East Lancs labels chaos fuels new debate over halal slaughter

Halal meat is being served by Subway and Pizza Express

Halal meat is being served by Subway and Pizza Express

First published in News
Last updated
Lancashire Telegraph: Photograph of the Author by , Local government reporter

ONLY one thing unites East Lancashire Muslims, butchers and clerics about the Halal slaughter row – the need to label all meat clearly with how the animal was killed.

Local butchers Geoff Riley from Crawshawbooth and Malcolm Marsden, from Whittakers on Blackburn Market, would go further with full details of the animals’ husbandry history.

That’s not enough for Philip Lymbery, from Compassion in World Farming, who sees labelling as ‘an interim step’ to stopping Muslim and Jewish practices which ban stunning animals before death.

He said: “Slaughtering animals by cutting their throat whilst fully conscious is cruel and causes immense suffering. It should have no part in our society.”

President-elect of the British Veterinary Association John Blackwell agrees, and says Halal and Kosher slaughter methods should be banned if reforms are not put in place.

But the Lancashire Council of Mosques disputes failing to stun animals is crueller.

MORE TOP STORIES:

The row started with fast food chain Subway removing pork, ham and bacon from outlets in Asian areas, progressed to unlabelled Halal chicken in Pizza Express restaurants to end with a claim that all New Zealand lamb on Britain’s supermarket shelves had been secretly ritually killed by Muslim slaughtermen.

Kosher meat, eaten by Orthodox Jews, has been in Britain for centuries and forbids animals being stunned before their throats are slit and the animal hung upside down to drain the blood.There are parts of North Manchester where customers would struggle to find non-Kosher meat from any outlet.

The question of Halal is complicated by two schools of thought, one says animals can be stunned first and the other not. In all Kosher and Halal slaughter, a prayer is required.

Chickens have become the main issue, because commercial producers discovered Muslims prefer dark meat and restaurant chains the white flesh. Halal slaughter means half the bird can be sent to one market and the rest to another.

Lancashire Council of Mosques chairman Abdul Hamid Qureshi said failing to stun animals was not crueller.

He said: “Halal meat certification involves making sure the animal is looked after and killed quickly and humanely.

“There is less of a problem with stunning larger animals but with chickens, the stunning process kills them instantly by bursting their brains. That is forbidden in Islam. This is a moving debate but I believe all meat should be labelled whether Halal, Kosher or not and whether the animal was stunned before death so people can make a choice.”

Faruk Valli, of Blackburn’s KQF Foods – which uses only unstunned carcasses, said: “Halal is about making sure the animal is properly looked after before death.

“They are expertly killed by trained slaughtermen to make sure there is no pain as they die in seconds.”

Ed Bedington, editor of the Meat Traders Journal, dismisses the tabloid story about New Zealand lamb.

He said: “They kill it the same way they do normally, stunning the sheep first. The only difference is they use Muslim slaughtermen who say a prayer.”

Retired East Lancashire vicar Kevin Logan is less sure: “We should not end years of British animal welfare tradition because of the needs of Muslims for ritual slaughter and big companies to make money. All Halal and meat from animals not pre-stunned should be clearly labelled.”

C of E Dean of Blackburn Christopher Armstrong said: “I have many questions about Halal slaughter. I would not ban the meat but it should be clearly labelled.”

Butchers Mr Riley and Mr Marsden, believe the problem comes from, in their words, ‘supermarkets hoodwinking consumers, as with the horsemeat affair’. The British Retail Consortium’s Andrew Opie said: “All our members have confirmed all their own brand fresh meat is from animals that have been pre-stunned before slaughter.

“As the overwhelming majority of meat sold in UK supermarkets is own brand and from animals stunned prior to slaughter we do not see the requirement to separately label meat based on the method.”

A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesman said it was examining the compulsory labelling of Halal and Kosher meat, adding: “We want people to have the information they need to make informed choices.

“The government has no intention of banning religious slaughter.”

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:45am Fri 9 May 14

Bluelizzy says...

Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?
Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ? Bluelizzy
  • Score: 65

9:51am Fri 9 May 14

HarryBosch says...

Allah, Who is Blessed and Exalted, has prescribed benevolence toward everything and has ordained that everything be done in the right way; so when you must kill a living being, do it in the proper way — when you slaughter an animal, use the best method and sharpen your knife so as to cause as little pain as possible. (The Sahih Mulsim, 2:156. Also Al-Taaj fi Jaami al-Usool, Vol. 3, p. 110, Cairo Edition. Also Al-Faruo min-al-Kafi, p. 2, and others.)

This statement says, to me, that stunning an animal at the time of slaughter is the least cruel method and would conform to Allah's requirements. His whole ethic is to cause as little pain as possible to the animal. The only other difference with Halal meat is that a prayer is said over the animal when it is slaughtered. Therefore, I have no issues with eating Halal meat, whether it is labelled as such or not, provided it has been humanely slaughtered.
Allah, Who is Blessed and Exalted, has prescribed benevolence toward everything and has ordained that everything be done in the right way; so when you must kill a living being, do it in the proper way — when you slaughter an animal, use the best method and sharpen your knife so as to cause as little pain as possible. (The Sahih Mulsim, 2:156. Also Al-Taaj fi Jaami al-Usool, Vol. 3, p. 110, Cairo Edition. Also Al-Faruo min-al-Kafi, p. 2, and others.) This statement says, to me, that stunning an animal at the time of slaughter is the least cruel method and would conform to Allah's requirements. His whole ethic is to cause as little pain as possible to the animal. The only other difference with Halal meat is that a prayer is said over the animal when it is slaughtered. Therefore, I have no issues with eating Halal meat, whether it is labelled as such or not, provided it has been humanely slaughtered. HarryBosch
  • Score: 33

10:05am Fri 9 May 14

Commenting says...

I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions.
The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.
I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions. The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction. Commenting
  • Score: 65

10:11am Fri 9 May 14

adamdesk says...

People arguing on proper slaughtering? they don't even know whether they fully consuming Halal or haram meat of the first
They just see the sticker HMC and buy meat and chicken they don't know that majority of sellers / takeaways and restaurants buy other meats and chickens from back alley

same like some woman wearing veil are considered good but they do things inside their veil

What people fancy eating is halal for them and what they don't like is haram.

If you are really concerned about halal and wants assurance the best way is to buy live chickens and slaughter yourselves accordance to islaimic way
People arguing on proper slaughtering? they don't even know whether they fully consuming Halal or haram meat of the first They just see the sticker HMC and buy meat and chicken they don't know that majority of sellers / takeaways and restaurants buy other meats and chickens from back alley same like some woman wearing veil are considered good but they do things inside their veil What people fancy eating is halal for them and what they don't like is haram. If you are really concerned about halal and wants assurance the best way is to buy live chickens and slaughter yourselves accordance to islaimic way adamdesk
  • Score: 26

10:14am Fri 9 May 14

ikap22 says...

Still waiting. ...
Still waiting. ... ikap22
  • Score: -30

10:22am Fri 9 May 14

shytalk says...

Until this muslamic meat is outlawed i am refusing to patronise any supermarket to buy meat and that goes for any fast food outlet as well. I will use a local butcher instead.
Until this muslamic meat is outlawed i am refusing to patronise any supermarket to buy meat and that goes for any fast food outlet as well. I will use a local butcher instead. shytalk
  • Score: 45

10:30am Fri 9 May 14

Frisson says...

quote from a muslim Dr in the DM


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 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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-2623879/We-Muslims
-appalled-sale-halal
-meat-stealth.html#i
xzz31D1sXsOU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
quote from a muslim Dr in the DM 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. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html#i xzz31D1sXsOU Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Frisson
  • Score: 27

10:35am Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

Commenting wrote:
I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions.
The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.
I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.
[quote][p][bold]Commenting[/bold] wrote: I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions. The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.[/p][/quote]I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered. salvadore
  • Score: -50

10:45am Fri 9 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

Bluelizzy wrote:
Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?
WHEN IN ROME !!!
[quote][p][bold]Bluelizzy[/bold] wrote: Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?[/p][/quote]WHEN IN ROME !!! ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 36

10:57am Fri 9 May 14

nice person says...

salvadore wrote:
Commenting wrote:
I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions.
The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.
I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.
You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.
[quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Commenting[/bold] wrote: I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions. The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.[/p][/quote]I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.[/p][/quote]You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society. nice person
  • Score: 47

10:57am Fri 9 May 14

burner says...

Halal slaughter is cruel, barbaric and belongs to the Middle Ages.
Halal slaughter is cruel, barbaric and belongs to the Middle Ages. burner
  • Score: 58

10:57am Fri 9 May 14

burner says...

Halal slaughter is cruel, barbaric and belongs to the Middle Ages.
Halal slaughter is cruel, barbaric and belongs to the Middle Ages. burner
  • Score: 41

11:05am Fri 9 May 14

sen c b l says...

Frisson wrote:
quote from a muslim Dr in the DM


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 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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/debate/articl

e-2623879/We-Muslims

-appalled-sale-halal

-meat-stealth.html#i

xzz31D1sXsOU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Well in that case 'your' Dr is NOT a sincerest Muslim infact he's a non Muslim.
[quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: quote from a muslim Dr in the DM 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. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html#i xzz31D1sXsOU Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/p][/quote]Well in that case 'your' Dr is NOT a sincerest Muslim infact he's a non Muslim. sen c b l
  • Score: 33

11:06am Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

Frisson wrote:
quote from a muslim Dr in the DM


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 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.


Read more: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/debate/articl

e-2623879/We-Muslims

-appalled-sale-halal

-meat-stealth.html#i

xzz31D1sXsOU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Typical daily mail reader, dr taj Hargey who you quote should be investigated as to his true beliefs. Who is he? Not a recognised scholar and his comments show he shouldn't be an imam either. He seems at best lacking knowledge of Islam and at worst a hypocrite. The verse you and he quotes chapter 5 verse 5s meaning is as follows: (The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you..) meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn `Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars, because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited. They mention Allah's Name upon slaughtering their animals, even though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty. It was deemed at the time that Christians prayed allahs name before the slaughter of animals. Dr taj Hargey and you totally take out of its true meaning. All Muslims should be aware of such imams who have no blown credentials and quote the holy as apparently a Muslim and interpreting it how they want to.
He argues against Hadith, these are the teachings of the prophet pbuh, he was the perfect example to all mankind on how to follow the commandments of allah laid out in the holy Quran. He taught is how to interpret the commandments in real life. The holy Quran tells what is halal and not the prophet pbuh showed us how to slaughter the animal efficiently. Another example of this is Allah swt commands us to pray 5 times a day in the holy Quran, the prophet pbuh taught us how we do this. ie stand up, ruku, sijdah etc. so Hadith is a cornerstone of Islam. Yet dr Hargey doesn't even accept Hadith. Hadith that had been meticulously collated and sources checked over and over again before been accepted as a reliable and true Hadith by scholars more knowledgable than any third rate so called modern day imam.
Muslim be aware of these so called new imams, check their backgrounds, which aqaeeda if any they follow etc.
I have heard that there are darulooms in this world teaching non Muslims about Islam to a very high level. These people adopt Muslim names but are non Muslim really. They go out in the world with their Islamic knowledge and create fitna. Things like what this imam said, other I've heard mentioned was a modern scholar saying music and homosexuality is allowed in Islam. Be aware of such fitna.
[quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: quote from a muslim Dr in the DM 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. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html#i xzz31D1sXsOU Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/p][/quote]Typical daily mail reader, dr taj Hargey who you quote should be investigated as to his true beliefs. Who is he? Not a recognised scholar and his comments show he shouldn't be an imam either. He seems at best lacking knowledge of Islam and at worst a hypocrite. The verse you and he quotes chapter 5 verse 5s meaning is as follows: (The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you..) meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn `Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars, because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited. They mention Allah's Name upon slaughtering their animals, even though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty. It was deemed at the time that Christians prayed allahs name before the slaughter of animals. Dr taj Hargey and you totally take out of its true meaning. All Muslims should be aware of such imams who have no blown credentials and quote the holy as apparently a Muslim and interpreting it how they want to. He argues against Hadith, these are the teachings of the prophet pbuh, he was the perfect example to all mankind on how to follow the commandments of allah laid out in the holy Quran. He taught is how to interpret the commandments in real life. The holy Quran tells what is halal and not the prophet pbuh showed us how to slaughter the animal efficiently. Another example of this is Allah swt commands us to pray 5 times a day in the holy Quran, the prophet pbuh taught us how we do this. ie stand up, ruku, sijdah etc. so Hadith is a cornerstone of Islam. Yet dr Hargey doesn't even accept Hadith. Hadith that had been meticulously collated and sources checked over and over again before been accepted as a reliable and true Hadith by scholars more knowledgable than any third rate so called modern day imam. Muslim be aware of these so called new imams, check their backgrounds, which aqaeeda if any they follow etc. I have heard that there are darulooms in this world teaching non Muslims about Islam to a very high level. These people adopt Muslim names but are non Muslim really. They go out in the world with their Islamic knowledge and create fitna. Things like what this imam said, other I've heard mentioned was a modern scholar saying music and homosexuality is allowed in Islam. Be aware of such fitna. salvadore
  • Score: -35

11:08am Fri 9 May 14

GracesDad says...

