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

Advisers to ANSA

1ST

SEPTEMBER 2012

‘A Case for Zabiha Halal in the UK’ Copyright © 2012 Masood Butt – B-Legal Business and Law

Consultants

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)

3http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/050612/uk___muslims_of_all_major_branches_of_

islam_sign_birmingham_declaration.aspx

8 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

to be the agreed upon prophetic method for Halal slaughter. HMC also held an emergency

meeting calling the protection of the religious slaughter in the UK.

8. The debate4 which took place in Nuneaton on 3rd of June 2012 was again attended by some of

the country’s British Imams who unanimously rejected machine slaughter of animals for halal

consumption. The ruling indirectly attacked HFA certification and paved the foundation for legal

action.

9. Most recently in August 2012 in Birmingham President of Sunni Union Movement and

honorable Member of National Assembly of Pakistan, Sahibzada Fazal Karim, in the presence of

well-known British Muslim Scholars and Imams declared that it is fundamental religious right

of the British Muslims to eat Non-Stun Zabiha Halal Meat which is the only true Halal in any

interpretation and understanding of the Prophetic method.

10. It is therefore submitted in the words of Mr Hamid Ahmad5, Ex-Head, Meat Research

Laboratory, Pakistan Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (PCSIR), Govt. of Pakistan,

Lahore, Pakistan and Member, Halal Food Standards Technical Committee, Pakistan Standards

& Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), Ministry of Science & Technology, Govt. of Pakistan

that, “

• Halal Slaughter of Animals is a religious act. Science is secondary in it. Science can

enter only if & where it does not interfere with religious essentials.

• Stunning is allegedly performed to induce unconsciousness and insensibility in animals

so that shackling, hoisting and slaughter can be carried out without causing the animal

any avoidable pain, suffering or distress.

4http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/070612/uk___islamic_scholars_say_no_to_machin

e_slaughtered_animals.aspx

• 5 Commercial-Halal-Slaughter-–Science-and-Religion by Hamid Ahmad, Meat International, e-Edition, Sat.

07,Jan. 2010

9 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

• But stunning injures the animal – so animal is not healthy anymore. In some cases may

Kill -so in that case the animal not alive at Halal neck-cut.

• Some scholars even say it amounts to causing pain to the animal twice or killing the

animal twice.

4.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

According to Pew Research Centre’s Forum on Religion & Public Life (2009) there are 1.8

billion Muslims in the World. Almost 300 million lived in non-Muslim Countries. Global Halal

products market is estimated at US$2.3 trillion excluding Islamic banking. It is submitted that

there is largest Muslim population in Europe after Asia and Africa and the market size of halal

food in Europe is estimated to be around ~15 billion Euros in 2009. It has high purchasing

power, rather than population size. Therefore, the European Halal market carries a lot of

potential for good exporters.

The current estimated UK Population is around £56m. It is believed that there are around 3

million British Muslims in the UK. It is said that 10 political constituencies are with largest

Muslim voters and 13 with significant Muslim voters. There are estimated more than 10,000

Muslim owned restaurants in Greater London and around 3500 other business. There are 5000

British Muslim Millionaires.

The estimated spending power of the British Muslims in the United Kingdom is around £25-

£30billion per annum.

In this background the market for Halal meat is a commodity which if properly quality marked

and sold in the world market can become a recognised and much demanded British product

worldwide. In or around 2004 HRH Prince Andrew attended a briefing organised by Advantage

West Midlands in Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry where His Highness in his

capacity as Head of International Trade and after having been presented with the benefits of

Non-Stun Halal Meat by the author and Dr Nasim Ahmed, Chairman of Birmingham Central

Mosque expressed his confidence and suggested that British Government should seriously

consider making all meat in the UK Halal for its quality and benefits to human health.

It is therefore submitted that interference or confusion to the Halal market or an attempt to label

(Stunned or Jhatka Meat as Halal) may bear undesirable consequences resulting in even more

10 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

decrease in demand, closure of small and medium sized enterprises and job losses. The non-stun

is the way forward which can be supported to grow this market and remove confusion and

develop a world- wide quality British product.

5.0 CONCLUSION

Today, a great number of scientific studies and observations in the field (i.e., at slaughterhouses)

show that in no case can electronarcosis be beneficial to either humans or animals. Moreover,

the research shows that religious slaughter by direct bleeding is the most beneficial method for

animal welfare, the quality of meat, and environmental safety, as well as people’s health.

