Loading ...
Yesterday I went downtown for a batch of food I cannot get at the regular supermarket. Some of those items I can get, but at a bonus price ranging from 150-200% of the price I buy it. The Arab Market isn't a bad place to do your groceries then. Especially if you aren't exactly rich like me. When I returned I plurked I just returned from that market and had a nice talk with the Muslim shopkeeper. That sparked a host of reactions about halal meat and animal cruelty. I didn't expect that, so I felt the need to explain my reasons to eat halal meat only (if any) as a Christian. It has to do with finances and the way animals are treated.
The debate focused on the question if animals need to be stunned before slaughter and whether they suffer more if they aren't. First, let me explain what halal slaughter means. Let me use some Wikipedia quotes to explain it:
Several other conditions are also stated: the knife's blade should be extremely sharp yet not be sharpened in front of the animal, the animal must not be slaughtered in front of other animals, and the animal's eyes and ears must be checked to ensure its health and suitability for slaughter. If it is deemed to be healthy, it is given water to drink (to quench its thirst). (...) [Before] the actual slaughter can begin.
and furthermore:
The act of slaughtering itself is preceded by mentioning the name of God. Invoking the name of God at the moment of slaughtering is sometimes interpreted as acknowledgment of God's right over all things. Furthermore, it is an asking of permission to take the life of the animal to be slaughtered, and endows the slaughterer with a sense of gratitude for God's creation, even prior to partaking in the meat of the animal.
The people slaughtering want to make sure they do it in a reverend way. There's a reason why stunning is frowned upon in this regard and I quote Wikipedia again to explain:
According to Islamic tradition, the conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and trachea with one swipe of an unserrated blade. Muslims argue it provides a relatively painless death, but some veterinary and animal rights groups dispute this claim. It also helps to effectively drain blood from the animal. This is important because the consumption of blood itself is forbidden in Islam. Muslims consider this method of killing the animal to be cleaner and more merciful to the animal. While the blood is draining, the animal is not handled until it has died.
Stunning the animal with a bolt-gun, as is the standard practice in FDA-approved slaughtering houses, may cause instantaneous death. Some Muslims regard meat from such a slaughter to be haram, (...) In some animals with thicker skulls, the bolt-gun has to be administered more than once, causing harm and suffering to the animal, which goes against the dictates of an Islamic slaughter.
I think Wikipedia makes it very clear what Dhabihah (Islamic slaughter) is and why this produces halal meat. In Germany a vet did an investigation for the federal court to determine if this practice is cruel and should be forbidden. I won't quote the whole thing, just link to it so people who are interested in it can read it. Click here for more information. It states the source, so if you are able to read German, you can trace back to the original text.
Now, why would a Christian want to eat halal food? Didn't Christ make all food clean? My answer to that is that Christ indeed declare all food clean. But that has nothing to do with my decision to eat halal meat. My rationale has to do with us being stewards of the Earth (see Genesis for that). God gave us the earth and everything on it to use, but we don't own it. So we have to be careful using something that's not ours. We don't want to give something back that's broken or defaced. Here's where my drive to live eco-green comes from, and why I eat only organic food and halal meat. I want to be sure the animals I eat are being taken care of properly and were treated with dignity when slaughtered. The practice of dhabihah meets my demands, so if I eat meat, it's halal only.
Just my two cents, feel free to comment if you disagree. We all can learn something when exchanging our thoughts.
References:
- Wikipedia article on Dhabihah
- An article about stewardship (khalifa) in Islam
- The Halal Study by W. Schulze, H. Schultze-Petzold, A.S. Hazem, and R. Gross (translated in English)
- Catholic Culture article 'Causing Animals Needless Suffering Is Contrary To Human Dignity'
Posted under Practising Catholicism
This post was written by Inge on July 18, 2008
Thank you Inge for showing your way and reasoning behind your decision.
Here in Switzerland we have two labels that mark food from stately controlled productions and slaughtering lines. The Swiss Federation stands for these standards and that they are upheld. So buying meat with that ‘quality’ label guarantees that the animal in question was raised in an environment suited for it (chicken not in batteries, but in free running yards etc.) and that the processing such as slaughter etc. was according to the protection laws for animals.