I think the most worrying thing surrounding the comments on all race related articles on this website is the lack of any harmony regarding the different cultures and religions around Blackburn and surrounding towns.

There is a real us against them kind of attitude from all sides. Very worrying indeed!!!
I think the most worrying thing surrounding the comments on all race related articles on this website is the lack of any harmony regarding the different cultures and religions around Blackburn and surrounding towns. There is a real us against them kind of attitude from all sides. Very worrying indeed!!! GracesDad
  • Score: 31

11:12am Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

nice person wrote:
salvadore wrote:
Commenting wrote:
I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions.
The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.
I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.
You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.
Ah but we do and can only eat like the Jews halal meat. Those who have a go at this process are hypocrites. Go check how your animals are killed, pigs gassed, brains blown up by shoving thousands of volts through the animals head. I answered your suggestion in my previous blog. I can understand vegetarians or even vegans not liking animal slaughter but those who eat meat haven't a leg to stand on. All killing of animals is going to be painful no matter how you do it. You don't like it then be a vegetarian,this is just a smoke screen to have a go at Muslims. Started by the anti Muslim SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL.
[quote][p][bold]nice person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Commenting[/bold] wrote: I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions. The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.[/p][/quote]I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.[/p][/quote]You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Ah but we do and can only eat like the Jews halal meat. Those who have a go at this process are hypocrites. Go check how your animals are killed, pigs gassed, brains blown up by shoving thousands of volts through the animals head. I answered your suggestion in my previous blog. I can understand vegetarians or even vegans not liking animal slaughter but those who eat meat haven't a leg to stand on. All killing of animals is going to be painful no matter how you do it. You don't like it then be a vegetarian,this is just a smoke screen to have a go at Muslims. Started by the anti Muslim SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL. salvadore
  • Score: -34

11:14am Fri 9 May 14

ikap22 says...

Frisson wrote:
quote from a muslim Dr in the DM 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 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. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html#i xzz31D1sXsOU Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
He is totally misguided, the turd!
[quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: quote from a muslim Dr in the DM 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. Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html#i xzz31D1sXsOU Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/p][/quote]He is totally misguided, the turd! ikap22
  • Score: -29

11:18am Fri 9 May 14

sen c b l says...

ConcernedOssy wrote:
Bluelizzy wrote:
Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?
WHEN IN ROME !!!
Because scientific research has yet to prove otherwise and recent thorough investigation has shown stunning is more barbaric similar to a malet being smashed on to ones head when in complete consciousness.
Therefore halal slaughter cannot be regarded as animal cruelty and if it was stunning of an animal would be classified in a similar league.
'Shytalk' would prefer to poach deer's and shoot an arrow through its belly, and set dogs on the animal, as defended by the person in previous posts.
How an animal is treated prior to its slaughter is what determines animal welfare, and cruelty.

If you were truly concerned about animal cruelty you'd be campaigning for an outright ban but because you're not your comments hold no weight in this debate.
[quote][p][bold]ConcernedOssy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bluelizzy[/bold] wrote: Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?[/p][/quote]WHEN IN ROME !!![/p][/quote]Because scientific research has yet to prove otherwise and recent thorough investigation has shown stunning is more barbaric similar to a malet being smashed on to ones head when in complete consciousness. Therefore halal slaughter cannot be regarded as animal cruelty and if it was stunning of an animal would be classified in a similar league. 'Shytalk' would prefer to poach deer's and shoot an arrow through its belly, and set dogs on the animal, as defended by the person in previous posts. How an animal is treated prior to its slaughter is what determines animal welfare, and cruelty. If you were truly concerned about animal cruelty you'd be campaigning for an outright ban but because you're not your comments hold no weight in this debate. sen c b l
  • Score: 22

11:19am Fri 9 May 14

ikap22 says...

GracesDad wrote:
I think the most worrying thing surrounding the comments on all race related articles on this website is the lack of any harmony regarding the different cultures and religions around Blackburn and surrounding towns. There is a real us against them kind of attitude from all sides. Very worrying indeed!!!
No wonder there's no integration, us and them attitude. 🙏
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: I think the most worrying thing surrounding the comments on all race related articles on this website is the lack of any harmony regarding the different cultures and religions around Blackburn and surrounding towns. There is a real us against them kind of attitude from all sides. Very worrying indeed!!![/p][/quote]No wonder there's no integration, us and them attitude. 🙏 ikap22
  • Score: 34

12:11pm Fri 9 May 14

HelmshoreMan2010 says...

I think it's funny how people use the last 5 seconds of an animals life as a springboard to air racist views (from both sides) when the real issue is an animal spending the other 99% of its life in poor conditions (again, from both sides).

I think Mr Chicken would be more bothered about not being able to move it's entire life than getting stunned or cut in the final few seconds!
I think it's funny how people use the last 5 seconds of an animals life as a springboard to air racist views (from both sides) when the real issue is an animal spending the other 99% of its life in poor conditions (again, from both sides). I think Mr Chicken would be more bothered about not being able to move it's entire life than getting stunned or cut in the final few seconds! HelmshoreMan2010
  • Score: 38

12:11pm Fri 9 May 14

HarryBosch says...

Following some of the comments above, I would just like to clarify - in the stunning process the voltages used range between 50 volts for poultry up to a maximum of 125 volts for sheep and cattle. Where on earth the idea that 50,000 volts comes from I have no idea.
Following some of the comments above, I would just like to clarify - in the stunning process the voltages used range between 50 volts for poultry up to a maximum of 125 volts for sheep and cattle. Where on earth the idea that 50,000 volts comes from I have no idea. HarryBosch
  • Score: 35

12:19pm Fri 9 May 14

vicn1956 says...

Businesses-advertise if you sell non-halal meat-or is that banned?
LT do a survey to inform us who is selling non-halal meat -or is that not allowed?

As to dividing people-why is this meat sold to us without proper labelling? It's been done in an underhand way. Christians are told in the Bible not to eat meat blessed to other gods. Why are they totally ignored in a free multi-faith society. This only leads to dividing people. People should be able buy in the full knowledge of what they are buying! Is it a democracy?
Businesses-advertise if you sell non-halal meat-or is that banned? LT do a survey to inform us who is selling non-halal meat -or is that not allowed? As to dividing people-why is this meat sold to us without proper labelling? It's been done in an underhand way. Christians are told in the Bible not to eat meat blessed to other gods. Why are they totally ignored in a free multi-faith society. This only leads to dividing people. People should be able buy in the full knowledge of what they are buying! Is it a democracy? vicn1956
  • Score: 37

12:20pm Fri 9 May 14

A Darener says...

When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best. A Darener
  • Score: 26

12:27pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

HarryBosch wrote:
Following some of the comments above, I would just like to clarify - in the stunning process the voltages used range between 50 volts for poultry up to a maximum of 125 volts for sheep and cattle. Where on earth the idea that 50,000 volts comes from I have no idea.
May be slightly exaggerated but still the process of stunning blows the brains out with an electric shock. Then it's slaughtered, the animal is basically tortured before it's killed.
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: Following some of the comments above, I would just like to clarify - in the stunning process the voltages used range between 50 volts for poultry up to a maximum of 125 volts for sheep and cattle. Where on earth the idea that 50,000 volts comes from I have no idea.[/p][/quote]May be slightly exaggerated but still the process of stunning blows the brains out with an electric shock. Then it's slaughtered, the animal is basically tortured before it's killed. salvadore
  • Score: -30

12:30pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

A Darener wrote:
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
So if a human had electricity bolts put through their so he's brains are totally fried and killed you believe that would not be torture. This what stunning does to animals.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.[/p][/quote]So if a human had electricity bolts put through their so he's brains are totally fried and killed you believe that would not be torture. This what stunning does to animals. salvadore
  • Score: 29

12:33pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

vicn1956 wrote:
Businesses-advertise if you sell non-halal meat-or is that banned?
LT do a survey to inform us who is selling non-halal meat -or is that not allowed?

As to dividing people-why is this meat sold to us without proper labelling? It's been done in an underhand way. Christians are told in the Bible not to eat meat blessed to other gods. Why are they totally ignored in a free multi-faith society. This only leads to dividing people. People should be able buy in the full knowledge of what they are buying! Is it a democracy?
I'm sure the majority of the Muslims Jews agree with you. But we should also label no halal meat by showing how they were slaughtered. You can't just single out one or two religious practices. Let's label it all and find how some of the non halal meat and the animals are kept before, during slaughter
[quote][p][bold]vicn1956[/bold] wrote: Businesses-advertise if you sell non-halal meat-or is that banned? LT do a survey to inform us who is selling non-halal meat -or is that not allowed? As to dividing people-why is this meat sold to us without proper labelling? It's been done in an underhand way. Christians are told in the Bible not to eat meat blessed to other gods. Why are they totally ignored in a free multi-faith society. This only leads to dividing people. People should be able buy in the full knowledge of what they are buying! Is it a democracy?[/p][/quote]I'm sure the majority of the Muslims Jews agree with you. But we should also label no halal meat by showing how they were slaughtered. You can't just single out one or two religious practices. Let's label it all and find how some of the non halal meat and the animals are kept before, during slaughter salvadore
  • Score: 40

12:36pm Fri 9 May 14

sen c b l says...

