Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers

International Journal of Poultry Sciences

A miracle?

A study published last year found histological differences between two groups of broiler meat slaughtered according to two different methods. The only variable was the “naming of Allah” spoken during the slaughtering of chickens in one of the groups.

Research published research in the International Journal of Poultry Science found that

Histological changes observed in broilers chickens slaughtered without naming of Allah consist mainly on congestive areas localized in blood vessels of the liver and pectoral muscles in some cases focal edema have been observed. While the liver and pectoral muscles of broilers slaughtered with Islamic method showed normal structure and no congestion have been noticed.

The article reporting the research is this one:

Tarek, K., Mohamed, M., Omar, B., Hassina, B. & Messaouda, I. (2013). Histological changes in liver and pectoral muscles of broiler chickens slaughtered with and without naming of Allah. International Journal of Poultry Science 12, 550-552.

The authors are affiliated with the University of Batna in Algeria. The journal is published by ANSINetwork (Asian Network for Scientific Information), a publisher that has been on my list of questionable publishers since I first started it in 2010. It’s based in Pakistan.

It is important to note that that the muscle tissues were not evaluated in a double-blinded fashion, or at least the text does not indicate the samples were evaluated this way. In other words, it appears the researchers knew which group each chicken came from when they examined the muscle tissue samples.

This article raises several questions:

1. Are the results reproducible? If not, what are the implications for scientists who repeat the research and get contradictory findings?

2. Is it a good idea to bring religion into scientific research?

3. Are scholarly journals a proper venue for such research?

The article doesn’t explain exactly how the histological changes occur, or whether the process is biological or not. Is this article a valuable contribution to poultry science?

24 Responses to Researchers Find “Naming Of Allah” Prevents Certain Histological Changes in Slaughtered Broilers

  1. Rob Labruyère says:

    Holy chicken!

  2. hahahahahaha…is this science or a comedy? Can we know the mechanism of action of the name? Soon another article will also say naming of Budha prevents certain histological changes, etc. Histological changes are influenced by many factors and in a study like this if the researchers are muslims the chances of bias will be very high and so the results will not be reliable. I will take this study serious if it was somebody like Mr Beall that carried out the research or some neutral scientist. I am beginning to wonder how and why International Journal of Poultry Science published such a paper!

  3. Yurii says:

    Is there a dose dependency? Does the extent of changes depend on the number of times the name of Allah was mentioned? What kind of negative and positive controls were used? Is naming Iblis or Shayṭan reverse the observed changes?

  4. Jurgen Ziesmann says:

    The most amazing part of the whole paper is its statistics section … that is … there is none whatsoever. You just have to trust the researchers. An amazing example of non existing peer review.

  5. Jurgen Ziesmann says:

    To answer your questions 1.) Repeating the experiments and come to a different outcome … if you are not muslim, then here you have the reason why it did not work, as God knows you and does not respond to empty words … however if you are muslim it may cost you your life, as it shows that you are just faking your faith, otherwise God would have responded. As you only can lose, in either case you should reproduce it the way it has been done … select and chose your examples and make a statement without any basis exactly like this published “study”. 2.) Yes it is. I am absolutley in favor of testing any question a person has with scientific methods. Christians have tried to investigate if prayer for sick people works. I am not at all in favor for “censorship” of what can be asked. If the effectiveness of homeopatic medicines can be investigated, then also if religious rites change anything. I am against censorship and thought control.
    3.) Yes, sholarly journals are a venue to publish the outcome of even such questions. However, the research done must be based on scientific standards. And here is the mistake of the paper … the research has been done and described in the most unscientific way possible. Peer review has not happened. Scientific standards like double blind testing and statistical analysis completely omitted. This manuscript should have been rejected by any journal that claims to be scholarly based on lack of follwing basic scientific standards. However, if scientific standards are followed, all questions should be allowed and it also should be possible to publish results. We cannot afford an institution of “scientific inquisition” – the freedom to think what you want to think and the freedom to investigate what you want to investigate is a much to high value.

    • Dave Langers says:

      I completely agree with Jurgen.
      To Q2 and Q3 the answer should be a resounding “yes”! Of course science should be allowed to investigate any claim that religion makes that lends itself to being tested. There are awfully few of them as it is, and even in this case I don’t think any statement in the Bible or Quran has much to say a priori about congestion in liver and pectoral muscles. But at least these authors now seem to be forwarding the testable hypothesis that there is a difference. We also have to consider the alternate hypothesis that chickens care about whether and how they are talked to, however, so the control condition leaves something to be desired. Also, whether such research should be funded from public resources is another question that I would be more inclined to answer negatively.
      The answer to Q1 is about as obvious as that to “does water burn at room temperature?”. Of course I would not forbid the question to be considered, but in the absence of “extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims” I would not spoil an otherwise okay blog with it.

  6. Ken Lanfear says:

    This is yet another example of the harm done by predatory journals. I’m going to assume the authors were honest in their intentions. Legitimate peer review almost certainly would have rejected this article, but would have provided the authors suggestions for testing their hypothesis in a more rigorous manner. Instead, this journal took their money and let the authors get ridiculed.