The traditional halal procedure without stunning is banned and punishable under the law in Switzerland. Halal has to be done with a stunning first.
Another point that we as Swiss must not forget is that we are a small country and the control mechanisms work only because we don’t have the enormous mass production lines as you can find them in Germany or France for instance.
Personally I check that I don’t buy meat from unknown sources and that I have a good contact with our local butcher to know whether he personally supervises the butchering etc. And I have finally found one here that has perfect meat, from productions around Geneva he knows and he stands for with his name. It’s a gamble of faith in the person you’re talking to of course.
Having grown up around Muslims that did their own halal butchering in the garden when the traditional day for butchering would come, I personally am hesitant to accept such practices, but simply because I find that there are more dignified possibilities to slaughter an animal for food.
Bettina,
I wouldn’t consider private slaughtering in one’s own garden as the way you should slaughter animals. However, I grew up on a farm, and as a child I witnessed how our own pig was slaughtered to be eaten by the family. That was performed by a professional butcher and I could tell the animal didn’t suffer.
So maybe it’s because of our different experiences that we have a different perspective.
Very valid point and actually I only realised because of this discussion why I am so suspicious of halal, so: thank you for taking the discussion and bringing it up and in the end offering me a possibility to revisit my own ‘inner’ automatisms.
Hi Betina, for clarity I’ll expand on my plurks and my thought that halal slaughter *could* be more respectful to the animal’s dignity then conventional slaughter methods.
My point to consider was a different issue then the pain or the previous welfare of the animal (even though they are related):
it might be more so.
Because with halal slaughter man is taking the physical responsibility to take a life instead of using complex machinery (even though it might be painless) to do it for him - the animal is not reduced to a dead production unit, but to a living sacrifice, a religious act, which one treats with respect (this is not as black and white as I conveniently state it). This aspect occurred to me because of discussions with my vegetarian partner who thinks people who eat meat should have the latter attitude (of awareness) or not eat meat at all. Apart from this a stated value of halal meat is that the animals should have lead a stress free life, it is of course no guarantee that they did have one while with “organic meat” (is’nt all meat organic
Concerning the experienced pain at the moment of death according to a dutch expert Bert Lambooij (25 years research experience into slaughter methods) it is not known, one only knows that there is still brain activity - a sheep 4 to 7 seconds a cow up to a minute. But we don’t know anything about the pain yet. He says to be sure stunning before halal butchering would be preferable - which is done with halal butchering of chickens in The Netherlands.
The German article Inge cited is under dispute by some animal rights organisations. Judging from experience I am not to impressed by their extremely brief criticism (dated, to small a sample size, not representative), but one can decide for oneself. They do make one interesting point in that 1 islamic organisation stated the article to stated the EEG registers pain in conventional butchering. This is an outdated observation from the ‘70 as this is not likely in the modern style butchering.
On the above mentioned machinized killing industry (what an emotional negative term) a important development has taken place: the work of Dr. Temple Grandin. Appaerantly this can be the most ‘comfortable’ way of being killed or kill and it has revolutionized the meat industry.
So choose what you think is best if you choose to eat meat, I think Halal meat is a valid option in The Netherlands were halal butchering is inspected rigorously. Keep in mind that in hinduism or jainism it is argued the moral choice is to not eat meat at all. Most of us don’t need to eat meat to stay healthy and perhaps one day we’ll invent synthetic meat.
In the rare occurrences (once every 2-3 weeks) I do eat irresponsible who-knows-where-it-came-from I do find the ancient ritual of praying for the to be consumed animal of use. I think helps in expressing gratitude for the given life regardless of the method, this is what I meant with respecting the “dignity” of the animal (which might be expressed when saying the rel, assuming the suffering of the animal is not significantly greater with halal compared the conventional butchering.
A guardian discussion on Kosher butchering:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-18562,00.html
Dr. Temple Granding:
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/may/what-do-animals-think/article_print
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaughter.html
http://www.grandin.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/temple.shtml
Various points sprang to my mind when I read your comment, Francis.
Let me put a few things straight that you’ve advanced without really discussing them, because to me they don’t seem as straightforward as to you.
Firstly, the idea that halal is the human being taking physical responsibility of taking an animal’s life in order to survive himself, is falling slightly short. Such a proposition could only be maintained if we still lived in a culture where every person slaughters their own animals themselves. In a culture where these processes have been industrialised and specialised - also for Halal - this claim is does not follow.
Secondly, the fact that a complex machinery is used to slaughter does not lift the physical responsibility from the person auctioning the device. Using an instrument still makes that person physically responsible, since they were the ‘agens’ of the action and it were the intentions of this person that made them action the instrument. Just as we as the consumers have a transfered responsibility for the killing of said animal by the fact that we produce the demand and thus the market.
Thirdly, the expression of ‘organic’ means that animals, but also plants have been raised with a minimal amount of chemicals and in the respect of these animals according to the rights established by the country in which the production is being held. This immediately shows the relativity of such situations, for what in one country is normal (such as eating half grown chicks in eggs in Thailand) is frowned upon in others. This fact can only be resolved by adopting the stance of natural law against a stance of positive law which is relative to the community that uses it. And this is where the whole question of the ‘dignity’ of the animal becomes blurred, for most of the times this is defined by referring to natural law in a positivistic setting. It only serves confusion.
Lastly, the myth that we do not need animal protein to stay healthy is a dangerous one and in times where people starve themselves to death or suffer from considerable health issues because a bad nutrition habits, I am hesitant to just leave this uncommented. A lot of people following low-carb diets follow such myths and to avoid the downsides do what? Eat vitamins and nutritional additions on the side to account for the nutritional deficits.
As an ultimate point, I would recommend the following lecture to learn about the food industry in the US http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/1594200823 : The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
Your conversations about the Muslim Halal slaughter are interesting, but you have not mentioned that this practice is also used by our Jewish brothers and sisters for their kosher requirements, called shechitah. Francis, I saw your link to the comments on kosher slaughter requirements, but it was a bit lacking, and at the same time painful to read. The following quote was taken from the website Judaism 101:
“Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Cheit-Tav, meaning to destroy or kill. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible.
Another advantage of shechitah is that it ensures rapid, complete draining of the blood, which is also necessary to render the meat kosher.”
Not only was this practice used by the Jews and Muslims, but by countless other cultures through out the centuries. Many cultures considered blood the life force of the animal, or person and is not intended to be consumed. Today many cultures still do not consume the blood of any animal. Though there are recipes that call for blood, these are few and far between. As an individual, I find the practice of major beef, chicken, and fish farms, along with slaughter houses more and more repulsive. Each of us will have a different view point on this as we do with other major topics.
Maybe as a global community we need to look at our food consumption vs. supply. As first world nations we waste more food which could feed hundreds of thousands of others. Along with our waste we are also slowly poisoning our selves with synthetically manufactured and produced foods. Synthetic meat? Soy has already done that, but anything else?? Why put more chemicals into our already bombarded systems?
God made everything good, so to say meat is not good for you is a misnomer. Daily consumption should be only the size of a deck of cards. Our forefathers got by with more fruits and vegetables (vine ripe which were not picked too soon and artificially ripened), natural dairy products and smaller portions of meat. The animals were allowed to roam freely (within means) to obtain the grasses, or protein needed for their diets, giving us meats rich in healthy omega-3 fats, and healthy cancer-fighting CLA (conjugated linolenic acid). No steroids, growth hormones, or antibiotics were injected or added to the animal’s food, and finally they were not fed contaminated animal-by products.
Today’s society has been spoiled with the ease and availability of convenience foods, along with the over abundance in our supermarkets. Some of these convenience foods are so laden with chemicals, (i.e. to prevent spoilage) and yet we consume them without any thought as to what we are putting inside our bodies. As another brain teaser, you might not see it directly, but how much food is thrown away because of spoilage before it even leaves the grocery stores, not to mention our own homes?
Realizing that each person has different nutritional needs, many of us find it in a variety of diets. Many of us use vitamins. Vitamins have been called a waste of hard earned money, due to the fact that a large portion of the vitamin is flushed down the toilet, never consumed by the body. There are a few vitamins out there that do the job intended and are a better investment. To find these, look for vitamins which have fructose compounding. The body can absorb the fructose, and thus will also absorb the vitamin and mineral attached to the fructose compound.
