The Sikh Rehat Maryada lists eating kutha, meat slaughtered the Muslim way, among the four transgressions.
Rebuttal
The article states a rule for initiated Sikhs and gives no reason. It does not say the halal method is cruel. Whether a method is cruel is judged by what it requires.
The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism says jhatka, a single stroke, is meant to kill with the least suffering. It calls halal a slow process.
Rebuttal
After a halal cut, the animal does not lose consciousness at once, and Islam does not claim it does. It commands what the slaughterer can control: a sharp blade, a swift cut through the great veins, and no fear for the animal. Many Muslim scholars also accept a stun before the cut, as long as it does not kill.
Animal welfare science
Scientific reviews in Britain and the European Union found serious animal welfare problems in slaughter without stunning. They recommended that every animal be stunned before the cut.
EFSA (2004) found that an animal cut without stunning suffers pain and fear until it loses consciousness. That takes up to 20 seconds in sheep and up to 2 minutes in cattle. It concluded that animals should always be stunned before the cut.
Rebuttal
Islam does not claim that any death is painless. Its law forbids the cruelties people add: a blunt blade, fear, torment, and any cutting before death. Many Muslim scholars also accept a stun that leaves the animal alive at the cut.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council (2003) called slaughter without stunning unacceptable. It urged the government to end the exemption that allows it.
Rebuttal
Islam's answer is its law of mercy at the kill, which forbids a blunt blade, fear, and any cutting before death. Many Muslim scholars also accept a stun that does not kill. The Council itself noted such stuns in many halal slaughterhouses.
Buddhist: do not kill living beings
The first Buddhist precept is to refrain from killing living beings. Many Buddhists hold that slaughtering an animal for food is wrong in itself, however it is done.
Killing any living being is wrong, so no way of slaughtering can be kind.
Rebuttal
The Buddha himself let his monks eat meat, as long as they had not seen, heard or suspected that it was killed for them. So meat was eaten, and someone had killed the animal. Islam faces that honestly. The One who made the animal allows its meat. And He commands that slaughter be done well, with a sharp blade, sparing the animal suffering.
Jain: no harm to any living being
Jainism teaches ahimsa, non-harm, above all. The Acaranga Sutra says that all breathing, living creatures should not be slain or tormented, and a lay Jain may never eat meat.
All breathing, living creatures should not be slain or tormented, so no slaughter can be kind.
Rebuttal
Islam teaches mercy to every creature. It names cruelty to a cat as a cause of the Fire. Slaughter must be done well, and no one who becomes Muslim has to eat meat. The difference is that Islam holds that the Creator, who made the animal, allowed its meat.
The Islamic perspective
Islam forbids cruelty to animals and commands excellence even in slaughter. God (﷾) gave the animal its life. Its meat is lawful when it is slaughtered in the way He allows, with His name spoken over it.
The Prophet (ﷺ) commanded that slaughter be done well: a sharp blade, and the animal spared suffering.
The Prophet (ﷺ) warned that a woman went into the Fire for starving a cat. And he promised reward for kindness to every living creature.
The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade tying up an animal to kill it as a target.
The International Islamic Fiqh Academy requires the cut to be made with a sharp blade, never a blunt one, and with the name of Allah (﷾). Out of gentleness and mercy, it forbids two things. One is sharpening the blade in front of the animal. The other is killing one animal where another can see.
The Academy keeps slaughter without stunning as the basic rule, out of mercy to the animal. It also rules that an animal is lawful if it is stunned and then slaughtered while still alive. The scholars read Qur'an 5:3 as requiring the animal to be alive at the cut.
God (﷾) created cattle for people's food, and permits their meat when His name is pronounced over them. Their meat and blood do not reach Him; piety does.