This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1 A Case for Zabiha Halal in the UK | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
A Case for Zabiha Halal in the UK
Authors:
Masood Butt, MA (Econ), MBA, DBA, GDL – Law Consultant and Director of
B-Legal, Business and Law Consultants, Birmingham
Contributors:
Dr. Alia Siddiqi – MBBS, MRCGP – General Practitioner, Researcher on Comparative study of
Pain and Slaughter of animals.
Dr. A Majid Katme - MBBCh,DPM – Chairman, Islamic Medical Association, UK
May be used free of charge. Selling without prior written consent prohibited. Obtain permission before redistributing. In
all cases copyright notice/disclaimer must remain intact’
2 ABSTRACT | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a response from British Muslims in the background of current campaign
which has started to make way for allowing stunned meat to be labeled as Halal. The report
points out some of the defects in the current publications being used to support the legislation
and suggests how to overcome the issues without jeopardizing community relations and potential
economic prospects.
3 A Case for Zabiha Halal in the UK | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
A Case for Zabiha Halal in the UK
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper has been commissioned by Association of Non Stun Abattoirs (ANSA) to B-Legal
Business and Law Consultants in Birmingham to produce a considered response to the current
debate which has started within the British Muslim community in relation to the forthcoming
proposed legislation of the labeling of Halal Meat in the UK. The authors and contributors have
had sight of two papers named, “Effects of Slaughter Method on Carcass and Meat
Characteristics in the meat of cattle and sheep by Dr M. Haluk Anil and “A Briefing Paper on
Religious Slaughter to the Members of Parliament” by Christopher Barclay1, which resulted in a
community wide consultation and discussions leading to a Birmingham Declaration confirming
the current position of the British Muslim Community on this issue.
For convenience the response paper is divided into 5 sections named Background, Critical
Appraisal of the Current Publications, Economic Analysis, and Conclusion.
The aims of this report are as follows:
1. To review the current research and publications circulated in support of the stunning of
the meat for British Muslims and provide a written response;
2. To help support the British Government to make inclusive legislation satisfying
proportionality and reasonableness measures;
3. To provide additional information and take active part in the consultation for the
legislation on behalf of the British Muslim community;
4. To highlight areas of concern and identify ways to work together to address the issues.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The current legislation in the UK (and most of the EU countries) makes provision for religious
communities (Muslims and Jews) to slaughter animals by religious method (i.e. without
stunning). There is an on-going campaign from various sectors (notably Animal Welfare Groups,
veterinarians and some sections of the media) to ban the religious method of slaughter, which
they describe as a cruel method. Most recently this campaign has been intensified.
4 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
It is believed that a new EU regulation “Protection of Animals at the Time of
Slaughter”(1099/2009) is due to be implemented from January 2013 across EU countries. It is
concerned with improving standards and training individuals working in the Food industry. This
requires changes in domestic regulations. The UK Government through DEFRA are drafting
new regulations which it is alleged pose a serious threat to the current method of religious
slaughter (namely, without stunning).
These proposed changes, along with a host of other campaigns being run by Islamophobic
elements, are posing a serious threat to the availability of Zabihah (non-Stun) meat - the Islamic
method of slaughter. It is submitted that for British Muslims, it is nothing less than a threat to
their freedom to practice their religious way of life.
3.0 CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE CURRENT PUBLICATIONS
Responding to an article in the British Veterinary Record, by Prof Bill Reilly, calling for
religious slaughter to be curbed, a spokesman for Shechita UK said:
"Prof Reilly’s superficial and imprecise musings about religious slaughter in the UK are
indicative of the wider, extraordinarily unscientific approach to the debate on religious
slaughter. He, and others like him, consistently draw on a tiny pool of deeply flawed, long since
discredited scientific research to suggest that religious slaughter is inhumane. The fact is that
there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support his position, and many claiming to have
science on their side are either ill-informed or agenda-driven. Shechita is a rapid, humane
method of slaughter which incorporates an immediate and irreversible stun by causing an
immediate collapse in cerebral perfusion which conforms to both domestic and European
definitions of stunning. If Prof Reilly is truly concerned with animal welfare, his time would be
better spent campaigning against the so called ‘humane’ methods of mechanical stunning
including captive bolt shooting, gassing, electrocution, drowning and clubbing, not to mention
1 This paper describes the methods of slaughter used by the Jewish and Muslim religions. EU law, like UK law before
it, requires farm animals to be stunned before slaughter, but there is an exception for religious slaughter. This
information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties.
5 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
the many millions of animals who are ‘mis-stunned’ every year, requiring them to be re-stunned,
causing additional and unnecessary suffering.”
Similarly the Islamic Medical Association and British Muslims were shocked on 5th May 2012
to see an erroneous, misguided statement written by Professor Bill Reilly (a consultant in
veterinary public health) regarding the religious slaughter of animals used by Muslims and Jews,
where he accused Halal slaughter of being cruel to animals when not using secular stunning
methods before slaughter!
Furthermore in the opening paragraph of his briefing to the Members of the Parliament
Christopher Barclay incorrectly says,” Islamic food rules, for Halal meat, can be satisfied with
animals stunned before slaughter if animals do not die as a result of the stun”.
This statement is not factual. To the contrary it is a cardinal tenet of the Islamic faith that the
laws of Halal were divinely given to Mohammed (peace and blessing be upon him) by Allah in
chapters such as Al-Ma'idah2 Chapter 5:verse3, in the Quran.
The rules governing Zabihah are codified and defined and are as binding and valued today as
ever and they ensure a swift and painless dispatch of the animal.
Infringing the laws of Zabihah renders the meat unconditionally forbidden as food to Muslims.
The time hallowed practice of Zabihah, marked as it is by compassion and consideration for the
welfare of the animal, has been a central pillar in the sustaining of Islamic life for millennia.
Surely stunning is a new invention and is contradictory to the Prophet Muhammad's (peace and
blessing be up on him) way which British Muslims believe to be the Divine way!
For the followers of Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessing be up on him) the debate on stun
and non stun was concluded as in Al-Ma'idah mentioned above.
2 Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah
, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow (Stunning) or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
6 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
2. EBLEX own report THE HALAL MEAT MARKET 2010, Specialist supply chain structures
and consumer purchase and consumption profiles in England, states clearly when given the
choice Muslims prefer Non-Stun Method of slaughter for it to be halal.
3. British Muslim consumers in the United Kingdom are not aware that the meat they are being
sold is pre-stunned. This information has recently been highlighted by the Food Standards
Agency.
To date this information is not in the public domain but as the matter progresses and where the
issue is not maintained by the Government there is a risk that it may well commence to cause
devastating effects on the Halal meat market in the United Kingdom. Due to increased anti-
Muslim media and heightened Islamophobia in European countries the British Muslims already
feel marginalized when it comes to fair share of their rights as British Citizens. For instance most
of the deprived wards of England unfortunately have higher percentages of Muslim population
with no real job prospects suffering with lack of health facilities and lack of community
empowerment. Under this background when they perceive that their fundamental rights of
religious freedom and what they eat are mishandled it may well lead to economic downturn,
social exclusion and increased community dissatisfaction.
Most of the British Muslims currently purchase Halal meat assuming it is non-stun zabiha meat
which conforms to their religious obligations.
With access to and an understanding of this information British Government must realize that a
sudden decline in the Halal meat consumption by labeling stunned meat as Halal will have
adverse effect on British Muslim Consumer confidence and may well contribute to more
closures in the slaughterhouses eventually resulting further job losses.
4. It is submitted that there may have been alleged breaches of WASK 1995 regulation with
regards to religious slaughter. In the guidelines it is stated that ‘stunning’ means any
intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain,
7 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
including any process resulting in instantaneous death,” By implication it is therefore submitted
that concerned FBOs (Food Business Operators) using the recoverable stun may be therefore in
breach of WASK 1995 guidelines.
5. For further reference it is confirmed in an email to ANSA from Geoff Webddale/Defra dated
Thursday, 9 August 2012 “I am not clear why someone who chooses to stun an animal in the
context of religious slaughter would want the animal to recover consciousness before the point
of death unless it is to demonstrate the stun is recoverable. Demonstrating recovery is considered
to be experimentation on live animals. This is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986 and such experiments can only be undertaken if a license has been issued by the Home
Office for that purpose. Further, any attempt to demonstrate recovery is likely to lead to
avoidable pain, distress and/or suffering to the animal involved. This is contrary to the provisions
at Article 3(1) of Regulation 1099/2009.”
6.The Association of Non Stun Abattoirs (ANSA) has been in consultation with DEFRA yet no
mention in the briefing notes whereas HFA (Halal Food Authority) are used as reference point
which conveniently thought against British Muslim community’s interest support stunning. This
should not be the case and it is submitted that any facts and figures must be supplied by
DEFRA/EBLEX in a proportionate manner.
Halal Food Authority is not a reference point for halal, as matter of fact they are allegedly most
disliked certifier by the British Muslim community. According to Muslim Scholars in Nuneaton
issued fatwa the HFA certification is not halal.
7. A meeting3 was organised across the UK following the FSA report on religious slaughter on
Saturday 2 June 2012 which witnessed some of the largest gathering of national establishments
including ANSA, Birmingham Council of Mosques, Bradford Council for Mosques, MUSE,
HMC, MCB and other leading Muslim representative bodies jointly averring non-stun (Zabiha)
17 Muslims of all major branches of Islam sign “Birmingham Declaration” | B-Legal
Business and Law Consultants
indeed internationally. The culmination of our meetings and contacts up and down the country has been the
recognition of the necessity to have a unified approach to tackling this issue”.
He continued, “By the grace of Almighty Allah we have had success in our campaign and as a result we now have
agreement from a number of national organisations on the need to get together and devise a joint strategy.
UK Halal commission has been welcomed by all sections of the Muslim community.”
Molana Israr Hussain Kazmi M.U.S.E (Majlis-E- ulama Shia Europe)….said “This historical event which has united all
section of the Muslim community under the banner of UK Halal Commission this will only lead to good outcomes”.
The first meeting of this unique organisation will take place in Bradford hosted by Bradford Council for Masjids in the
next few weeks (date to be confirmed) to select office bearers.
18 Appendix 2 | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants
Appendix 2
UK - Abattoir controversy attracts fascists and racists promoting "Hate"
30 Aug 2012 Recent proposals to reopen an abattoir in Skegness have attracted local opposition, with a facebook group and online petition set up. The Heath Road abattoir closed down in January after it ran into financial difficulties , and the proposed re-opening has generated opposition because slaughter methods used there would be halal.
Although the initial opposition was not overly linked to the far-right, fascists have been quick to take an interest in the issue, with the BNP’s Lincolnshire Coastal branch adopting it as their main campaigning theme. Other groups have been sniffing around the issue as well, and it’s certain that none would have criticised the abattoir reopening if it were to be staffed by “indigenous” knifemen. Ritual slaughter for halal is becoming an important focus for the far-right, with the BNP in particular targeting it; they recently held a (piss-poorly attended) national
picket of a branch of Subway in Sunderland which sells halal meat. They aim to portray their opposition to halal on the grounds of animal welfare, but unsurprisingly this rings rather hollow on investigation; there is no opposition from the fascists to factory farming in general, nor is there any indication of what they consider acceptable practice in a slaughterhouse might look like – the latest fundraising dinner of the Lincolnshire Coastal BNP featured Lincolnshire sausage, presumably obtained from consenting pigs who died quietly in their sleep, or something….. The halal meat issue is (of course!) more complex than it is painted by the BNP. It is often argued by muslims that slaughter without pre-stunning (which is the central issue giving grounds to accusations of cruelty) is actually less distressful for the poor animal than the conventional methods of stunning – although almost every animal welfare organisation disagrees, and what scientific evidence there is suggests that stunning is less traumatic. For what it’s worth, this writer would guess that pre-stunning is indeed “less cruel”, but hopefully I’ll never know for sure. However, it is important to note that, contrary to general impression, halal rules do permit the pre-stunning of animals, as long as the stunning itself does not kill the animal. It is also important to note that there are several interpretations of halal rules in practice – for example, there are differences about which methods of stunning are acceptable. The RSPCA cites an estimate, from the Meat Hygiene Service, that around 90% of UK halal-slaughtered animals are in fact pre-stunned – in other words, from a welfare standpoint, they are treated much the same as the majority of animals killed in non-ritual abattoirs. (The majority killed for kosher consumption are also pre-stunned, incidentally). The BNP are yet again displaying their opportunism in portraying halal as “truly barbaric” and “un-British”, whilst showing no analysis of its complexities, nor any campaign on factory farming in general. Their failure to mention kosher slaughter, which is very similar to halal in most practical aspects, also shows their expediency – it’s not considered strategic to be overtly anti-semitic at the moment.
19 UK - Abattoir controversy attracts fascists and racists promoting "Hate" | B-Legal
Business and Law Consultants
A more progressive strategy for ensuring animal welfare in halal and kosher is not hard to imagine, perhaps involving campaigning for universal application of stunning to all ritual slaughter, for example. Of course many would argue that a slaughterhouse can never be “humane”….and non-halal abattoirs are certainly not exempt from shocking breaches of welfare standards. The key point here is that any worthwhile campaign on animal welfare must be careful to deprive the far-right of another opportunity to demonise British muslims. The BNP and other fascist hangers-on will be unable to make political capital out of the Skegness abattoir controversy if they are opposed, and we hope that – yet again – they will be shown for the two-faced opportunists that they are.
20 UK - Abattoir controversy attracts fascists and racists promoting "Hate" | B-Legal
Business and Law Consultants
Appendix 3
ANIMAL WELFARE AND HALAL MEAT
IN RESPONSE TO ARTICLE OF GLEN JANVERY
PUBLISHED IN ASIANTRIBUNE.COM
By
Masood Butt
MA (Econ), DBA, MBA, GDL
I am writing in response to the article published by Glen Jenvery dated 24 July 2012 in
Asiantribune.com and wonder what precisely is he trying to explain. Is he unhappy about the
new Assured Food Standard being ambiguous or is he unhappy that why this standard does in
fact includes Halal Meat as well.
He takes particular effort in expressing his shock to learn that he may well be eating Halal meat
blessed with Islamic prayers and the animal having its throat cut until the blood drains out.
He further elaborates that Islamic Law requires all blood drained from the meat which is true. So
I therefore thought of undertaking some voluntary investigation into part of his concern and
directed myself to the sources of dietary laws in Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths.
To my pleasant surprise I discovered that all three major religions which are also tagged as
“Abrahamic Faith” had verses within their respective religious books highlighting the dietary
rule that “eating or consuming blood is prohibited. For example in Genises chapter 9 verse 4
says “But you are not to eat meat with blood in it.”
I further provide for the reader’s interest and satisfaction Barnes' Notes on the Bible ,” The first
restriction on the grant of animal food is thus expressed: "Flesh with its life, its blood, shall ye
not eat." The animal must be slain before any part of it is used for food. And as it lives so long as
the blood flows in its veins, the life-blood must be drawn before its flesh may be eaten. The
design of this restriction is to prevent the horrid cruelty of mutilating or cooking an animal
while yet alive and capable of suffering pain. The draining of the blood from the body is an
obvious occasion of death, and therefore the prohibition to eat the flesh with the blood of life is
a needful restraint from savage cruelty. It is also intended, perhaps, to teach that the life of the
animal, which is in the blood, belongs not to man, but to God himself, who gave it. He makes
account of it for atonement in sacrifice; otherwise it is to be poured on the ground and covered