It is therefore submitted that the current publications and sources of information on which the

Government is relying for the amendments to the legislation are based on incorrect facts and

biased reports. We as humans are subject to two kinds of laws, man-made laws and the divine

laws or one may say laws of nature which we only observe but do not make ourselves. It is the

divine law submission to which is ones choice and right. To interfere with the divine laws is a

serious issue which has far reaching political, social, religious and economic consequences the

impact of which have not been properly addressed or ascertained. Political will must not be used

to interfere with religious freedom as this may lead in a long battle of the legislation being

challenged in the British and European Courts. The British Muslims as British Consumers ask

for the same right that is to be allowed to purchase what they want non-stun Halal Meat products

within the United Kingdom. A more cohesive and inclusive research is therefore needed to

incorporate all issues and the current publications must not be used to pave way for the one-

sided views and legislation.

It is accepted that there are valid reasons for labeling Halal Meat for more consumer confidence

and clarity. However at the same time it is submitted that the British Muslim consumers would

be systematically deceived if stunned meat is to be labeled as Halal as well and this meat is

known in pre-dominate Asian Muslims as (Jhatka/stunned) Meat which they will not eat.

11 2.0 BACKGROUND | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

We therefore propose that

1. The Government must not rely on biased reports and must stop making references to

those so called Muslim organisations which only support Government agenda

2. Additional objective research must be commissioned to address the issue taking into

consideration of all relevant elements

3. Only Non-Stun meat must be allowed to be labeled as Halal Meat in the UK.

12 REFERENCES | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

REFERENCES

1. Muslims accuse firm oversupply of meat:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/muslims-accuse-firm-over-supply-of-meat-1.875122

2. An Assessment of the Muslim Method of Slaughter; Presented by Dr. Abdul Majid

Katme, (Chairman of the Islamic Medical Association in the UK) at the UFAW*

Symposium on Humane Slaughter and Euthanasia, held at the Zoological Society of

London, Regent’s Park, on the 18th and 19th September, 1986.

3. Commercial-Halal-Slaughter-–Science-and-Religion by Hamid Ahmad, Meat

International, e-Edition, Sat. 07,Jan. 2010

4. Barclay; C., House of Commons Library, Religious Slaughter: Standard

Note:SN/SC/1314: Last updated: 11 June 2012

5. Halal Meat Market Published by EBLEX /Agriculture and Horticulture Development

Board; 2010

6. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) published figures in 2012 based on a survey of

slaughterhouses undertaken September 2011

7. Birmingham trading standards seize chickens in halal labeling probe by Emma

McKinney Aug 28 2012 http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-

stories/2012/08/28/birmingham-trading-standards-seize-chickens-in-halal-labelling-

probe-97319-31708446/

8. Britain bans Halal meat at Westminster www.presstv.ir › Britain › EnglandShare1 Jan

2012 – Britain bans Halal meat at Westminster Palace for Muslim members of

parliament (MPs) and Muslim

13 APPENDICES | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

9. Veterinary Record 2012;170:468-469 doi:10.1136/vr.e3100. Viewpoint - Slaughter

without stunning - Bill Reilly - Senior vet condemns 'unacceptable' slaughter of farm

animals. http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/170/18/468

APPENDICES

1 The Birmingham Declaration:

2 UK - Abattoir controversy attracts fascists and racists promoting "Hate"

3 UK - ANSA Response Animal welfare and halal meat Asiantribune

4 ANSA Response to “UK: Ritual slaughter and animal welfare The article in the

law Society Gazette”

5 Shechita UK letter dated 14th

June 2012 to Jim Paice, Minister of State, DEFRA.

6 UK: Stunning before slaughter can cause pain, is cruel and tortures the animal

7 Fatwa from Darul Ifta, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi

Regarding stunning and other practices in the halal meat.

14 APPENDICES | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

Appendix 1

The Birmingham Declaration:

Attendees

The Birmingham Declaration was agreed and signed by:

• Mr Farooq Murad, Secretary General, muslim council (MCB)

• Dr Mohammed Naseem, Chairman, Birmingham Central Mosque

• Mawlana Qari Muhammad Ismail Rashid, Jamiat-e-ulama Britain

• Dr Ahmad Makhdoom, Director, World Muslim League, London

• Haji Akram, Association of Non-stun Abattoirs (ANSA)