HarryBosch wrote:
Following some of the comments above, I would just like to clarify - in the stunning process the voltages used range between 50 volts for poultry up to a maximum of 125 volts for sheep and cattle. Where on earth the idea that 50,000 volts comes from I have no idea.
Regardless what voltage is used the animals leg will shake violently for longer compared to instant slaughter. In real terms both methods are barbaric but stunning the modern technique is unreserached and based on the findings of visual findings and results where the animal 'cries' when the throat is slit and witnessed by onlookers. Maybe this is what the 'ban' is mostly what the campaign is for but when an animal continues to remain in a coma after being hammered cannot be witnessed by the human eye and no human will ever know until technology advances to such level which will measure animal pain from within as receptors have been placed in an animal and is therefore why scientists have ruled out an outright ban but we all do know Jews, Muslims and let's not forget Christians all base their slaughter on the principles of the rules of the book as adviced by God he himself.
Personally I would like to see no animal consumption and will be solely campaigning for an outright ban as times gave moved on and we are living in a modern society. So for those who argue we live in a civilised century and how animals should be slaughtered, I'm afraid your civilisation doesn't come far enough and you're just as bad.
[quote][p][bold]HarryBosch[/bold] wrote: Following some of the comments above, I would just like to clarify - in the stunning process the voltages used range between 50 volts for poultry up to a maximum of 125 volts for sheep and cattle. Where on earth the idea that 50,000 volts comes from I have no idea.[/p][/quote]Regardless what voltage is used the animals leg will shake violently for longer compared to instant slaughter. In real terms both methods are barbaric but stunning the modern technique is unreserached and based on the findings of visual findings and results where the animal 'cries' when the throat is slit and witnessed by onlookers. Maybe this is what the 'ban' is mostly what the campaign is for but when an animal continues to remain in a coma after being hammered cannot be witnessed by the human eye and no human will ever know until technology advances to such level which will measure animal pain from within as receptors have been placed in an animal and is therefore why scientists have ruled out an outright ban but we all do know Jews, Muslims and let's not forget Christians all base their slaughter on the principles of the rules of the book as adviced by God he himself. Personally I would like to see no animal consumption and will be solely campaigning for an outright ban as times gave moved on and we are living in a modern society. So for those who argue we live in a civilised century and how animals should be slaughtered, I'm afraid your civilisation doesn't come far enough and you're just as bad. sen c b l
  • Score: -60

12:46pm Fri 9 May 14

Saj143 says...

HelmshoreMan2010 wrote:
I think it's funny how people use the last 5 seconds of an animals life as a springboard to air racist views (from both sides) when the real issue is an animal spending the other 99% of its life in poor conditions (again, from both sides).

I think Mr Chicken would be more bothered about not being able to move it's entire life than getting stunned or cut in the final few seconds!
Well said...totally agree.
[quote][p][bold]HelmshoreMan2010[/bold] wrote: I think it's funny how people use the last 5 seconds of an animals life as a springboard to air racist views (from both sides) when the real issue is an animal spending the other 99% of its life in poor conditions (again, from both sides). I think Mr Chicken would be more bothered about not being able to move it's entire life than getting stunned or cut in the final few seconds![/p][/quote]Well said...totally agree. Saj143
  • Score: -44

1:10pm Fri 9 May 14

mrdd186 says...

I eat meat, the animal should live the best life possible and killed as quickly as possible, but I don't want my meat killed in the name of some god if some people do ok that's your right, if its been killed for some religious reason it should be label as such,
I eat meat, the animal should live the best life possible and killed as quickly as possible, but I don't want my meat killed in the name of some god if some people do ok that's your right, if its been killed for some religious reason it should be label as such, mrdd186
  • Score: 61

2:16pm Fri 9 May 14

ikap22 says...

A Darener wrote:
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.[/p][/quote]Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them. ikap22
  • Score: -64

2:21pm Fri 9 May 14

CyberWala says...

usual bigots jumping on the bandwagon for muslim bashing. Supermarket meat may be halal, chicken on pizzas may be halal.... but why do you care ? Really why do you care ? The meat is killed in EXACTLY the same way as non halal meat..... only difference is some prayer is said before it's killed (the pray being to the effect "in the name of God") So pray tell why it's barbaric ? As for orthodox kosher and strict halal slaughter... that is tiny tiny minority of the overall market. Supermarkets dont sell that nor do any chain outlets. Only specialised butchers do it.... as the same with the Jewish Kosher meat.

Those bigots that pretend to be really concerned about animal welfare and shouting halal slaughter being barbaric are hypocrites of the first order..... Vegans and Vegetarians would rightly call you barbaric for killing a living being to satisfy your greedy meat eating needs. If you bigots really cared for animal welfare.. you would be vegans or vegetarians. Or in the least, join animal rights campaigns to improve the dreadful mass produced living conditions of these animals.

Why not concentrate on the time between an animal is born and the few minutes before it dies ?.... and see how dreadfully they are kept ... and treated.... instead of pretending shedding croc tears for the last few minutes of its life.

Read and absorb and educate yourselves :

http://www.newstates
man.com/politics/pol
itics/2012/05/halal-
hysteria
usual bigots jumping on the bandwagon for muslim bashing. Supermarket meat may be halal, chicken on pizzas may be halal.... but why do you care ? Really why do you care ? The meat is killed in EXACTLY the same way as non halal meat..... only difference is some prayer is said before it's killed (the pray being to the effect "in the name of God") So pray tell why it's barbaric ? As for orthodox kosher and strict halal slaughter... that is tiny tiny minority of the overall market. Supermarkets dont sell that nor do any chain outlets. Only specialised butchers do it.... as the same with the Jewish Kosher meat. Those bigots that pretend to be really concerned about animal welfare and shouting halal slaughter being barbaric are hypocrites of the first order..... Vegans and Vegetarians would rightly call you barbaric for killing a living being to satisfy your greedy meat eating needs. If you bigots really cared for animal welfare.. you would be vegans or vegetarians. Or in the least, join animal rights campaigns to improve the dreadful mass produced living conditions of these animals. Why not concentrate on the time between an animal is born and the few minutes before it dies ?.... and see how dreadfully they are kept ... and treated.... instead of pretending shedding croc tears for the last few minutes of its life. Read and absorb and educate yourselves : http://www.newstates man.com/politics/pol itics/2012/05/halal- hysteria CyberWala
  • Score: -51

2:22pm Fri 9 May 14

CyberWala says...

Halal hysteria

The British “debate” about meat, animal cruelty and ritual slaughter has become a proxy for deeper fears.

BY MEHDI HASAN PUBLISHED 9 MAY, 2012 - 10:59


I am sitting in one of London’s finest Indian restaurants, Benares, in the heart of Mayfair. I’ve just placed an order for the “Tandoori Ratan” mixed-grill appetiser – a trio of fennel lamb chop, chicken cutlet and king prawn.

I’ll be honest with you: I’m pretty excited. Most of the upmarket restaurants in London do not cater for the city’s burgeoning Muslim population. Benares is one of the few exceptions: all of the lamb and chicken dishes on its menu are halal.

The restaurant opened in 2003 and its owner, Atul Kochhar, is a Michelin-starred chef. “Right from day one, we’ve kept our lamb and chicken halal,” Kochhar says. “It was a very conscious decision because I grew up in India, a secular country, where I was taught to have respect for all religions.” Kochhar, who is a Hindu, says Muslims make up “easily between 10 and 20 per cent” of his regular diners. It isn’t just a taste for religious pluralism that has dictated the contents of his menu; serving halal meat makes commercial, as well as cultural, sense.

To other, perhaps less tolerant types, however, the rise and rise of halal meat in the west and here in the UK, in particular, is a source of tension, controversy, fear and loathing. British Muslims are living through a period of halal hysteria, a moral panic over our meat. First there came 9/11, 7/7 and the “Islamic” terror threat; then there was the row over the niqab (face veil) and hijab (headscarf); now, astonishingly, it’s the frenzy over halal meat.

Last month, MPs in the Commons rejected a ten-minute-rule bill that would have made it mandatory for retailers to label all of the halal and kosher meat on sale and make it clear on the packaging that the animals were “killed without stunning”. The bill’s proponent, the Tory backbencher Philip Davies, claimed that the meat was being “forced upon” shoppers “without their knowledge”. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins – 73 votes to 70.

As is so often the case, the right-wing press is behind much of the fear-mongering and misinformation. “Britain goes halal . . . but no one tells the public,” screamed the front-page headline in the Mail on Sunday on 19 September 2010. The paper claimed that supermarkets, restaurants, schools, hospitals, pubs and big sporting venues such as Wembley Stadium were “controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public”.

The following week, readers were treated to two more stories suggesting a sinister plot to inflict halal meat on innocent, animal-loving, non-Muslim Britons. “How 70 per cent of New Zealand lamb imports to Britain are halal . . . but this is NOT put on the label”, said the Daily Mail on 25 September 2010. “Top supermarkets secretly sell halal: Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and M&S don’t tell us meat is ritually slaughtered,” proclaimed the Mail on Sunday the next day.

With the threat from terrorism receding, Britain’s Islam-baiters have jumped on the anti-halal bandwagon, and not just the neo-fascists of the British National Party and the English Defence League, which has a page on its website devoted to its (anti-) “halal campaign”, but mainstream commentators, too. The Spectator’s Rod Liddle – who once wrote a column entitled “Islamophobia? Count me in” – has demanded that halal meat be banned and called for a boycott of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury and the rest until they agree to stop stocking halal products. “I will buy no meat from supermarkets,” he wrote, rather melodramatically, back in 2010.

In this year’s French presidential election, candidates seemed to spend more time discussing halal meat than rising unemployment or the ballooning budget deficit. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, alleged that “all the abattoirs in the Paris region sell halal meat without exception”, while the outgoing president, Nicolas Sarkozy, claimed that the halal issue was a “central concern” for French voters. (For the record, halal constitutes 2 per cent of all the meat sold in Paris.)

Last year in the Netherlands, the lower house of parliament approved a bill, introduced by the Party for the Animals (PvdD) and backed by the Islamophobe Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party, to have all ritually slaughtered meat, including halal and kosher, banned. The Dutch government refused to sign off on the bill but agreed to appoint a commission to consider tighter procedures for slaughter.

Stun guns
So, what is it about halal that provokes such anger and hysteria? The word literally means “lawful” and refers to any object – not just food – or action or behaviour that is deemed permissible under Islamic law.

For meat to be considered halal, three conditions must be met:

1) The animal must be healthy and uninjured and, crucially, it must be killed with a cut.
2) All the blood must be drained from the animal’s body.
3) The slaughterer must recite the appropriate Islamic prayer at the time of slaughter.

Islam, like Judaism, prescribes a single-cut method of slaughter: the animal is killed with a quick cut to the throat using a sharp knife. This allows the blood to drain out and, it is believed, makes the meat cleaner.

Naturally, the image of blood flowing out from the slit throat of a dead cow or sheep doesn’t help. But Muslims, like Jews, insist that so-called ritual slaughter is humane and pain-free because the animal quickly loses consciousness. “There is no time to start feeling any pain,” in the words of Dr Majid Katme, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.

In contrast, modern western non-ritual methods of slaughter demand that the animal be rendered unconscious before it is killed – usually by means of stunning, with a bolt gun, or electrocution. The stunning of livestock before slaughter has been compulsory in the EU since 1979 but most member states, including the UK, grant exemptions to Muslims and Jews.

So, for the moment, non-stunned halal meat is available in Britain, but contra the Mail on Sunday, there’s not enough of it to satisfy the growing demand. As a Muslim, I often have great difficulty in deciding where to eat out, given the lack of halal restaurants (hence my excitement at Benares). One recent survey suggested nine out of every ten UK Muslims adhere to the strict rules on halal eating – that is, they reluctantly opt for the salmon, and not the steak, when eating out.

Nonetheless, even though they represent just 3 per cent of the population, Britain’s two million Muslims tend to eat much more meat, on average, than their non-Muslim counterparts. Reports suggest that British Muslims consume a fifth of all red meat sold in the UK.

I have British Muslim friends who book their holiday flights on Emirates, whatever their end destination, specifically in order to be able to stop off in transit in Dubai and buy a Big Mac from the airport’s halal McDonald’s. Some Muslims, it seems, will travel to the corners of the earth in pursuit of halal food.

Is it any wonder that the UK halal meat market is estimated to be worth £3bn? Or that fast-food chains in the UK such as McDonald’s and Domino’s Pizza are working on trials offering halal meat?

Nando’s, the Portuguese mid-market restaurant chain, has perhaps gone furthest and fastest. One in five of its branches in the UK now serves halal-certified chicken, and I never cease to be amazed by the sea of hijabs among the diners at the Nando’s in south Harrow that has been my “local” for the past decade.

Then there’s KFC, which has responded to the raft of halal fried-chicken franchises (see Sophie Elmhirst’s piece on page 28) by running a halal trial in a hundred of its restaurants nationwide. On its UK website, KFC promises its customers that “our food is just as tasty and finger lickin’ good as it has always been”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it also includes a list of defensive answers to “frequently asked questions” such as “Why have you chosen my store?” and “Does this mean your animal welfare standards have changed?”.

Protecting animals is the cover behind which critics of halal meat often hide. This month, Professor Bill Reilly, a past president of the British Veterinary Association, condemned the rise in the number of animals killed in ritual slaughter as “not acceptable”. “f we cannot eliminate non-stunning, we need to keep it to the minimum,” he wrote in the Veterinary Record. “This means restricting the use of halal and kosher meat to those communities that require it for their religious beliefs and, where possible, convincing them of the acceptability of the stunned alternatives.”

Opponents of ritual slaughter cite a raft of scientific studies that condemn the practice as painful and abusive. In a much-discussed report published in 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent body that advised the UK government until its dissolution last year, argued that ritual methods of slaughter resulted in “significant pain and distress” for the animal and recommended that Muslims and Jews be banned from slaughtering livestock without stunning the animals first.

The FAWC’s findings were backed by a major EU-funded study “on issues of religious slaughter”, which concluded in 2010: “. . . it can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning”.

Case closed? Not quite. Ruksana Shain, of the Muslim consumer group Behalal.org, says the scientific evidence against halal slaughter “isn’t conclusive”. But she would say that, wouldn’t she? OK. Well, consider the verdict of Joe Regenstein, professor of food science at Cornell University in the United States, who leads the university’s Kosher and Halal Food Initiative.

“Many of those attacking religious slaughter have no clue as to what is happening,” he tells me. “It is more of an Islamophobic issue, not an animal well-being issue.” Compared to modern, secular methods of slaughter, he says, “the traditional or Prophetic method might actually be equal or possibly superior” because the initial pain of the throat cut results “in the animal releasing large quantities of endorphins, putting it in a state of euphoria and numbness”. The cut thus serves as its own stun. The scientific evidence against halal slaughter, Regenstein says, “is extremely weak and has often been done poorly with an agenda driving a desired outcome”.

Missing defence
To pretend that Muslims do not care about animal welfare is unfair. There are several Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet warning Muslims not to harm livestock; mistreatment of animals is considered a sin by the vast majority of Islamic scholars. In fact, advocates of halal slaughter can call on their own slew of scientific studies for support.

In 1978, research led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover showed that “the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions ”. The German Federal Constitutional Court based its 2002 verdict permitting ritual slaughter on this study.

Then there are the writings and research of Temple Grandin, professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University and one of America’s leading experts on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock. She sees no difference between stunned and non-stunned slaughter if both are conducted properly and professionally. When a ritual slaughter is “done really right”, Grandin has said, “the animal seemed to act like it didn’t even feel it – if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me”.

Remember, the “secular ways of slaughter”, as Regenstein points out, also have their downsides: “If the public were to discover that animals were subject to a pre-slaughter intervention – like having their skull cracked open, electrocuted, or put in a gas chamber – they might not really like that either.” Shouldn’t consumers have a right to know which of these methods were used? Shouldn’t they be told about the danger of “mis-stunning”, which leaves the animal conscious and in pain, and occurs “relatively frequently”, according to a 2004 report by the European Food Safety Authority? Why not label all meat with detailed explanations of how exactly the animal in question was killed, and let consumers decide? “Why only pick on halal?” Ruksana Shain asks.

In the Commons debate on food labelling on 24 April, the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, who is Jewish, criticised Philip Davies for singling out Muslims and Jews, saying he had “picked on two small minorities who share the way in which the meat they eat is killed”. However, Kaufman added that he would not have expressed his “total opposition to this bill” if it had cast its net wider to include other animals such as chickens that had been kept in “dreadful conditions”.

Preventing animal cruelty goes far beyond the “debate” about stunning or not stunning. And ironically, not all Muslims are opposed to stunning. There are two main organisations that regulate the halal food industry in the UK – the Halal Monitoring Committee, which has a “blanket ruling disallowing stunning in any form”, and the Halal Food Authority, which allows controlled stunning where the “animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering”, and which has certified KFC’s stunned chicken as halal.

Thus, most Muslim, and non-Muslim, participants in the heated debate over halal meat are ignoring a critical point. Data produced by the Meat Hygiene Service in 2004 suggested that roughly 90 per cent of halal slaughter in the UK involved stunning. In September 2011, the Food Standards Agency reported that “the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter”. So what’s all the fuss about?

Consider the scare stories from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which automatically assume that all halal meat derives from the traditional, non-stunned method of slaughter. What drove both papers’ coverage of the story? Are we seriously expected to believe that either the Mail or the Mail on Sunday gives a **** about animal rights? I struggle to recall the last occasion on which either tabloid splashed on the abuse or neglect of animals. More often than not, Mail columnists reserve rather harsh words (“deranged fanatics”, to quote Richard Littlejohn) for animal rights activists.

Crucially, if the hysteria over halal meat in Britain isn’t the product of Islamophobia, how do halal-obsessed politicians and journalists explain their silence on the subject of kosher meat? The 2003 Farm Animal Welfare Council report condemned both halal and kosher methods of slaughter. Yet, for instance, the Mail on Sunday, despite referring to “ritually slaughtered meat” in the headline of its “Britain goes halal . . .” report, went on to discuss only halal meat for the first 24 paragraphs of the piece before mentioning kosher meat – in passing – in the 25th paragraph.

The truth is that halal has become a proxy for much deeper fears and concerns about the presence of a growing and vocal Muslim population in our midst. “It’s being used as a political issue, especially by xenophobic and Islamophobic folks, to whip up a backlash against ‘the other’,” Regenstein says.

To pretend otherwise is naive, if not disingenuous. If this was a debate about animal welfare, it would be about all forms of slaughter; if it was a debate about ritual slaughter, it would address kosher, and not just halal, meat.

“Why only pick on halal?” It’s an important question in need of an urgent answer.
Halal hysteria The British “debate” about meat, animal cruelty and ritual slaughter has become a proxy for deeper fears. BY MEHDI HASAN PUBLISHED 9 MAY, 2012 - 10:59 I am sitting in one of London’s finest Indian restaurants, Benares, in the heart of Mayfair. I’ve just placed an order for the “Tandoori Ratan” mixed-grill appetiser – a trio of fennel lamb chop, chicken cutlet and king prawn. I’ll be honest with you: I’m pretty excited. Most of the upmarket restaurants in London do not cater for the city’s burgeoning Muslim population. Benares is one of the few exceptions: all of the lamb and chicken dishes on its menu are halal. The restaurant opened in 2003 and its owner, Atul Kochhar, is a Michelin-starred chef. “Right from day one, we’ve kept our lamb and chicken halal,” Kochhar says. “It was a very conscious decision because I grew up in India, a secular country, where I was taught to have respect for all religions.” Kochhar, who is a Hindu, says Muslims make up “easily between 10 and 20 per cent” of his regular diners. It isn’t just a taste for religious pluralism that has dictated the contents of his menu; serving halal meat makes commercial, as well as cultural, sense. To other, perhaps less tolerant types, however, the rise and rise of halal meat in the west and here in the UK, in particular, is a source of tension, controversy, fear and loathing. British Muslims are living through a period of halal hysteria, a moral panic over our meat. First there came 9/11, 7/7 and the “Islamic” terror threat; then there was the row over the niqab (face veil) and hijab (headscarf); now, astonishingly, it’s the frenzy over halal meat. Last month, MPs in the Commons rejected a ten-minute-rule bill that would have made it mandatory for retailers to label all of the halal and kosher meat on sale and make it clear on the packaging that the animals were “killed without stunning”. The bill’s proponent, the Tory backbencher Philip Davies, claimed that the meat was being “forced upon” shoppers “without their knowledge”. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins – 73 votes to 70. As is so often the case, the right-wing press is behind much of the fear-mongering and misinformation. “Britain goes halal . . . but no one tells the public,” screamed the front-page headline in the Mail on Sunday on 19 September 2010. The paper claimed that supermarkets, restaurants, schools, hospitals, pubs and big sporting venues such as Wembley Stadium were “controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public”. The following week, readers were treated to two more stories suggesting a sinister plot to inflict halal meat on innocent, animal-loving, non-Muslim Britons. “How 70 per cent of New Zealand lamb imports to Britain are halal . . . but this is NOT put on the label”, said the Daily Mail on 25 September 2010. “Top supermarkets secretly sell halal: Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and M&S don’t tell us meat is ritually slaughtered,” proclaimed the Mail on Sunday the next day. With the threat from terrorism receding, Britain’s Islam-baiters have jumped on the anti-halal bandwagon, and not just the neo-fascists of the British National Party and the English Defence League, which has a page on its website devoted to its (anti-) “halal campaign”, but mainstream commentators, too. The Spectator’s Rod Liddle – who once wrote a column entitled “Islamophobia? Count me in” – has demanded that halal meat be banned and called for a boycott of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury and the rest until they agree to stop stocking halal products. “I will buy no meat from supermarkets,” he wrote, rather melodramatically, back in 2010. In this year’s French presidential election, candidates seemed to spend more time discussing halal meat than rising unemployment or the ballooning budget deficit. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, alleged that “all the abattoirs in the Paris region sell halal meat without exception”, while the outgoing president, Nicolas Sarkozy, claimed that the halal issue was a “central concern” for French voters. (For the record, halal constitutes 2 per cent of all the meat sold in Paris.) Last year in the Netherlands, the lower house of parliament approved a bill, introduced by the Party for the Animals (PvdD) and backed by the Islamophobe Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party, to have all ritually slaughtered meat, including halal and kosher, banned. The Dutch government refused to sign off on the bill but agreed to appoint a commission to consider tighter procedures for slaughter. Stun guns So, what is it about halal that provokes such anger and hysteria? The word literally means “lawful” and refers to any object – not just food – or action or behaviour that is deemed permissible under Islamic law. For meat to be considered halal, three conditions must be met: 1) The animal must be healthy and uninjured and, crucially, it must be killed with a cut. 2) All the blood must be drained from the animal’s body. 3) The slaughterer must recite the appropriate Islamic prayer at the time of slaughter. Islam, like Judaism, prescribes a single-cut method of slaughter: the animal is killed with a quick cut to the throat using a sharp knife. This allows the blood to drain out and, it is believed, makes the meat cleaner. Naturally, the image of blood flowing out from the slit throat of a dead cow or sheep doesn’t help. But Muslims, like Jews, insist that so-called ritual slaughter is humane and pain-free because the animal quickly loses consciousness. “There is no time to start feeling any pain,” in the words of Dr Majid Katme, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain. In contrast, modern western non-ritual methods of slaughter demand that the animal be rendered unconscious before it is killed – usually by means of stunning, with a bolt gun, or electrocution. The stunning of livestock before slaughter has been compulsory in the EU since 1979 but most member states, including the UK, grant exemptions to Muslims and Jews. So, for the moment, non-stunned halal meat is available in Britain, but contra the Mail on Sunday, there’s not enough of it to satisfy the growing demand. As a Muslim, I often have great difficulty in deciding where to eat out, given the lack of halal restaurants (hence my excitement at Benares). One recent survey suggested nine out of every ten UK Muslims adhere to the strict rules on halal eating – that is, they reluctantly opt for the salmon, and not the steak, when eating out. Nonetheless, even though they represent just 3 per cent of the population, Britain’s two million Muslims tend to eat much more meat, on average, than their non-Muslim counterparts. Reports suggest that British Muslims consume a fifth of all red meat sold in the UK. I have British Muslim friends who book their holiday flights on Emirates, whatever their end destination, specifically in order to be able to stop off in transit in Dubai and buy a Big Mac from the airport’s halal McDonald’s. Some Muslims, it seems, will travel to the corners of the earth in pursuit of halal food. Is it any wonder that the UK halal meat market is estimated to be worth £3bn? Or that fast-food chains in the UK such as McDonald’s and Domino’s Pizza are working on trials offering halal meat? Nando’s, the Portuguese mid-market restaurant chain, has perhaps gone furthest and fastest. One in five of its branches in the UK now serves halal-certified chicken, and I never cease to be amazed by the sea of hijabs among the diners at the Nando’s in south Harrow that has been my “local” for the past decade. Then there’s KFC, which has responded to the raft of halal fried-chicken franchises (see Sophie Elmhirst’s piece on page 28) by running a halal trial in a hundred of its restaurants nationwide. On its UK website, KFC promises its customers that “our food is just as tasty and finger lickin’ good as it has always been”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it also includes a list of defensive answers to “frequently asked questions” such as “Why have you chosen my store?” and “Does this mean your animal welfare standards have changed?”. Protecting animals is the cover behind which critics of halal meat often hide. This month, Professor Bill Reilly, a past president of the British Veterinary Association, condemned the rise in the number of animals killed in ritual slaughter as “not acceptable”. “[I]f we cannot eliminate non-stunning, we need to keep it to the minimum,” he wrote in the Veterinary Record. “This means restricting the use of halal and kosher meat to those communities that require it for their religious beliefs and, where possible, convincing them of the acceptability of the stunned alternatives.” Opponents of ritual slaughter cite a raft of scientific studies that condemn the practice as painful and abusive. In a much-discussed report published in 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent body that advised the UK government until its dissolution last year, argued that ritual methods of slaughter resulted in “significant pain and distress” for the animal and recommended that Muslims and Jews be banned from slaughtering livestock without stunning the animals first. The FAWC’s findings were backed by a major EU-funded study “on issues of religious slaughter”, which concluded in 2010: “. . . it can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning”. Case closed? Not quite. Ruksana Shain, of the Muslim consumer group Behalal.org, says the scientific evidence against halal slaughter “isn’t conclusive”. But she would say that, wouldn’t she? OK. Well, consider the verdict of Joe Regenstein, professor of food science at Cornell University in the United States, who leads the university’s Kosher and Halal Food Initiative. “Many of those attacking religious slaughter have no clue as to what is happening,” he tells me. “It is more of an Islamophobic issue, not an animal well-being issue.” Compared to modern, secular methods of slaughter, he says, “the traditional or Prophetic method might actually be equal or possibly superior” because the initial pain of the throat cut results “in the animal releasing large quantities of endorphins, putting it in a state of euphoria and numbness”. The cut thus serves as its own stun. The scientific evidence against halal slaughter, Regenstein says, “is extremely weak and has often been done poorly with an agenda driving a desired outcome”. Missing defence To pretend that Muslims do not care about animal welfare is unfair. There are several Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet warning Muslims not to harm livestock; mistreatment of animals is considered a sin by the vast majority of Islamic scholars. In fact, advocates of halal slaughter can call on their own slew of scientific studies for support. In 1978, research led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover showed that “the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG [electroencephalography] recordings and the missing defensive actions [of the animals]”. The German Federal Constitutional Court based its 2002 verdict permitting ritual slaughter on this study. Then there are the writings and research of Temple Grandin, professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University and one of America’s leading experts on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock. She sees no difference between stunned and non-stunned slaughter if both are conducted properly and professionally. When a ritual slaughter is “done really right”, Grandin has said, “the animal seemed to act like it didn’t even feel it – if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me”. Remember, the “secular ways of slaughter”, as Regenstein points out, also have their downsides: “If the public were to discover that animals were subject to a pre-slaughter intervention – like having their skull cracked open, [being] electrocuted, or put in a gas chamber – they might not really like that either.” Shouldn’t consumers have a right to know which of these methods were used? Shouldn’t they be told about the danger of “mis-stunning”, which leaves the animal conscious and in pain, and occurs “relatively frequently”, according to a 2004 report by the European Food Safety Authority? Why not label all meat with detailed explanations of how exactly the animal in question was killed, and let consumers decide? “Why only pick on halal?” Ruksana Shain asks. In the Commons debate on food labelling on 24 April, the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, who is Jewish, criticised Philip Davies for singling out Muslims and Jews, saying he had “picked on two small minorities who share the way in which the meat they eat is killed”. However, Kaufman added that he would not have expressed his “total opposition to this bill” if it had cast its net wider to include other animals such as chickens that had been kept in “dreadful conditions”. Preventing animal cruelty goes far beyond the “debate” about stunning or not stunning. And ironically, not all Muslims are opposed to stunning. There are two main organisations that regulate the halal food industry in the UK – the Halal Monitoring Committee, which has a “blanket ruling disallowing stunning in any form”, and the Halal Food Authority, which allows controlled stunning where the “animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering”, and which has certified KFC’s stunned chicken as halal. Thus, most Muslim, and non-Muslim, participants in the heated debate over halal meat are ignoring a critical point. Data produced by the Meat Hygiene Service in 2004 suggested that roughly 90 per cent of halal slaughter in the UK involved stunning. In September 2011, the Food Standards Agency reported that “the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter”. So what’s all the fuss about? Consider the scare stories from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which automatically assume that all halal meat derives from the traditional, non-stunned method of slaughter. What drove both papers’ coverage of the story? Are we seriously expected to believe that either the Mail or the Mail on Sunday gives a **** about animal rights? I struggle to recall the last occasion on which either tabloid splashed on the abuse or neglect of animals. More often than not, Mail columnists reserve rather harsh words (“deranged fanatics”, to quote Richard Littlejohn) for animal rights activists. Crucially, if the hysteria over halal meat in Britain isn’t the product of Islamophobia, how do halal-obsessed politicians and journalists explain their silence on the subject of kosher meat? The 2003 Farm Animal Welfare Council report condemned both halal and kosher methods of slaughter. Yet, for instance, the Mail on Sunday, despite referring to “ritually slaughtered meat” in the headline of its “Britain goes halal . . .” report, went on to discuss only halal meat for the first 24 paragraphs of the piece before mentioning kosher meat – in passing – in the 25th paragraph. The truth is that halal has become a proxy for much deeper fears and concerns about the presence of a growing and vocal Muslim population in our midst. “It’s being used as a political issue, especially by xenophobic and Islamophobic folks, to whip up a backlash against ‘the other’,” Regenstein says. To pretend otherwise is naive, if not disingenuous. If this was a debate about animal welfare, it would be about all forms of slaughter; if it was a debate about ritual slaughter, it would address kosher, and not just halal, meat. “Why only pick on halal?” It’s an important question in need of an urgent answer. CyberWala
  • Score: -72

2:28pm Fri 9 May 14

shytalk says...

If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them
If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them shytalk
  • Score: 59

2:54pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

shytalk wrote:
If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them
You have a problem reading, Muslims and Jews would like all meat labelling. This means all meat not just halal or kosher, the labelling of non halal meat should say how the animal the meat comes from was slaughtered. Everyone then can see which way is the least painful.
[quote][p][bold]shytalk[/bold] wrote: If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them[/p][/quote]You have a problem reading, Muslims and Jews would like all meat labelling. This means all meat not just halal or kosher, the labelling of non halal meat should say how the animal the meat comes from was slaughtered. Everyone then can see which way is the least painful. salvadore
  • Score: -75

3:14pm Fri 9 May 14

shytalk says...

https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=LAQJ-FZo
1cA
https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=LAQJ-FZo 1cA shytalk
  • Score: -30

3:32pm Fri 9 May 14

Frisson says...

CyberWala if you think the animal feels no pain then I would google beheadings of humans and see if the sounds they are making sounds like they are pain free!!! The same will apply to animals we eat. It is more humane to stun them unconcious then execute them.
CyberWala if you think the animal feels no pain then I would google beheadings of humans and see if the sounds they are making sounds like they are pain free!!! The same will apply to animals we eat. It is more humane to stun them unconcious then execute them. Frisson
  • Score: 75

4:06pm Fri 9 May 14

wilddog says...

Where is my freedom to choose in all of this eh? I get every others mans rights upheld in court except my own. So ya eat halal? So blooming what! All i ask if for food chains, fast food outlets to clearly label the meat they use. Then i have the choice whether to buy or not to buy. Trouble is, the big stores try to pander to some without letting all know therefore maximizing profit for themselves and that is wrong!This is not about religion but about the right to choose, end off! Animals are bred for us to eat but i dont see anyone doing without their burger.currie etc, do i? Just label up as asked, end of story, simple!
Where is my freedom to choose in all of this eh? I get every others mans rights upheld in court except my own. So ya eat halal? So blooming what! All i ask if for food chains, fast food outlets to clearly label the meat they use. Then i have the choice whether to buy or not to buy. Trouble is, the big stores try to pander to some without letting all know therefore maximizing profit for themselves and that is wrong!This is not about religion but about the right to choose, end off! Animals are bred for us to eat but i dont see anyone doing without their burger.currie etc, do i? Just label up as asked, end of story, simple! wilddog
  • Score: 41

4:09pm Fri 9 May 14

wilddog says...

ikap22 wrote:
A Darener wrote:
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.
ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?
[quote][p][bold]ikap22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.[/p][/quote]Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.[/p][/quote]ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya? wilddog
  • Score: 34

4:44pm Fri 9 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

wilddog wrote:
ikap22 wrote:
A Darener wrote:
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.
ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?
I think maybe he looks in the mirror too often and the image is stuck in his mind !!
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ikap22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.[/p][/quote]Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.[/p][/quote]ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?[/p][/quote]I think maybe he looks in the mirror too often and the image is stuck in his mind !! ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 75

4:44pm Fri 9 May 14

Primus622 says...

Bluelizzy wrote:
Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?
The internet is awash with videos of sub humans murdering each other using throat cutting just see how ecstatic the victims look at being killed in the halal way
[quote][p][bold]Bluelizzy[/bold] wrote: Ritual slaughter ? what century is this ? and why in a civilized country with laws relating to animal cruelty is this allowed to carry on ?[/p][/quote]The internet is awash with videos of sub humans murdering each other using throat cutting just see how ecstatic the victims look at being killed in the halal way Primus622
  • Score: 58

4:57pm Fri 9 May 14

the white witch says...

It should not matter what religion, race or anything else anyone is, for someone to live in England they should live by the english laws and animal cruelty is NOT one of those laws. To do a sacrifice like this to any animal is cold heartless and brutal and should never be allowed to happen.
It should not matter what religion, race or anything else anyone is, for someone to live in England they should live by the english laws and animal cruelty is NOT one of those laws. To do a sacrifice like this to any animal is cold heartless and brutal and should never be allowed to happen. the white witch
  • Score: 66

4:59pm Fri 9 May 14

Bat E Karen says...

This piece in the Mail today is very informative.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-2623879/We-Muslims
-appalled-sale-halal
-meat-stealth.html
This piece in the Mail today is very informative. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html Bat E Karen
  • Score: 62

5:10pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

Frisson wrote:
CyberWala if you think the animal feels no pain then I would google beheadings of humans and see if the sounds they are making sounds like they are pain free!!! The same will apply to animals we eat. It is more humane to stun them unconcious then execute them.
So you believe frying the animals brains then killing them is less painful. Taft would torture if it was done to a human.
[quote][p][bold]Frisson[/bold] wrote: CyberWala if you think the animal feels no pain then I would google beheadings of humans and see if the sounds they are making sounds like they are pain free!!! The same will apply to animals we eat. It is more humane to stun them unconcious then execute them.[/p][/quote]So you believe frying the animals brains then killing them is less painful. Taft would torture if it was done to a human. salvadore
  • Score: -57

5:14pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

Bat E Karen wrote:
This piece in the Mail today is very informative.

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/debate/articl

e-2623879/We-Muslims

-appalled-sale-halal

-meat-stealth.html
Actually it's ****, dr Hargeys comments are anti Islamic ready previous blog. He has totally mis interpreted the quranic verse. He should be ashamed of his pathetic attempts to bring in false interpretations on islam
[quote][p][bold]Bat E Karen[/bold] wrote: This piece in the Mail today is very informative. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2623879/We-Muslims -appalled-sale-halal -meat-stealth.html[/p][/quote]Actually it's ****, dr Hargeys comments are anti Islamic ready previous blog. He has totally mis interpreted the quranic verse. He should be ashamed of his pathetic attempts to bring in false interpretations on islam salvadore
  • Score: -89

5:24pm Fri 9 May 14

Primus622 says...

wilddog wrote:
ikap22 wrote:
A Darener wrote:
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.
ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?
Probably originates from Turdistan...
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ikap22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.[/p][/quote]Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.[/p][/quote]ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?[/p][/quote]Probably originates from Turdistan... Primus622
  • Score: 76

5:27pm Fri 9 May 14

Primus622 says...

wilddog wrote:
ikap22 wrote:
A Darener wrote:
When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used.
I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.
Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.
ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?
Probably originates from Turdistan...
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ikap22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: When the Koran was written there was no humane way to stun an animal before slaughter, therefore whoever wrote it could only write as he saw it at that time. Today in a modern world other methods are available, so if they are more humane they should be used. I don't know whether stunning or not stunning is more humane, perhaps more scientific study is required. But having seen ritual slaughter I believe stunning is best.[/p][/quote]Wake up turd! All the Holy scriptures came from the Almighty. Some were changed by turds like yourself just to suit them.[/p][/quote]ikap22, your mastery of english is amazing! Well done! You know how to use the word turd in nearly every post you do! You clever boy you! When it comes to word selection you are the big turd when it really matters, aint ya?[/p][/quote]Probably originates from Turdistan... Primus622
  • Score: 67

6:07pm Fri 9 May 14

nice person says...

salvadore wrote:
nice person wrote:
salvadore wrote:
Commenting wrote:
I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions.
The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.
I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.
You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.
Ah but we do and can only eat like the Jews halal meat. Those who have a go at this process are hypocrites. Go check how your animals are killed, pigs gassed, brains blown up by shoving thousands of volts through the animals head. I answered your suggestion in my previous blog. I can understand vegetarians or even vegans not liking animal slaughter but those who eat meat haven't a leg to stand on. All killing of animals is going to be painful no matter how you do it. You don't like it then be a vegetarian,this is just a smoke screen to have a go at Muslims. Started by the anti Muslim SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL.
I am a vegetarian,by choice.If people wish to eat meat,then they do so by choice.but,the barbaric ways they are killed belong to the middle ages.I follow no religion just common sense and empathy for all living things.
[quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nice person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Commenting[/bold] wrote: I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions. The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.[/p][/quote]I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.[/p][/quote]You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Ah but we do and can only eat like the Jews halal meat. Those who have a go at this process are hypocrites. Go check how your animals are killed, pigs gassed, brains blown up by shoving thousands of volts through the animals head. I answered your suggestion in my previous blog. I can understand vegetarians or even vegans not liking animal slaughter but those who eat meat haven't a leg to stand on. All killing of animals is going to be painful no matter how you do it. You don't like it then be a vegetarian,this is just a smoke screen to have a go at Muslims. Started by the anti Muslim SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL.[/p][/quote]I am a vegetarian,by choice.If people wish to eat meat,then they do so by choice.but,the barbaric ways they are killed belong to the middle ages.I follow no religion just common sense and empathy for all living things. nice person
  • Score: 81

7:05pm Fri 9 May 14

salvadore says...

nice person wrote:
salvadore wrote:
nice person wrote:
salvadore wrote:
Commenting wrote:
I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions.
The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.
I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.
You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.
Ah but we do and can only eat like the Jews halal meat. Those who have a go at this process are hypocrites. Go check how your animals are killed, pigs gassed, brains blown up by shoving thousands of volts through the animals head. I answered your suggestion in my previous blog. I can understand vegetarians or even vegans not liking animal slaughter but those who eat meat haven't a leg to stand on. All killing of animals is going to be painful no matter how you do it. You don't like it then be a vegetarian,this is just a smoke screen to have a go at Muslims. Started by the anti Muslim SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL.
I am a vegetarian,by choice.If people wish to eat meat,then they do so by choice.but,the barbaric ways they are killed belong to the middle ages.I follow no religion just common sense and empathy for all living things.
How is it barbaric, Islamic law teaches animal welfare to kill the animal by trained people using the sharpest knives to make sure the jugular veins are cut quickly. All slaughter is horrible for the animals but Islam teaches quick slaughter with little pain as possible. The blood is drained which and carcass washed to remove any blood based diseases from the animal so humans don't get infected. Like mad cow disease etc. putting a electric bolt in the head is torture before slaughter.
[quote][p][bold]nice person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nice person[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Commenting[/bold] wrote: I am sick and tired of the continual patronage to the minority Muslim community. In all civilised countries, which includes Britain, we ensure that animal welfare is protected yet we continue to allow Muslims and Jews to disregard such conditions. The British people are patient and law abiding in the main but when our politicians continue to allow a minority to impose their customs on the majority, there will be a reaction.[/p][/quote]I'm sick and tired of the constant misinformed attacks on the Muslim way of life. Firstly the quickest and most efficient way to slaughter an animal is the iSlamic and kosher way. This has been proven scientifically, those wig argue for stunning haven't a clue. You are putting 50000 volts through the brains of a chicken, sheep, lamb and cows then slaughtering them. Basically you blow the brains out before you kill them properly. If this want done to a human where 50000 volts fried and mans brains then he was killed it would be calked tortured to death. By stunning you are doing exactly that torturing the animals before killing them. This is nothing to do with animal welfare, this is more about having a go at the Muslim way of life. Yes we should be label all meat not just halal and kosher so that people are informed of what they eat. Even non halal near should show how they were slaughtered. Pigs being gassed, animals slaughtered by non halal methods using torturous methods, the welfare of animals how they are kept etc should all be highlighted. You'll find that the non halal meat comes from animals which have been savagely slaughtered.[/p][/quote]You do not need to eat just halal meat ? It is nothing more than gaining MORE control,simple as that.Just keep reminding yourself,this is not a muslim country and old barbaric ways of killing animals are unacceptable in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Ah but we do and can only eat like the Jews halal meat. Those who have a go at this process are hypocrites. Go check how your animals are killed, pigs gassed, brains blown up by shoving thousands of volts through the animals head. I answered your suggestion in my previous blog. I can understand vegetarians or even vegans not liking animal slaughter but those who eat meat haven't a leg to stand on. All killing of animals is going to be painful no matter how you do it. You don't like it then be a vegetarian,this is just a smoke screen to have a go at Muslims. Started by the anti Muslim SUN AND THE DAILY MAIL.[/p][/quote]I am a vegetarian,by choice.If people wish to eat meat,then they do so by choice.but,the barbaric ways they are killed belong to the middle ages.I follow no religion just common sense and empathy for all living things.[/p][/quote]How is it barbaric, Islamic law teaches animal welfare to kill the animal by trained people using the sharpest knives to make sure the jugular veins are cut quickly. All slaughter is horrible for the animals but Islam teaches quick slaughter with little pain as possible. The blood is drained which and carcass washed to remove any blood based diseases from the animal so humans don't get infected. Like mad cow disease etc. putting a electric bolt in the head is torture before slaughter. salvadore
  • Score: -80

8:40pm Fri 9 May 14

ghost of sceptic says...

CyberWala wrote:
Halal hysteria

The British “debate” about meat, animal cruelty and ritual slaughter has become a proxy for deeper fears.

BY MEHDI HASAN PUBLISHED 9 MAY, 2012 - 10:59


I am sitting in one of London’s finest Indian restaurants, Benares, in the heart of Mayfair. I’ve just placed an order for the “Tandoori Ratan” mixed-grill appetiser – a trio of fennel lamb chop, chicken cutlet and king prawn.

I’ll be honest with you: I’m pretty excited. Most of the upmarket restaurants in London do not cater for the city’s burgeoning Muslim population. Benares is one of the few exceptions: all of the lamb and chicken dishes on its menu are halal.

The restaurant opened in 2003 and its owner, Atul Kochhar, is a Michelin-starred chef. “Right from day one, we’ve kept our lamb and chicken halal,” Kochhar says. “It was a very conscious decision because I grew up in India, a secular country, where I was taught to have respect for all religions.” Kochhar, who is a Hindu, says Muslims make up “easily between 10 and 20 per cent” of his regular diners. It isn’t just a taste for religious pluralism that has dictated the contents of his menu; serving halal meat makes commercial, as well as cultural, sense.

To other, perhaps less tolerant types, however, the rise and rise of halal meat in the west and here in the UK, in particular, is a source of tension, controversy, fear and loathing. British Muslims are living through a period of halal hysteria, a moral panic over our meat. First there came 9/11, 7/7 and the “Islamic” terror threat; then there was the row over the niqab (face veil) and hijab (headscarf); now, astonishingly, it’s the frenzy over halal meat.

Last month, MPs in the Commons rejected a ten-minute-rule bill that would have made it mandatory for retailers to label all of the halal and kosher meat on sale and make it clear on the packaging that the animals were “killed without stunning”. The bill’s proponent, the Tory backbencher Philip Davies, claimed that the meat was being “forced upon” shoppers “without their knowledge”. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins – 73 votes to 70.

As is so often the case, the right-wing press is behind much of the fear-mongering and misinformation. “Britain goes halal . . . but no one tells the public,” screamed the front-page headline in the Mail on Sunday on 19 September 2010. The paper claimed that supermarkets, restaurants, schools, hospitals, pubs and big sporting venues such as Wembley Stadium were “controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public”.

The following week, readers were treated to two more stories suggesting a sinister plot to inflict halal meat on innocent, animal-loving, non-Muslim Britons. “How 70 per cent of New Zealand lamb imports to Britain are halal . . . but this is NOT put on the label”, said the Daily Mail on 25 September 2010. “Top supermarkets secretly sell halal: Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and M&S don’t tell us meat is ritually slaughtered,” proclaimed the Mail on Sunday the next day.

With the threat from terrorism receding, Britain’s Islam-baiters have jumped on the anti-halal bandwagon, and not just the neo-fascists of the British National Party and the English Defence League, which has a page on its website devoted to its (anti-) “halal campaign”, but mainstream commentators, too. The Spectator’s Rod Liddle – who once wrote a column entitled “Islamophobia? Count me in” – has demanded that halal meat be banned and called for a boycott of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury and the rest until they agree to stop stocking halal products. “I will buy no meat from supermarkets,” he wrote, rather melodramatically, back in 2010.

In this year’s French presidential election, candidates seemed to spend more time discussing halal meat than rising unemployment or the ballooning budget deficit. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, alleged that “all the abattoirs in the Paris region sell halal meat without exception”, while the outgoing president, Nicolas Sarkozy, claimed that the halal issue was a “central concern” for French voters. (For the record, halal constitutes 2 per cent of all the meat sold in Paris.)

Last year in the Netherlands, the lower house of parliament approved a bill, introduced by the Party for the Animals (PvdD) and backed by the Islamophobe Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party, to have all ritually slaughtered meat, including halal and kosher, banned. The Dutch government refused to sign off on the bill but agreed to appoint a commission to consider tighter procedures for slaughter.

Stun guns
So, what is it about halal that provokes such anger and hysteria? The word literally means “lawful” and refers to any object – not just food – or action or behaviour that is deemed permissible under Islamic law.

For meat to be considered halal, three conditions must be met:

1) The animal must be healthy and uninjured and, crucially, it must be killed with a cut.
2) All the blood must be drained from the animal’s body.
3) The slaughterer must recite the appropriate Islamic prayer at the time of slaughter.

Islam, like Judaism, prescribes a single-cut method of slaughter: the animal is killed with a quick cut to the throat using a sharp knife. This allows the blood to drain out and, it is believed, makes the meat cleaner.

Naturally, the image of blood flowing out from the slit throat of a dead cow or sheep doesn’t help. But Muslims, like Jews, insist that so-called ritual slaughter is humane and pain-free because the animal quickly loses consciousness. “There is no time to start feeling any pain,” in the words of Dr Majid Katme, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.

In contrast, modern western non-ritual methods of slaughter demand that the animal be rendered unconscious before it is killed – usually by means of stunning, with a bolt gun, or electrocution. The stunning of livestock before slaughter has been compulsory in the EU since 1979 but most member states, including the UK, grant exemptions to Muslims and Jews.

So, for the moment, non-stunned halal meat is available in Britain, but contra the Mail on Sunday, there’s not enough of it to satisfy the growing demand. As a Muslim, I often have great difficulty in deciding where to eat out, given the lack of halal restaurants (hence my excitement at Benares). One recent survey suggested nine out of every ten UK Muslims adhere to the strict rules on halal eating – that is, they reluctantly opt for the salmon, and not the steak, when eating out.

Nonetheless, even though they represent just 3 per cent of the population, Britain’s two million Muslims tend to eat much more meat, on average, than their non-Muslim counterparts. Reports suggest that British Muslims consume a fifth of all red meat sold in the UK.

I have British Muslim friends who book their holiday flights on Emirates, whatever their end destination, specifically in order to be able to stop off in transit in Dubai and buy a Big Mac from the airport’s halal McDonald’s. Some Muslims, it seems, will travel to the corners of the earth in pursuit of halal food.

Is it any wonder that the UK halal meat market is estimated to be worth £3bn? Or that fast-food chains in the UK such as McDonald’s and Domino’s Pizza are working on trials offering halal meat?

Nando’s, the Portuguese mid-market restaurant chain, has perhaps gone furthest and fastest. One in five of its branches in the UK now serves halal-certified chicken, and I never cease to be amazed by the sea of hijabs among the diners at the Nando’s in south Harrow that has been my “local” for the past decade.

Then there’s KFC, which has responded to the raft of halal fried-chicken franchises (see Sophie Elmhirst’s piece on page 28) by running a halal trial in a hundred of its restaurants nationwide. On its UK website, KFC promises its customers that “our food is just as tasty and finger lickin’ good as it has always been”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it also includes a list of defensive answers to “frequently asked questions” such as “Why have you chosen my store?” and “Does this mean your animal welfare standards have changed?”.

Protecting animals is the cover behind which critics of halal meat often hide. This month, Professor Bill Reilly, a past president of the British Veterinary Association, condemned the rise in the number of animals killed in ritual slaughter as “not acceptable”. “f we cannot eliminate non-stunning, we need to keep it to the minimum,” he wrote in the Veterinary Record. “This means restricting the use of halal and kosher meat to those communities that require it for their religious beliefs and, where possible, convincing them of the acceptability of the stunned alternatives.”

Opponents of ritual slaughter cite a raft of scientific studies that condemn the practice as painful and abusive. In a much-discussed report published in 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent body that advised the UK government until its dissolution last year, argued that ritual methods of slaughter resulted in “significant pain and distress” for the animal and recommended that Muslims and Jews be banned from slaughtering livestock without stunning the animals first.

The FAWC’s findings were backed by a major EU-funded study “on issues of religious slaughter”, which concluded in 2010: “. . . it can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning”.

Case closed? Not quite. Ruksana Shain, of the Muslim consumer group Behalal.org, says the scientific evidence against halal slaughter “isn’t conclusive”. But she would say that, wouldn’t she? OK. Well, consider the verdict of Joe Regenstein, professor of food science at Cornell University in the United States, who leads the university’s Kosher and Halal Food Initiative.

“Many of those attacking religious slaughter have no clue as to what is happening,” he tells me. “It is more of an Islamophobic issue, not an animal well-being issue.” Compared to modern, secular methods of slaughter, he says, “the traditional or Prophetic method might actually be equal or possibly superior” because the initial pain of the throat cut results “in the animal releasing large quantities of endorphins, putting it in a state of euphoria and numbness”. The cut thus serves as its own stun. The scientific evidence against halal slaughter, Regenstein says, “is extremely weak and has often been done poorly with an agenda driving a desired outcome”.

Missing defence
To pretend that Muslims do not care about animal welfare is unfair. There are several Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet warning Muslims not to harm livestock; mistreatment of animals is considered a sin by the vast majority of Islamic scholars. In fact, advocates of halal slaughter can call on their own slew of scientific studies for support.

In 1978, research led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover showed that “the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions ”. The German Federal Constitutional Court based its 2002 verdict permitting ritual slaughter on this study.

Then there are the writings and research of Temple Grandin, professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University and one of America’s leading experts on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock. She sees no difference between stunned and non-stunned slaughter if both are conducted properly and professionally. When a ritual slaughter is “done really right”, Grandin has said, “the animal seemed to act like it didn’t even feel it – if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me”.

Remember, the “secular ways of slaughter”, as Regenstein points out, also have their downsides: “If the public were to discover that animals were subject to a pre-slaughter intervention – like having their skull cracked open, electrocuted, or put in a gas chamber – they might not really like that either.” Shouldn’t consumers have a right to know which of these methods were used? Shouldn’t they be told about the danger of “mis-stunning”, which leaves the animal conscious and in pain, and occurs “relatively frequently”, according to a 2004 report by the European Food Safety Authority? Why not label all meat with detailed explanations of how exactly the animal in question was killed, and let consumers decide? “Why only pick on halal?” Ruksana Shain asks.

In the Commons debate on food labelling on 24 April, the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, who is Jewish, criticised Philip Davies for singling out Muslims and Jews, saying he had “picked on two small minorities who share the way in which the meat they eat is killed”. However, Kaufman added that he would not have expressed his “total opposition to this bill” if it had cast its net wider to include other animals such as chickens that had been kept in “dreadful conditions”.

Preventing animal cruelty goes far beyond the “debate” about stunning or not stunning. And ironically, not all Muslims are opposed to stunning. There are two main organisations that regulate the halal food industry in the UK – the Halal Monitoring Committee, which has a “blanket ruling disallowing stunning in any form”, and the Halal Food Authority, which allows controlled stunning where the “animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering”, and which has certified KFC’s stunned chicken as halal.

Thus, most Muslim, and non-Muslim, participants in the heated debate over halal meat are ignoring a critical point. Data produced by the Meat Hygiene Service in 2004 suggested that roughly 90 per cent of halal slaughter in the UK involved stunning. In September 2011, the Food Standards Agency reported that “the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter”. So what’s all the fuss about?

Consider the scare stories from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which automatically assume that all halal meat derives from the traditional, non-stunned method of slaughter. What drove both papers’ coverage of the story? Are we seriously expected to believe that either the Mail or the Mail on Sunday gives a **** about animal rights? I struggle to recall the last occasion on which either tabloid splashed on the abuse or neglect of animals. More often than not, Mail columnists reserve rather harsh words (“deranged fanatics”, to quote Richard Littlejohn) for animal rights activists.

Crucially, if the hysteria over halal meat in Britain isn’t the product of Islamophobia, how do halal-obsessed politicians and journalists explain their silence on the subject of kosher meat? The 2003 Farm Animal Welfare Council report condemned both halal and kosher methods of slaughter. Yet, for instance, the Mail on Sunday, despite referring to “ritually slaughtered meat” in the headline of its “Britain goes halal . . .” report, went on to discuss only halal meat for the first 24 paragraphs of the piece before mentioning kosher meat – in passing – in the 25th paragraph.

The truth is that halal has become a proxy for much deeper fears and concerns about the presence of a growing and vocal Muslim population in our midst. “It’s being used as a political issue, especially by xenophobic and Islamophobic folks, to whip up a backlash against ‘the other’,” Regenstein says.

To pretend otherwise is naive, if not disingenuous. If this was a debate about animal welfare, it would be about all forms of slaughter; if it was a debate about ritual slaughter, it would address kosher, and not just halal, meat.