Low carb diets are just another fad dieting practice, but do not solve the problem once the individual has obtained their goal. An understanding of eating practices must be learned to keep weight in control. Carbs in the forms of bread, cereals, crackers, etc are a poor form of their original intent. Processed flour is devoid of many natural vitamins and nutrients found in wheat berries. Prior to the 1900’s wheat products were made on a daily basis, and families went to the local miller to have their wheat ground. Flour could not be stored indefinitely as it is today. By the 1920’s milling industries found a way to separate the wheat components. With the removal of the germ, germ oil and the bran, the remaining flour could be stored indefinitely. Soon after this process was started consumers were plagued with out breaks of beriberi and pellagra. Since then flour mills have replace a minimum of vitamins and minerals so as to not have these diseases reappear, but have not replaced the original components of the wheat. In addition as consumers of processed wheat products we consume bleach, a poison to our system, which we can not digest, but is stored. Manufactures and chemical companies will argue that the amount is minimal, but over a period of time these stored chemicals increase in our bodies.
Each of us should take a good look at what we are consuming and re-evaluate if it is a good choice. For many this is not going to be easy, and for some simply impossible. If we undergo the decision to go back to more natural practices, we will be healthy and more at peace with the knowledge that we are using God’s resources as He intended.
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/2008/04/is-factory-farmed-meat-slowly-killing-you/
http://www.breadbeckers.com/bread_of_idleness.htm
Debi,
the reason I didn’t mention kosher food by Jewish butchers is that here in Groningen, after WW2, we don’t have Jewish life left. So the only ‘kosher’ food can be found at the Islamic butcher. The reason I wrote the blog was the stream of comments on Plurk after I plurked I went to the Arab Market and had a nice conversation about Christianity and Halal food with the Arab shopkeeper.
Hi Bettina,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Concerning your first thought, you wrote:
“the idea that halal is the human being taking physical responsibility of taking an animal’s life in order to survive himself, is falling slightly short. Such a proposition could only be maintained if we still lived in a culture where every person slaughters their own animals themselves. In a culture where these processes have been industrialised and specialised - also for Halal - this claim does not follow.”
I agree, but a consumer can do it’s best to make sure the animal is being killed in a dignified and respectful manner; and so the responsibility also lies in part with the consumer. Buying halal meat or knowing the ethics and views on animal life of the involved butcher *could* help in this regard.
2) I understand that pushing a button makes one just as responsible as killing an animal with a knife, and by proxy the consumers are also responsible as they pay for or eat the meat. My point is the possible difference in intention and awareness when commiting this act.
What I mean is: to use machines can make it easier for a person to detach himself emotionally from the killing process; animals can become “de-animalized” by becoming a meat unit before they are dead; it’s an inconvenience the meat is still living. Hence my remarks on dignity, prayer and the recitation of the Koran verses. Of course knifes, prayer and ritual doesn’t automatically mean dignity or respect for the life being killed, and machines in theory do not make respect impossible. As said it’s not that black and white.
I think it comes down to this: is there a difference between killing an animal some automated contraption by letting the button being pushed by an animal lover, or by someone who is barely conscious of the fact he is killing a living animal. The consequence, the endresult is the same; but the intention, awareness and internal motivation of the killer can be an important difference to consider.
3) I am not sure I understood you correctly but just like the whole debate on universal human rights, universal animal rights can be a clouded issue in different cultures, nevertheless i think it’s important to appeal to this idea of universal dignity of all life and to be aware of the killing itself.
Concerning the labeling of the idea that most people do not need to eat meat to stay healthy as a dangerous myth; I can sympathize with your caution because of the existence eating disorders and people not having proper nutrition. But I have difficulty accepting vegetarianism as a dangerous myth because of this; I am living with an exception to this rule who is more healthy then I am and doesn’t eat extra vitamins. In my culture vegetarianism is generally accepted and not considered unhealthy or a risk factor in eating disorders or having improper nutrititon.
Debi, synthetic meat could be cultured cells from an living that have been grown to a blob of flesh. No extra chemicals and it would provide a solution to the problem of having to kill animal life to provide for our food. I am not sure if God intended it that way though