• Mr Rafiq Sehgal, Bradford Council for Mosques

• Mufti Mohammed Osman, Dar Al Basira, Bradford

• Dr Abdul Majid Katme, Islamic Medical Association

• Mawlana Abdur Rahman Madani, Dawatul Islam UK & Eire

• Mawlana Israr Hussain Kazmi, MUSE (Majlis-E- ulama Shia Europe,

• Dr Adel Sabir, European Halal Development Agency

• Mawlana Yunus Dudhwala, Halal Monitoring Committee

• Mawlana Saeedur Rahman, UK Islamic Mission

• Sheikh Khurram Bashir, Sharia Council

• Mawlana Talha Bukhari, Fiqh Council Birmingham

• Dr Yunes Teinaz, Independent Chartered Environment Health Practitioner

• Mowlana Ehsan Mir,

• Mr Yousuf Pandor, Halal Supply Solutions

• Mrs Rukhsana Shain, Be Halal

• Mr Ahsan Shah, United Muslims Alliance, UK

• Mr Khalil ur Rahman, Masjid-e-Hamza, Birmingham

• Mr Shoeb Riaz, The Halal Society London

• Ms Sabah Mallem, Community Worker, Brmingham

• Yemeni Community

• Paigham-e-Islam Trust

• Mr Mohammed Salem, ANSA

• Mr Choudhury Mueenuddin

• Dr Shuja Shafi

15 APPENDICES | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

16 Muslims of all major branches of Islam sign “Birmingham Declaration” | B-Legal

Business and Law Consultants

Muslims of all major branches of Islam sign “Birmingham Declaration”

admin | Jun 04, 2012 | Comments 0

Birmingham was once known as the city of a thousand trades and over the years has become the multicultural hub

of Europe. On Saturday, the 2nd of June, Birmingham Central Masjid hosted a unique conference to promote

confidence in Halal Food, especially Halal meat and poultry.

Birmingham hosted a ground breaking conference in uniting Imams, scholars, political, community leaders, and

stakeholders from across the UK under the banner of defending the Prophetic method of Zabihah.

The meeting constituted Muslims of all major branches of Islam, Sunni, Shia and Ahlehadith showing their Unity for

an Islamic Cause.

All the Speakers were notably brief and to the point with one message: “Muslims will not accept anything other than

The Prophetic method of Zibihah to be Halal(non-Stunned).”

The meeting unanimously agreed and endorsed the “Birmingham Declaration” on the following points:

“Muslims are grateful to successive governments for the exemption with regards to slaughter by religious methods in

schedule 21 and 22 of the part IV of 1995 legislation* that, no.5 (which relates to the stunning and killing of animals)

shall not apply to any animal which is slaughtered in accordance with schedule 12 (which relates to slaughter by

religious method).

The Muslim and the Jewish community are concerned that there are relentless attempts by some vocal pressure

groups to force the government to do away with this highly valued exemption on the unfounded pretence that

religious slaughter (without stunning) causes more pain.”

Muslims reject these views and maintain that no other method of slaughter of animals could be more humane than

the religious method of slaughter when standards are scrupulously implemented.

The British Muslim community will refuse to accept any attempts to change the current legislation and as a

community it is determined to ensure strict adherence to halal standards.

The meeting agreed to establish a UK Halal Commission with representatives from all segments of the British

Muslim community.

The success of the event was due the collective efforts of Association of Non Stun Abbatoirs(ANSA), Bradford

Council for Masjid (BCM), Birmingham Central Mosque (BCM) Ghamkol Sheriff Masjid Birmingham and Muslim

Council of Britain (MCB) to discuss concerns over forthcoming legislation changes that may have detrimental impact

on the prophetic method of slaughter, especially in light of continued attempts by some pressure groups who are

lobbying the government to do away with the current exemptions Muslims and the Jewish Community who have to

slaughter without the use of pre-stunning.

Mohammed Saleem, Policy and Communication Director of the Association of Abattoirs said, “ANSA has been

running a campaign for the last year to raise awareness and bring together people from all over the country, and

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

with dust Leviticus 17:11-13”.

21 UK - Abattoir controversy attracts fascists and racists promoting "Hate" | B-Legal

Business and Law Consultants

In England a campaign has emerged in the guise of Animal Welfare which openly has started to

criticise the Halal, make provisions for stunning method of animal slaughter and find excuses to

make disparaging remarks about consumers of Halal Meat.

Halal in Islam is a way of life and not mere consumption of meat. A practicing muslim needs to

live within Halal means, earn his living from halal sources and eat halal food. Halal only means

permissible by God.

In my opnion even the red Tractor Meat is not Islamic Meat if it is not from non-stunn process

(Zabiha) which ensures that all blood is drained out of the animal so as humans we do not eat

blood as per divine law.

In his concluding remarks my dear friend Glen Jenvery has left yet another noticeable question

that would Muslims eat meat of Christians. To my surprise again I checked and found out that

the In Surah 5:5 of the Quran, it is written: "The food of the People of the Book [Jews and

Christians] is lawful for you as your food is lawful for them."

I therefore invite the readers to remove biasness and prejudged ideas and accept that the

emphasis of British Muslim and Muslim Consumers is the same as it must be of their own as per

their religious beliefs that we shall refrain from consuming blood and ensure that the meat is

fully drained of blood before it becomes consumable for humans as revealed to them by their

own books.

Evaluation of religious slaughter is an area where many people have lost scientific objectivity.

This has resulted in biased and selective reviewing of the literature. Politics have interfered with

good science.”

To inform and satisfy those who claim to worry about the welfare of animals I am pleased to

mention here that in a critical review of the book "The Animal in Islam", Éric Geoffroy (a

researcher with CNRS: The National Centre for Scientific Research, France) summarizes the

relationship between man and animals in Islam : "a key verse of Quran establishes the

similarities, and, thus, the proximity which exist between humans and animals: "There is not an

animal in the earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples like unto

you" (6:38).

Those opposed to religious slaughter often disregard dedicated scientific work on religious

slaughter, such as those studies published by Grandin and Regenstein and by Schulze and Hazem

from Germany. With respect to French studies, one can also quote the theses of veterinary

22 | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

doctors Pouillaude-Bardon on “Religious Slaughter in France” and of Luc on ”Jewish Religious

Slaughter and Animal Welfare”.

Although direct bleeding is very different from pre-slaughter stunning, we would like to note that

Muslims do not do this with the idea of making their animals suffer. Quite to the contrary, it is

perceived as being the most natural method and the least painful.

Professor Schulze and Dr. Hazem of the University of Hanover undertook a comparative study

of various methods of slaughter: religious slaughter by direct bleeding and slaughter with

stunning using a gun ("captive bolt") followed by bleeding. To measure in an objective way the

pain, the authors took care to obtain an electroencephalogram (EEG) and an electrocardiogram

(ECG) for each animal.The experiments show that recordings of the EEG done on the animals

slaughtered by direct bleeding did not show any change between the moments before the

bleeding and after the bleeding, thus clarifying the fact that the animal does not feel pain during

and after the incision (measurements were taken on 17 sheep and 10 calves). The state of

unconsciousness (major sleep) is detected between 4 and 6 seconds for sheep and around 10

seconds for the calves. The flat EEG (brain death) is reached after 13 seconds for the sheep and

23 seconds for the calves. The ECG showed an increase in the heart rate to 240 beats per minute

in the 40 seconds

after the bleeding of the sheep and 280 beats per minute in the 40 seconds after the

bleeding of the bovines, which correlated with the phenomena of convulsion of the

body as is generally observed.

It is therefore submitted that one should not mislead the ordinary British consumers from wrong

self-selected facts especially when it is against their own religious beliefs and must accept that

consuming blood is not what British Consumers would like to prefer at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Masood Butt

MA (Econ), DBA, MBA, GDL

m.butt@blegal.org.uk

B-Legal

Business and Law Consultants

BIRMINGHAM

23 Appendix 4 | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

Appendix 4

ANSA Response to “UK: Ritual slaughter and animal welfare”

Category: Halal Concern, Home, Industry News UK & World Tags: Halal | halal slaughter

6/7/12 ANSA Press release The article in the law Society Gazette “UK: Ritual slaughter and animal welfare” Thursday 28 June 2012 by Zia Akhtar –

contains incorrect and misleading facts.

It says that, “The Halal Food Authority (HFA) is working to achieve agreement with the Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) over the rules governing the ritual slaughter of animals ahead of full implementation of new

regulations”. Whereas the fact is that HFA’s name is nowhere to be seen on consultation papers regarding

“implementation of new regulations” and is confirmed to be the case by the animal welfare team at DEFRA.

The said article should have also revealed that HFA came under fire as KFC is accused of mislabelling halal chicken

source:http:www.fwi.co.uk

Leading Islamic scholars have accused fast food chain KFC of mislabelling its chicken as halal.

At a recent conference in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, around 40 scholars agreed KFC was mislabelling its machine-

slaughtered chicken as halal and said it should stop selling it immediately. KFC is one of many Non Muslim owned

companies certified by HFA

Again this is misleading “In the UK, Muslims have been willing to compromise with the stunning requirement in order to

preserve their method of slaughter” as Muslims in the UK like anywhere else in the world are not prepared to compromise

on stunning as they believe this too barbaric and inhumane method of slaughter.

There are number of credible as well as preferred certifying authorities in the UK other than HFA who have earned and are

trusted by the Muslim community at large as well as the representative organisations including but not exclusive to ANSA

(Association of Non Stun Abattoirs), Bradford Council for Mosques and HMC (Halal Monitoring Committee) just mention

few.

It is further reported that EBLEX report 2010 stated that given the choice Muslims prefer Non-Stun (i.e. Zibihah) method of

Slaughter, the fact is the Muslim are not aware that they are being fed stunned meat and are misled .

It appears that double standards are applied here, electric water bath causes more suffering to poultry according to animal

welfare bodies yet it is allowed to continue for economic reasons rather than religious. However when it comes to Zabihah

(Mulsim process of producing Halal Meat) or Shechitia (Jews process of making Kosher Meat) it becomes un- acceptable.

This process/method is ordained for the both Jews and Muslims as their dietary requirements.