    • SD says:

      You overestimate the level of knowledge in the peer communities of some areas and underestimate the level of perceived cultural relevance for such types of research. In other words, the problem is far more systematic and institutionalized than many academics outside these systems realize.

  7. Schmuck says:

    This article raises several questions:

    1. Are the results reproducible? If not, what are the implications for scientists who repeat the research and get contradictory findings?
    – I am with Jurgen on that

    2. Is it a good idea to bring religion into scientific research?
    – There will be always somebody who will do that. Get the conclusion first from (insert the religious textbook here), then design and experiment to produce results to support their preconceived conclusions.

    3. Are scholarly journals a proper venue for such research?
    – It depends on what is considered science (the meaning of the word IS is).

  8. H. Mousavi says:

    And related “A Malaysian shaman – or “Bomoh” – wielding coconuts and bamboo binoculars to locate missing flight MH370, has triggered a mixture of outrage and embarrassment from the country’s social media users.” (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-26564562)

  9. […] Jeffrey Beall, who spotted this article, notes obvious methodological flaws in the study, and shows remarkable composure as he raises a number of questions: […]

  10. mimit says:

    Say, “I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Q.S. 6 (Al-An’am) : 145)

  11. Mostafa says:

    Tell me who designed and created the universe with everything in it and I will tell you that is the answer that you want to hide.

    Very nice, interesting and logical article.

    • DEUS says:

      Could you please provide an argument to convince us that this is an interesting and logical article?

      Please remember, “An argument has 3 parts: supporting material, a claim, and a warrant. ”

      In the abscence of proper controls and solid methodology I can’t really say that this is an interesting and a logical article. I would like to, as a poultry researcher, but I really can’t.

    • Schmuck says:

      It is the FORCE, and unless you can prove otherwise I’ll stick to my story

  12. Sarah Bond says:

    There is a pathologist at our university who has done interesting work that blends religion and science. She was asked to examine some slides (pretty standard fare for a pathologist), completely blinded. She assumed it was for a lawsuit (again, pretty standard fare for pathologists). Turns out it was for the Vatican and she was charged with verifying a miracle. She describes herself as “an atheist who believes in miracles:. The BBC profiled her work here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24660240

  13. D Srilatha says:

    I went through the article—the method the authors discuss here is probably ‘halal’, used in sacrificing animals and poultry during Eid, and also every time an animal/poultry is to be cooked; halal refers to a way of ‘sacrificing’ animals and poultry that is endorsed by Islam; it could be in my opinion, a way of ensuring minimal meat spoilage.

  14. […] la maggior efficacia dell’acqua santa, occorre rispondere alle tre domande fatte dal dott. Beall in merito allo studio […]

  15. DrZia Shah says:

    halal way of cutting the chicken might be the reason of these differences. and the author may have taken naming Allah and cutting in a halal manner as synonyms as the case seems to be. and its very true that two different cutting methods will have different results in muscle contractions.

    • DEUS says:

      Really? How the different cutting methods may have different results in muscle contractions? References please.

  16. Ajao Hadiyat says:

    Interesting! Why not let others try it and see whether it is reproducible or not. The believe is science is neutral so the bias that science should not be employed to prove a religious truth should be jettisoned.

  17. Dear colleagues I have recently received your critics about my published article entitled

    Histological Changes in Liver and Pectoral Muscles of Broiler Chickens Slaughtered with and Without Naming of Allah

    Your points of view were quite professional and authentic . what I have understood is that all your guiding opinions were based on one Idea which is “ science has nothing to do with religion “ and that you find my study has a religious background which means ‘’subjectivity ‘’ .
    Colleagues , I want to remind you that this study in particular was performed methodically with real scientific experiments and tools and the results were true and undoubted .whatever my religious background ,my beliefs or my thought is ; my study should be judged objectively out of its religious content .
    I tried to show you a real scientific phenomenon ; the couple of experiments showed clearly the impact of a particular human speech’’ sounds” (Bismi Allahi Allahu Akbbar/ In the name of Allah god is the greatest’ on animal body and the comparison between two samples slaughtered the same way left nothing to discuss
    Colleagues, science has always raised the slogan of “objectivity’ ‘ I wish that my study would be judged objectively regardless my religious background .
    Responding to some questions :
    Answer1 : This is a new study and no one tried to repeat it yet so no one can assume that it’s non reproducible ; if that happened and any contradiction is found please send it me so that you enrich the study .
    Answer2 :science has explored many domains ,solved many problems and cured many diseases ;it have been always in the favour of humanity but in the other hand hundreds of questions still waiting for answers and hundreds of phenomena still waiting for explanations science has no barriers ,even religious troubles needs discussion and treatment ,we must stop escaping from metaphysical phenomena which effects human life,
    Answer3: scholarly journals have been always a field for new ,revolutionary and fearless subjects and publishing such an article is a scientific duty
    Finally ,this topic has gained a huge critic and echo means simply that this issue deserves to be reproduced and published to be read in a larger scale

    kind regards

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,916 other followers

%d bloggers like this: