From Elsewhere: Taj Hargey gets it right.

Although I’m very much ‘anti’ the ideology of Islam sometimes  I find myself in agreement with the statements of some Islamic theologians.  One example of this is this piece by the liberal Islamic theologian Dr Taj Hargey who last month waded into the Halal food debate.

I don’t always agree with Taj Hargey on other matters but on this but he’s right with his comments on Halal food in the Daily Mail of 09/05/2014.

He says that extremists are exploiting the ignorance of both Muslim and non-Muslim consumers by promoting their own fundamentalist interpretation of the rules of Halal, and that this stricter interpretation of the rules is being used to promote Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.

Dr Hargey said:

“When I walk into a restaurant, I’m usually a hungry customer. It shouldn’t be important to the waiter what my religion is.

I could be a Muslim, a Christian or a Jedi warrior. Whatever my beliefs, I have a right to enjoy my meal without any hidden agendas.

Pizza Express, one of Britain’s favourite food institutions, admitted this week that all the chicken it serves has been killed according to traditional halal methods. The blood was drained from the bird and prayers were recited during the slaughter.

This is covert religious extremism and creeping Islamic fundamentalism making its way into Britain by the back door. It is completely wrong that the food sensitivities of Britain’s Muslims — who amount to just 4.8 per cent of the population — should take precedence over the other 95 per cent.

Halal meat should never be forced on customers without their knowing, surreptitiously and using clandestine methods. It’s unfair to everyone, non-Muslims and Muslims alike. It’s deception on a grand scale for the former, while it could fuel bitter resentment against the latter.

Of course I understand that many of my fellow Muslims, who are moderates not militants, will feel strongly that they wish to eat meat that has been killed by customary halal methods — and they have a perfect right to do so.

But many misconceptions need to be clarified, because I am certain that most people don’t understand where these rules about food came from, and who benefits from them.

First of all, if you’ve just tucked into a chicken pizza without knowing it was halal meat, it hasn’t done you any physical harm. But it hasn’t done you any spiritual good, either. Muslims don’t believe that religious observance can be used as a holy shortcut or a ticket to paradise.

Furthermore, the idea that Muslims cannot eat non-halal food — food that is suitable for Christians — is completely wrong, and it has no theological basis in the Koran, the supreme text of Islam.

I’m a dedicated Muslim, a devout religionist, an imam and intellectual scholar of Islam, but I eat whatever food is placed before me, with the obvious exception of pork. If you’re kind enough to invite me to your home, I would eat whatever meat you chose to serve: turkey, lamb, chicken, beef … anything except pork.

This is perfectly permissible in Islam, and the crucial thing is that it doesn’t have to be halal meat. No one wants an imam to be quoting chapter and verse of the Koran over the turkey sandwiches, but it is important that everyone understands how clearcut the teaching is.

Chapter five, verse five of the Koran states: ‘This day all good things are made lawful for you. The food of the People of the Book [meaning the Jews and the Christians] is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them …’

There are no ifs and buts about that. The Koran does expect us to be thankful for our food, however.

I teach in Oxford, and when I go to dining halls in the university, I eat what is available. I must say, I’m partial to a slice of steak.

At the point of consumption, before I put the food in my mouth, I give thanks, with a brief prayer that Muslims have been saying for more than 1,400 years.

I say: ‘In the name of God, the most Merciful, the most Gracious.’ Christian readers will recognise what I’m doing — it’s very similar to the concept of saying grace.

The Koran says we cannot eat slaughtered meat unless the name of God exclusively has been pronounced over it, not any other deity or idol.

So, it does not really matter if, when that cow or lamb was slaughtered, the abattoir workers were saying prayers or playing heavy rock music at full blast on their radios. The individual prayer just prior to actual consumption makes the meat fit — halal — to eat.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2623879/We-Muslims-appalled-sale-halal-meat-stealth.html#ixzz31CdOXl9r
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Dr Hargey’s attitude to Halal observance is very similar to that of many Liberal Jews attitude to Jewish Kashrut laws which is that it is not what goes into your mouth that is important, but what comes out of it.

Dr Hargey also illustrates an important difference between Halal and Kashrut.  A Muslim can make something (not bacon of course) halal by saying a blessing over the food before consumption, which is something that no Jew can do.  There is no equivalent in Judaism of what Dr Hargey does. For example: A Jew cannot recite the ‘Shehakol*’ blessing over non Kosher steak and make that steak kosher.  This is a very important difference between the Kosher food laws and Islamic Halal food laws.

I may disagree with Dr Hargey on other issues but he is right on this one, the widespread imposition of Halal standard food is not good for either Non-Muslims who may have a spiritual or ethical objection to it, or for Muslims who are being conned by fundamentalists into living to a much higher Halal standard that is required by Islam itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*for those who do not know, the ‘Shehakol’ blessing is normally used over foods such as meat, fish or eggs which are not bread, wine, grains, vegetables or stuff that grows on trees, those have their own blessings.  Beer for example has a ‘Shehakol’ blessing.  The full list of these blessings can be found here:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/278538/jewish/Basic-Blessings-on-Food-Guide.htm

11 Comments on "From Elsewhere: Taj Hargey gets it right."

  1. Religion is flexible to an extent but we see time and time again the muslims are not for turning,so what do we do? As a white,poor,member of society who used to work daily labouring I have scars up my arms from working in a bakery,more scars from laying felt and more scars from the building sites.Why do muslims turn up at a country,any country and expect to be treated as equals compared to the people who had done the hard work previously?They rightly deserve nothing until they contribute.

    • tamimisledus | June 4, 2014 at 11:59 pm |

      Sorry to have to disagree with you, if only on a point of detail. Muslims do not expect to be treated as equals. The koran, and every islamic doctrine which flows from it, tells every muslim that he/she is superior to non-muslims. muslims expect non-muslims to defer to them and will use every tool they have available to them to try to make that happen. The true meaning of islam is submission, and that means total submission of non-muslims to muslim.

      • I cant disagree,I have found with Islam when I try to write a balanced piece about it I 9times out of 10 find myself getting angry,I try the glass half full approach but just find that Islam does not allow this option.

      • Fahrenheit211 | June 5, 2014 at 10:47 pm |

        The supremacism is a problem and this is why Islam attempts to impose its ideological rules on the public sphere. You get the same with other types of supremacist extremism. Look at the pervasiveness of propaganda posters in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Soviet Union, Mussolini’s Italy and North Korea and you will see how authoritarians wish to claim and dominate the public sphere. The supremacism is the big difference between Islam and other belief paths.

  2. Fahrenheit211 | June 1, 2014 at 8:12 pm |

    It is one thing to be treated as an equal but quite another to expect to get out more than one has contributed. Out of all the people who have come to the UK it is the followers of Islam who have horrendous levels of welfare claiming, especially when compared to other groups. There is a supremacism in Islamic doctrine that is disturbing to societies that have learned to see difference in belief as not a problem. It took a huge number of European religious wars to get to this position. The followers of Islam have never had to live precarious lives as minorities in exile, like the Jews and nor have they been chased out of their countries like the Hugenouts. If Islam could live with other faiths as equals then there would be less problems. Sadly we see too often how the ideology of Islam assumes that it should be catered for. Maybe this is because Islam has so often been the aggressor religion or aggressor ideology. Religion should be like a palm tree and bend in the wind but not break.

  3. Bruce Whittick | July 17, 2014 at 10:51 am |

    It is unfortunate that the Muslim faith as a whole in this country is being misled as to its position in life. We are constantly told of the inferiority of other faiths by so-called moderate imams. This leads to the majority of non-muslims to see the Muslim religion and its followers as sectarian and totally devoid of any understanding of all non-muslims. This in turn brings about superstition and wholly unfounded bias by ordinary folk, who in turn are then radicalised by the followers of the BNP and other such factions.
    BEWARE look at our past history in mainland europe it is so easy to climb into the abyss……..

    • Fahrenheit211 | July 17, 2014 at 12:47 pm |

      Thank you for your comment. I do indeed know the power of tin foil hattery and conspiracy theories to take on a life of their own (and why I shy away from tin foil hattery on this site). As you say Europe’s history of pogroms and the ‘foreigner blaming’ that went on after disasters such as the Great Fire of London are testament to that. Teaching a supremacist version of Islam is indeed a big problem, as are the violent Islamic sectarianism that makes the Northern Irish Troubles look like a playground spat. I’m afraid that Islam’s bad image is purely down to Islamic theology and the functionaries that promote this view.

  4. Buster Hymen | February 13, 2016 at 7:23 pm |

    Is Halal Slaughter not the most barbaric and torturous for the animal?

    • Fahrenheit211 | February 13, 2016 at 8:31 pm |

      All meat production involves the death of an animal. There is no way to ignore or clean up that fact. However, from what I’ve learned, Islam doesn’t have the same respect for animal life as one would find in say Christianity or Judaism and this has been reflected in bad practice and cruelty in Halal slaughterhouses.

      These are my arguments against Halal.

      If done right, then death by exanguination isn’t any worse than stun slaughter, as the Mary Temple Grandin study discovered. The problem is this sort of slaughter requires a high degree of knowledge about animal anatomy, handling and psychology, along with slaughter equipment that is used properly and is well maintained. I have seen no evidence that such stringencies that are basic requirements for humane slaughter by exsanguination are being met by British Halal slaughterhouses, which is one reason why they can undercut on price and drive out of business many non-halal slaughterhouses.

      My own informal studies seem to indicate that there is a lot of shoddy practises in Halal slaughterhouses shoddy animal handling (killing one animal in front of another, mishandling animals), poor slaughter practise (cutting in the wrong part of the animals throat, placing the cut animal in such a position that blood doesn’t drain quickly enough thereby prolonging consciousness) and poor slaughter equipment (such as killing knives being of wrong design or not being sharpened, examined, resharpened and rexamined again between each animal (unsharp knives cause ‘drag’ on the flesh and stimulate pain receptors in quadrapeds and poultry).

      It’s wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal during slaughter and although there are sometimes procedural failures in other forms of slaughter, the lack of care, lack of training, lack of proper equipment in Halal means that it will be much more cruel than other forms of slaughter.

      I will not eat Halal, for several reasons. For religious reasons, and because I don’t trust the Halal food chain (not a good idea to trust those whose ideology says ‘kill you’), and because of animal welfare concerns. I also will not knowingly buy any Halal product if there is a practical alternative because money from Halal certification fees is liable to end up in the pockets of Jihadis.

      Sorry for the long reply. Welcome to Fahrenheit211

  5. You can bet your life that production of Halal and Kosher meat in the UK causes a lot of bitterness against people who demand special treatment in contradiction of our long standing animal welfare laws. Religion should never EVER supersede law. The fact that this meat is sold by stealth only makes the situation unbearable, and means that many more animals are killed in this manner than there is a true demand for.

    • Fahrenheit211 | October 6, 2016 at 8:25 pm |

      The exemptions in law for Halal and Kosher slaughter (which differ greatly in both equipment and animal welfare BTW) was what is called a ‘reasonable accommodation’ for religious belief and were framed in such a way that only those who required such meat could get hold of it. When it was just Kosher meat being slaughtered by exsanguination the system worked very well and very little Kosher meat leaked out into the general pool of meat.

      It was never intended by those parliamentarians who framed the exemption that large amounts of meat from either Kosher or Halal slaughter should end up in the general meat market.

      Unfortunately due to corner cutting and other dodgy practises by Halal slaughterhouses, of which there are a lot including appalling pre and post slaughter animal handling issues, Halal meat is considerably cheaper than meat from either the mainstream market or the Kosher market (Kosher meat is normally at least twice the price of standard meat because it is more labour intensive to produce and the animal must be perfect in every way and handled humanely and appropriately prior to slaughter) and there is therefore an incentive for food producers and supermarkets to use Halal meat in place of ordinary meat and not tell the customer.

      Although I eat Kosher meat exclusively myself I am in favour of plain labelling so that all consumers can know what is being offered and can make informed choices. I dislike Halal meat being sold by stealth because it robs the consumer of a choice and also as there are members of some religions such as Sikhs who are forbidden to eat any meat, no matter from what source that has been ritually slaughtered either by exsanguination or by any other method.

      I certainly agree with you that there is more Halal meat (not so much Kosher for the economic reasons I gave above) that is produced than the Muslim market could realistically consume and this Halal meat is produced for economic rather than religious reasons. The over production of Halal meat economically undermines and undercuts the standard meat market by artificially lowering costs and is used by food producers and processors to bypass the standard slaughterhouses which are governed by extremely strict food safety laws.

      I don’t believe in banning slaughter by exsanguination firstly because done properly by a slaughterer who has trained for a number of years in this method is no worse with regards animal welfare than any other method of slaughter and that poor animal handling and equipment design and upkeep are the primary causes of animal distress. This was confirmed in Mary Temple Grandin’s study of 1994 into religious slaughter methods See http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html My second reason for not wishing the state to intervene too much in slaughter methods is a libertarian one. Once the state has finished targeting ritual slaughter then they will come for those individuals who keep backyard chickens who keep some for eggs and some for the pot. It would be economically impractical as well as an assault on liberty to force backyard poultry keepers to take their birds to a commercial slaughterer.

      I most certainly agree that clear labelling of meat sources, slaughterhouses used and slaughter methods should be brought in so that all consumers, no matter who, are given the opportunity to make informed choices. Unfortunately we have a situation in the UK where reasonable accommodations and exemptions for meat production that worked well for decades have been outrageously exploited by Muslims. Basically the Muslims have taken the piss out of an exemption that was brought in for one group who kept the vast majority of this meat in their own semi-closed market to force Halal onto everyone else.

      Sorry about the long and detailed reply but I’ve studied this subject in some depth as I’m considering keeping my own poultry for meat and eggs. I have also seen both Kosher and Halal slaughter and visited slaughterhouses using both electric stun and the old captive bolt and ‘pithing’ methods. All meat production involves the death of an animal and no matter which method is used to induce death it’s still death. The only way to avoid this problem is to not eat any meat. All slaughter methods can go wrong or be used wrongly and even stunning is no guarantee that an animal will not suffer as the failure of electric stunning in the intensive poultry industry shows.

Comments are closed.