It is therefore concluded that one must refrain from using a platform such as Law Society Gazette to publish articles which

are misleading, poorly researched and ill quoted as public at large relies on trustworthy sources to publish trusted

material. Further while Muslim community may seem segregated and easy to be divided by ordinary folks hold eating

Halal through the process of Zabihah as a fundamental element of their religious freedom and choice of daily living.

24 Category: Halal Concern, Home, Industry News UK & World | B-Legal Business and

Law Consultants

25 Appendix 6 | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

Appendix 6 UK: Stunning before slaughter can cause pain, is cruel

and tortures the animal Filed in Europe, Halal Integrity, Meat & Poultry, UK on 10/05/2012 with no comments

Dr A Majid Katme(MBBCh,DPM)

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!

This statement was published in many newspapers, like the Independent and the Daily Telegraph… and

originated in the Veterinary Record 2012;170:468-469 doi:10.1136/vr.e3100.

I would like to establish the FACTS about non-stun slaughter, and separate them from Fiction and Myth.

We are all aware that there is no scientific evidence, which has been properly done and agreed upon by a

broad consensus of scientists, proving that unstunned animals, when properly practised during the religious

slaughter, suffer pain. Even the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) stated this in its Report on the Welfare

of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing: Part 1: Red Meat Animals (10 June 2003) in clause 194: “It is difficult

to measure pain and distress during the slaughter process in an objective scientific manner and subjective

indicators…” So how can Professor Reilly claim for sure that the animal feels pain when religious slaughter is

done? Where is the scientific evidence? In fact, there are some scientific studies that strongly suggest stunning

causes pain to the animal, i.e., according to EEG brain studies.

It is also common sense that putting electricity onto the skin/body of man or animal causes pain and

discomfort and may even cause burning in some cases. It can also possibly lead to death before the actual

slaughter. Electricity is still widely used in the world today to torture people in prisons, so why do we allow

this torture by electricity for sentient, innocent animals? It must be the financial greed of the slaughter

industry, which uses stunning to permit it to kill more animals quickly, without showing any respect for how

the animal’s life is being taken.

Or is this rejecting of the religious slaughter of animals a widely erroneous “subjective feeling”, that is

predicated on a number of false assumptions that are encouraged by the power structure. Do people believe

that by doing the direct cut with a razor sharp knife on a conscious living animal cause pain to the animal? Or

is it the ignorance of the public about the medical physiology of an animal that makes them unaware of the

results from the cut when done properly in religious slaughter the problem?

Medically and physiologically religious slaughter can be fully explained to those who are concerned: A proper

cut to the major blood vessels in the neck will produce a large hemorrhage, followed quickly by hemorrhagic

shock with immediate loss of consciousness and “instantaneous anesthesia” or “stunning” leading to

unconsciousness, especially as the blood is under high pressure and will come out quickly when a large big

hole has been opened by a razor sharp long knife, in the right anatomical side of the neck of the animal. In this

way the animal is rendered unconscious painlessly leading to a painless death. The brain is immediately

deprived of its “living blood supply”(glucose and oxygen) which is essential for it’s functioning or for any

feeling of pain, if there were any.

It is a MYTH, it is an ILLUSION and it is a DELUSION, too, to consider proper religious slaughter of animals

without stunning as painful and cruel. The British public is unaware that in the US religious slaughter is

officially considered a HUMANE METHOD of slaughter! We do recognise that any improper Religious

slaughter might cause pain or discomfort to the animal. Therefore it is the responsibility of the religious

communities to assure that this does not happen by ensuring regular Halal audits are done at facilities

certified for Halal slaughter.

26 UK: Stunning before slaughter can cause pain, is cruel and tortures the animal | B-

Legal Business and Law Consultants

It is also important to mention another fact which most of the public are not aware. Religious slaughter,

without the use of stunning, is allowed in the UK and is LEGAL and in accordance with the law of the land.

Muslim and Jewish believers have discovered that there are many forbidden (Haram) outcomes that result

when stunning is used with animals. These are additional reasons they oppose stunning, such as:

The death of some animals before doing the cut or the act of slaughter, especially in poultry. FAWC

reported that about 1/3 of the chickens are dead before doing the cut/slaughter. In Islam it is forbidden to

eat the meat of any animal that died before slaughter.

Blood staying inside the meat (Salt and Pepper hemorrhage) and is unseen, such as when the

capillaries and small blood vessels in the meat crack up and explode from the power of electricity. Blood,

if consumed, is harmful to health and is forbidden to consume in Islam.

BSE/Mad cow disease risks increase when the captive bolt pistol is used to crack open the skull of

cattle to stun them and can cause contamination in the blood stream.

For Muslims, the meat that is produced according to religious requirements is TAYYIB (pure and natural),

while meat where stunning has been used is not Tayyib.

It is important to emphasise that in the secular abattoirs, there is a lot of cruelty inflicted on the animals

before slaughter: Kicking, beating, sticking and the pushing of the animals in a harsh disrespectful way. All of

these are not permissible with Halal slaughter where ideally the animal should be fed, given water and

calmed before slaughter.

Moreover, much of the public is not aware that in using stunning: Some animals become paralysed while

conscious, and some have broken bones. And that does not consider the pain when an animal is mis-stunned

and has to be stunned again. The best animal well-being standards permit a 5% mis-stun. However, some

plants get down to about 3% — but that is still a lot of animals suffering.

It is important to remember that CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT of animals is rampant and rife in our

modern world. Our advice to Compassion in World Farming and all the other animal welfare organisations is

to concentrate more on the huge and increasing suffering of animals on farms (factory farming/cage

batteries…), secular slaughterhouses, and in homes. There is a lot of important work to do. People should

know that all the believers in the three Abrahamic Faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, believe in the same

form of proper religious slaughter as performed since the time of the Prophet Abraham.

Dr A Majid Katme(MBBCh,DPM)

Dr A Majid Katme(MBBCh,DPM)

Spokesman on Halal Meat and Food

Islamic Medical Association/UK

27 Appendix 7 | B-Legal Business and Law Consultants

Appendix 7 Fatwa from Darul Ifta, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi

REGARDING STUNNING AND OTHER PRACTICES IN THE HALAL MEAT

INDUSTRY

(Note: the following is a translation from the original Urdu Fatwa, which also incorporates important textual

references not translated here)

What do the respected Scholars of Islam say regarding the following:

Q1). In many Muslim slaughterhouses in the UK, the animal is rendered unconscious before slaughtering

by administering a mild electrical current. This does not kill the animal, but has an effect of about up to a

minute during which the animal remains motionless, and slaughtering it becomes easier. The operators

of the slaughterhouses claim the voltage of this stun is so low that there is no danger of the animal

dying. Is it permissible to slaughter in this way? And what is the ruling regarding the meat of an animal

slaughtered in this way? And if the stunning lessens the blood flow at the time of slaughter, what would

be the ruling?

A1. The practice of rendering animals unconscious before slaughtering, which is carried out in different ways,

consists of a number of undesirable and objectionable elements, for example:

a. If this act is such that it causes the animal to lose all its senses and consciousness completely, then there is

a risk that it will have caused the animal’s death before slaughter, especially if the animal was weak or ill.

b. If this act is such that it does not cause the animal to lose all its senses and consciousness completely

(such as a mild electrical shock that merely immobilizes the animal), then there is a strong possibility that the

animal’s pain and suffering will have been unnecessarily increased, since the pain of slaughter remains due to

its not being unconscious, and the pain and stress of the electrical shock will have been administered

additionally without any need.

c. If this act makes the animal weak (compared to its normal and natural condition), and at the time of

slaughter the animal is not at its full physical strength, then there is a risk that this will cause a reduction in the

amount of blood that will flow from it at the time of slaughter, compared to what might have flowed in the case

of the animal being fully conscious and In full possession of its senses and physical strength, and to undertake

such a course of action deliberately is to oppose and counter a Shar’i requirement of slaughter (i.e. the

discharge of flowing blood).

d. If the amount of blood discharged is reduced due to the animal’s weakness (caused by the stun), then there

is a risk that the remaining (non-discharged) blood will be absorbed into the meat of the animal, and this is an

undesirable outcome both from a medical point of view and also according to Shari’ah.

e. If the person undertaking this way of slaughter believes it to be a less stressful and painful method than the

prescribed Shar’i manner, then this is tantamount to believing an invented method to be superior to a revealed

one, and it means that the person believes the revealed method of slaughter to be painful and cruel, which is

‘close to disbelief ‘. (Ref: Imdadul-Fatawa, Vol. 3, P. 605-8 and Ahkamuz-zaba-ih, P. 55-6)

Due to these reasons, it is not correct in terms of Shari’ah to render an animal unconscious before slaughter.

And in fact Hakimul-Ummah Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (Rahmatullahi Alaih) has used the words ‘evil

innovation, corruption of faith’ and ‘against Shari’ah’ to describe this practice.

28 Fatwa from Darul Ifta, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi | B-Legal Business and Law

Consultants

As for the ruling regarding the meat of an animal slaughtered in this way, if the animal was definitely alive at

the time of slaughter, and was slaughtered correctly, it would be considered Halal. However, due to the reasons

outlined above, and the many types of doubts that arise, it is appropriate for Muslims to avoid such meat as far

as possible, because staying away from doubtful things is also a part of faith.

Q2) The (UK animal welfare) law requires that an animal slaughtered without stunning should be held

down for at least 20 seconds after slaughter, to minimize distress to the animal and possibility of injury

to both animal and slaughter man. In such a situation, in order to help abide by this law, if instead of

applying a stun before slaughter, the stun is applied immediately after the animal has been slaughtered,

so that the slaughter man can move more quickly to the next animal, what would be the ruling?

A2. If the animal has been slaughtered in the correct Shar’i way, its meat is halal and administering an

electrical current after this will not affect its permissibility.

Note: This answer should be read with the following note, which was written as a follow-up, clarifying the above

answer, by Mufti Taqi Usmani sahib:

“There are two different issues here that should not be confused with each other. One question is to identify the

correct way of slaughtering an animal according to the Sunnah and Shari’ah. The answer to this question is that

the correct way according to Sunnah and Shari’ah is to cut the veins of the throat with a sharp knife and recite

Allah's name whilst doing so, without stunning before or after slaughter. Stunning an animal either before or

after cutting its throat is contrary to the way prescribed by Shari’ah according to Sunnah.

The second question is whether or not the meat of an animal will be permissible to eat, if it is stunned before

or after its slaughter. The answer to this question is that it will not be Halal if it has died because of stunning

and not because of cutting throat and the blood flowing from its veins. However, if the animal has been

slaughtered in the correct Shar’i way (and its death is caused by the blood flowing from its veins and not caused

by stunning), then its meat is Halal and administering an electrical current after this will not affect its

permissibility.”

Q3) Is it permitted to slaughter a pregnant animal, and can the meat of such an animal be certified

Halal?

A3. If the animal is pregnant and close to giving birth, it is Makrooh (disapproved) to slaughter it. If it is not

close to giving birth, it is permissible to slaughter it without any Karahah (disapproval). Nevertheless, the meat

of such an animal will be Halal in all cases.

Q4) Some Halal meat supplying companies operating in the Halal meat industry in the UK abuse the law

and voluntarily liquidate their companies after operating for some time, and by doing so free themselves

of their accumulated debt, and then without paying their govt. taxes and debts owed to the farmers etc.

they open another company under another name and start operating again. In this way they undercut

other law abiding companies engaged in providing Halal meat. These people are a source of disrepute to

the whole Halal meat industry, and they are one of the main reasons why many shortcuts and bad

practices aimed at cost cutting have been introduced into the industry. Would Muslim certification bodies

be justified in denying certification to these companies?

A4. If a Muslim person is violating the laws of a country and is engaged in dishonest behaviour, he is a sinner,

29 Fatwa from Darul Ifta, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi | B-Legal Business and Law

Consultants

and it is not permissible to intentionally help and support him in this action. Therefore, in the situation described

in your question, the Muslim institutions have the right to deny certification (of the meat) to such people.

Moreover, when such actions carry the risk of tarnishing the whole Muslim community, it is necessary to

exercise extra care. In addition, it is obligatory according to the Shari’ah for these people to pay off and settle

the debts that remain outstanding against them, and failure to do so will entail accountability in the hereafter.

Q5) In the situation where the animal is rendered unconscious before slaughtering by being

administered an electrical current, if the animals are checked and proved alive according to a fixed

percentage (e.g. 20% or 40% of the animals), and the rest of the animals are not checked, in this case

what is the ruling for the meat of the animals that have been checked, and what is the ruling for those

that have not been checked?

A5. In the described situation, it is necessary to ascertain individually about each animal that it was alive at the

time of slaughter. It is not correct to check some animals and (finding them to be alive at the time of slaughter)

deduce from this that the rest were also alive. In such a situation the meat of those animals about which it is

known with certainty or beyond reasonable doubt that they were alive at the time of slaughter, and they were

correctly slaughtered , will be considered Halal. And the meat of those animals about which it is known (or there

is a strong possibility) that they were dead at the time of slaughter, or those animals about which it is not

possible to ascertain if they were dead or alive at the time of slaughter, will not be considered Halal, and it is not

permissible to use such meat.

Q6) What sort of proof is considered valid in Shari’ah for proving an animal alive at the time of

slaughter? If some time after applying the electrical current, some slight movement is observed in the

animal and it is declared alive and slaughtered, would this be correct? If after applying the electrical

current, the animals pulse and heartbeat is ascertained through some means (e.g. by means of a scanner

detecting the pulse or heartbeat etc.) would it be permissible to slaughter the animal in this case? What

would be the ruling regarding its meat?

A6. The jurists have mentioned many signs that can be taken as proof of an animal being alive at the time of

slaughter, for example if the animal bleeds at the time of slaughter like a living animal, or closes its mouth or

eyes, or pulls together its legs, or shows any kind of movement, etc. Therefore, if the fact that the animal was

alive can be established in any way, it will be permissible to slaughter it, and its meat will be considered Halal.

The observation of movement in the animal, or establishing the fact that a pulse exists is sufficient to prove an

animal alive.

Q7) What is the ruling regarding the slaughtering of animals in front of one another?

A7. It is Makrooh to unnecessarily slaughter animals in front of one other, and this should be avoided.

Q8) What is the minimum amount of words to be recited at the time of slaughtering an animal and what

are those words?

A8. It is necessary to invoke the name of Allah Most High at the time of slaughter. It is Mustahab

30 Fatwa from Darul Ifta, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi | B-Legal Business and Law

Consultants

(recommended) to say ‘Bismillahi Allahu Akbar’.

Q9) What is the minimum part of the neck that must be cut at the time of slaughter for the animal to be

considered Halal?

A9. For the animal to be Halal, it is necessary that all four or at least three of the four channels (of food, air, and

two of blood,) in the throat must be cut.

Q10) In many slaughterhouses the workers and the people employed for slaughtering are Muslims in

the name but do not practice good personal hygiene, do not remain in a state of ritual purity, and do not

pray Salah, some don’t even pray their Jumu’ah Salah. What is the ruling regarding animals slaughtered

by such people? Should the slaughterhouses employ such people for this work, especially for

slaughtering?

A10. If the person carrying out the slaughter is a Muslim, then even if he is a Fasiq (non-practicing Muslim),

the animal slaughtered by him will be considered Halal, provided that it is slaughtered in the correct way and the

other conditions (for correct Shar’i slaughter) are present. However, pious and practicing Muslims should be

employed for this purpose as far as possible, and it is not correct to unnecessarily employ non-practicing

Muslims.

Q11)If the slaughterhouse is owned by non-Muslims, and the slaughter man is a Muslim but all the rest

of the staff and workers are non-Muslim, and when the meat is delivered to the shops the drivers and

workers are not Muslims, can the meat supplied by these people be considered Halal?

A11. If it is certain that the meat is that of an animal slaughtered correctly by a Muslim, then it is Halal. In this

situation the fact that the owners of the company or the staff are not Muslims will not have any effect on the

permissibility of the meat. However, if it is known with certainty, or beyond reasonable doubt, that the meat is

not Halal; or there is merely the claim of a non-Muslim that it is Halal, and there is no Shar’i evidence to support

this claim; or the particular supplier or seller is known to mix Halal and Haraam, then in all these cases the meat

will be Haraam and it must be avoided.

Q12) What is the ruling regarding the meat and chicken imported from countries such as Australia and

Holland etc, which carries a ‘Halal’ label?

A12. If the meat is imported from a Muslim country, then it will be Halal and permissible to use. And if it is

imported from a non-Muslim country, then unless a dependable Muslim person certifies that it was slaughtered

in accordance with all the Shar’i conditions, it will not be permissible to eat this meat, even if it carries a

statement that it is ‘slaughtered according the Islamic method’ (or any other such statement), because it has

been established that such declarations are not reliable, and (where there is doubt) the original ruling for meat

is that of impermissibility.

Q13)Some people say that it is Makrooh to eat the meat of an animal that has been stunned before

slaughtering. Is this correct? If it is correct then what is the ruling regarding the regular consumption of

such meat?

31 Fatwa from Darul Ifta, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi | B-Legal Business and Law

Consultants

A13. Due to the points mentioned above in answer No. 1, the meat of an animal that is rendered unconscious

before slaughtering has many objectionable elements and doubts in it, and it is therefore advisable for Muslims

to avoid such meat as far as possible, without genuine need. Nevertheless, if responsible Muslim persons are

appointed to undertake or oversee the action of slaughter, and they certify that the meat is Halal, i.e. that the

animal was alive at the time of slaughter and the other conditions of Shar’i slaughter were also present, then the

meat of such animals will be considered Halal and its use will be permissible

And Allah knows best,

Muhammad Usman,

Darul-Ifta

Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi 14,

29 / 02 / 1426 AH

..........................................

The answer is correct

(Mufti) Mahmood Ashraf Usmani

Deputy Mufti

Darul Ifta

Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi

30 - 02 - 1426

............................................

The answer is correct

(Mufti) Muhammad Abdul Mannan

Deputy Mufti

Darul Ifta

Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi

30 - 02 - 1426

.............................

The above answers are correct, and it has now been established through scientific research as well that the

practice of making animals unconscious before slaughtering, as carried out in western countries, is more painful

for the animal. Therefore, it is necessary for Muslims to make every effort to obtain exemption from this

practice.

(Mufti) Muhammad Taqi Usmani

Mufti, Darul Ifta

Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi

26 - 03 - 1426

............................................

Mohammad Osman

Dar Al-Basira

The Moorfield Centre

Carrington Street

BRADFORD

BD3 8AE

info@basira.org