“Why only pick on halal?” It’s an important question in need of an urgent answer.
Halal kosher or any meat for that matter is a brutal horrible death. Anyone who slaughters animals for a living does not give a flying f--k about the animals welfare before during or after the brutal act. As a vegetarian i find your post pro islamic ****.
[quote][p][bold]CyberWala[/bold] wrote: Halal hysteria The British “debate” about meat, animal cruelty and ritual slaughter has become a proxy for deeper fears. BY MEHDI HASAN PUBLISHED 9 MAY, 2012 - 10:59 I am sitting in one of London’s finest Indian restaurants, Benares, in the heart of Mayfair. I’ve just placed an order for the “Tandoori Ratan” mixed-grill appetiser – a trio of fennel lamb chop, chicken cutlet and king prawn. I’ll be honest with you: I’m pretty excited. Most of the upmarket restaurants in London do not cater for the city’s burgeoning Muslim population. Benares is one of the few exceptions: all of the lamb and chicken dishes on its menu are halal. The restaurant opened in 2003 and its owner, Atul Kochhar, is a Michelin-starred chef. “Right from day one, we’ve kept our lamb and chicken halal,” Kochhar says. “It was a very conscious decision because I grew up in India, a secular country, where I was taught to have respect for all religions.” Kochhar, who is a Hindu, says Muslims make up “easily between 10 and 20 per cent” of his regular diners. It isn’t just a taste for religious pluralism that has dictated the contents of his menu; serving halal meat makes commercial, as well as cultural, sense. To other, perhaps less tolerant types, however, the rise and rise of halal meat in the west and here in the UK, in particular, is a source of tension, controversy, fear and loathing. British Muslims are living through a period of halal hysteria, a moral panic over our meat. First there came 9/11, 7/7 and the “Islamic” terror threat; then there was the row over the niqab (face veil) and hijab (headscarf); now, astonishingly, it’s the frenzy over halal meat. Last month, MPs in the Commons rejected a ten-minute-rule bill that would have made it mandatory for retailers to label all of the halal and kosher meat on sale and make it clear on the packaging that the animals were “killed without stunning”. The bill’s proponent, the Tory backbencher Philip Davies, claimed that the meat was being “forced upon” shoppers “without their knowledge”. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins – 73 votes to 70. As is so often the case, the right-wing press is behind much of the fear-mongering and misinformation. “Britain goes halal . . . but no one tells the public,” screamed the front-page headline in the Mail on Sunday on 19 September 2010. The paper claimed that supermarkets, restaurants, schools, hospitals, pubs and big sporting venues such as Wembley Stadium were “controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public”. The following week, readers were treated to two more stories suggesting a sinister plot to inflict halal meat on innocent, animal-loving, non-Muslim Britons. “How 70 per cent of New Zealand lamb imports to Britain are halal . . . but this is NOT put on the label”, said the Daily Mail on 25 September 2010. “Top supermarkets secretly sell halal: Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Waitrose and M&S don’t tell us meat is ritually slaughtered,” proclaimed the Mail on Sunday the next day. With the threat from terrorism receding, Britain’s Islam-baiters have jumped on the anti-halal bandwagon, and not just the neo-fascists of the British National Party and the English Defence League, which has a page on its website devoted to its (anti-) “halal campaign”, but mainstream commentators, too. The Spectator’s Rod Liddle – who once wrote a column entitled “Islamophobia? Count me in” – has demanded that halal meat be banned and called for a boycott of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury and the rest until they agree to stop stocking halal products. “I will buy no meat from supermarkets,” he wrote, rather melodramatically, back in 2010. In this year’s French presidential election, candidates seemed to spend more time discussing halal meat than rising unemployment or the ballooning budget deficit. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, alleged that “all the abattoirs in the Paris region sell halal meat without exception”, while the outgoing president, Nicolas Sarkozy, claimed that the halal issue was a “central concern” for French voters. (For the record, halal constitutes 2 per cent of all the meat sold in Paris.) Last year in the Netherlands, the lower house of parliament approved a bill, introduced by the Party for the Animals (PvdD) and backed by the Islamophobe Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party, to have all ritually slaughtered meat, including halal and kosher, banned. The Dutch government refused to sign off on the bill but agreed to appoint a commission to consider tighter procedures for slaughter. Stun guns So, what is it about halal that provokes such anger and hysteria? The word literally means “lawful” and refers to any object – not just food – or action or behaviour that is deemed permissible under Islamic law. For meat to be considered halal, three conditions must be met: 1) The animal must be healthy and uninjured and, crucially, it must be killed with a cut. 2) All the blood must be drained from the animal’s body. 3) The slaughterer must recite the appropriate Islamic prayer at the time of slaughter. Islam, like Judaism, prescribes a single-cut method of slaughter: the animal is killed with a quick cut to the throat using a sharp knife. This allows the blood to drain out and, it is believed, makes the meat cleaner. Naturally, the image of blood flowing out from the slit throat of a dead cow or sheep doesn’t help. But Muslims, like Jews, insist that so-called ritual slaughter is humane and pain-free because the animal quickly loses consciousness. “There is no time to start feeling any pain,” in the words of Dr Majid Katme, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain. In contrast, modern western non-ritual methods of slaughter demand that the animal be rendered unconscious before it is killed – usually by means of stunning, with a bolt gun, or electrocution. The stunning of livestock before slaughter has been compulsory in the EU since 1979 but most member states, including the UK, grant exemptions to Muslims and Jews. So, for the moment, non-stunned halal meat is available in Britain, but contra the Mail on Sunday, there’s not enough of it to satisfy the growing demand. As a Muslim, I often have great difficulty in deciding where to eat out, given the lack of halal restaurants (hence my excitement at Benares). One recent survey suggested nine out of every ten UK Muslims adhere to the strict rules on halal eating – that is, they reluctantly opt for the salmon, and not the steak, when eating out. Nonetheless, even though they represent just 3 per cent of the population, Britain’s two million Muslims tend to eat much more meat, on average, than their non-Muslim counterparts. Reports suggest that British Muslims consume a fifth of all red meat sold in the UK. I have British Muslim friends who book their holiday flights on Emirates, whatever their end destination, specifically in order to be able to stop off in transit in Dubai and buy a Big Mac from the airport’s halal McDonald’s. Some Muslims, it seems, will travel to the corners of the earth in pursuit of halal food. Is it any wonder that the UK halal meat market is estimated to be worth £3bn? Or that fast-food chains in the UK such as McDonald’s and Domino’s Pizza are working on trials offering halal meat? Nando’s, the Portuguese mid-market restaurant chain, has perhaps gone furthest and fastest. One in five of its branches in the UK now serves halal-certified chicken, and I never cease to be amazed by the sea of hijabs among the diners at the Nando’s in south Harrow that has been my “local” for the past decade. Then there’s KFC, which has responded to the raft of halal fried-chicken franchises (see Sophie Elmhirst’s piece on page 28) by running a halal trial in a hundred of its restaurants nationwide. On its UK website, KFC promises its customers that “our food is just as tasty and finger lickin’ good as it has always been”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it also includes a list of defensive answers to “frequently asked questions” such as “Why have you chosen my store?” and “Does this mean your animal welfare standards have changed?”. Protecting animals is the cover behind which critics of halal meat often hide. This month, Professor Bill Reilly, a past president of the British Veterinary Association, condemned the rise in the number of animals killed in ritual slaughter as “not acceptable”. “[I]f we cannot eliminate non-stunning, we need to keep it to the minimum,” he wrote in the Veterinary Record. “This means restricting the use of halal and kosher meat to those communities that require it for their religious beliefs and, where possible, convincing them of the acceptability of the stunned alternatives.” Opponents of ritual slaughter cite a raft of scientific studies that condemn the practice as painful and abusive. In a much-discussed report published in 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent body that advised the UK government until its dissolution last year, argued that ritual methods of slaughter resulted in “significant pain and distress” for the animal and recommended that Muslims and Jews be banned from slaughtering livestock without stunning the animals first. The FAWC’s findings were backed by a major EU-funded study “on issues of religious slaughter”, which concluded in 2010: “. . . it can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning”. Case closed? Not quite. Ruksana Shain, of the Muslim consumer group Behalal.org, says the scientific evidence against halal slaughter “isn’t conclusive”. But she would say that, wouldn’t she? OK. Well, consider the verdict of Joe Regenstein, professor of food science at Cornell University in the United States, who leads the university’s Kosher and Halal Food Initiative. “Many of those attacking religious slaughter have no clue as to what is happening,” he tells me. “It is more of an Islamophobic issue, not an animal well-being issue.” Compared to modern, secular methods of slaughter, he says, “the traditional or Prophetic method might actually be equal or possibly superior” because the initial pain of the throat cut results “in the animal releasing large quantities of endorphins, putting it in a state of euphoria and numbness”. The cut thus serves as its own stun. The scientific evidence against halal slaughter, Regenstein says, “is extremely weak and has often been done poorly with an agenda driving a desired outcome”. Missing defence To pretend that Muslims do not care about animal welfare is unfair. There are several Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet warning Muslims not to harm livestock; mistreatment of animals is considered a sin by the vast majority of Islamic scholars. In fact, advocates of halal slaughter can call on their own slew of scientific studies for support. In 1978, research led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover showed that “the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG [electroencephalography] recordings and the missing defensive actions [of the animals]”. The German Federal Constitutional Court based its 2002 verdict permitting ritual slaughter on this study. Then there are the writings and research of Temple Grandin, professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University and one of America’s leading experts on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock. She sees no difference between stunned and non-stunned slaughter if both are conducted properly and professionally. When a ritual slaughter is “done really right”, Grandin has said, “the animal seemed to act like it didn’t even feel it – if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me”. Remember, the “secular ways of slaughter”, as Regenstein points out, also have their downsides: “If the public were to discover that animals were subject to a pre-slaughter intervention – like having their skull cracked open, [being] electrocuted, or put in a gas chamber – they might not really like that either.” Shouldn’t consumers have a right to know which of these methods were used? Shouldn’t they be told about the danger of “mis-stunning”, which leaves the animal conscious and in pain, and occurs “relatively frequently”, according to a 2004 report by the European Food Safety Authority? Why not label all meat with detailed explanations of how exactly the animal in question was killed, and let consumers decide? “Why only pick on halal?” Ruksana Shain asks. In the Commons debate on food labelling on 24 April, the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, who is Jewish, criticised Philip Davies for singling out Muslims and Jews, saying he had “picked on two small minorities who share the way in which the meat they eat is killed”. However, Kaufman added that he would not have expressed his “total opposition to this bill” if it had cast its net wider to include other animals such as chickens that had been kept in “dreadful conditions”. Preventing animal cruelty goes far beyond the “debate” about stunning or not stunning. And ironically, not all Muslims are opposed to stunning. There are two main organisations that regulate the halal food industry in the UK – the Halal Monitoring Committee, which has a “blanket ruling disallowing stunning in any form”, and the Halal Food Authority, which allows controlled stunning where the “animal or the birds do not die prior to slaughtering”, and which has certified KFC’s stunned chicken as halal. Thus, most Muslim, and non-Muslim, participants in the heated debate over halal meat are ignoring a critical point. Data produced by the Meat Hygiene Service in 2004 suggested that roughly 90 per cent of halal slaughter in the UK involved stunning. In September 2011, the Food Standards Agency reported that “the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter”. So what’s all the fuss about? Consider the scare stories from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which automatically assume that all halal meat derives from the traditional, non-stunned method of slaughter. What drove both papers’ coverage of the story? Are we seriously expected to believe that either the Mail or the Mail on Sunday gives a **** about animal rights? I struggle to recall the last occasion on which either tabloid splashed on the abuse or neglect of animals. More often than not, Mail columnists reserve rather harsh words (“deranged fanatics”, to quote Richard Littlejohn) for animal rights activists. Crucially, if the hysteria over halal meat in Britain isn’t the product of Islamophobia, how do halal-obsessed politicians and journalists explain their silence on the subject of kosher meat? The 2003 Farm Animal Welfare Council report condemned both halal and kosher methods of slaughter. Yet, for instance, the Mail on Sunday, despite referring to “ritually slaughtered meat” in the headline of its “Britain goes halal . . .” report, went on to discuss only halal meat for the first 24 paragraphs of the piece before mentioning kosher meat – in passing – in the 25th paragraph. The truth is that halal has become a proxy for much deeper fears and concerns about the presence of a growing and vocal Muslim population in our midst. “It’s being used as a political issue, especially by xenophobic and Islamophobic folks, to whip up a backlash against ‘the other’,” Regenstein says. To pretend otherwise is naive, if not disingenuous. If this was a debate about animal welfare, it would be about all forms of slaughter; if it was a debate about ritual slaughter, it would address kosher, and not just halal, meat. “Why only pick on halal?” It’s an important question in need of an urgent answer.[/p][/quote]Halal kosher or any meat for that matter is a brutal horrible death. Anyone who slaughters animals for a living does not give a flying f--k about the animals welfare before during or after the brutal act. As a vegetarian i find your post pro islamic ****. ghost of sceptic
  • Score: 61

9:40pm Fri 9 May 14

trevhd says...

Check yoghurts some contain Halal gelatine .
Check yoghurts some contain Halal gelatine . trevhd
  • Score: 36

11:32pm Fri 9 May 14

wilddog says...

Excuse me LET! You think by deleting previous posts all will be alright? Nah it wont! Got screen shots already saved!
Excuse me LET! You think by deleting previous posts all will be alright? Nah it wont! Got screen shots already saved! wilddog
  • Score: 65

12:06am Sat 10 May 14

Steven11 says...

shytalk wrote:
If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them
Well bloody said , totally agree with your comment , this religious crap is taken too far by some of these so called Muslim parasites , only for their own convenience , when it suits them ! Ie . Drinking alcohol , lottery , Etc .
[quote][p][bold]shytalk[/bold] wrote: If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them[/p][/quote]Well bloody said , totally agree with your comment , this religious crap is taken too far by some of these so called Muslim parasites , only for their own convenience , when it suits them ! Ie . Drinking alcohol , lottery , Etc . Steven11
  • Score: 71

12:23am Sat 10 May 14

salvadore says...

Steven11 wrote:
shytalk wrote:
If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them
Well bloody said , totally agree with your comment , this religious crap is taken too far by some of these so called Muslim parasites , only for their own convenience , when it suits them ! Ie . Drinking alcohol , lottery , Etc .
Parasites who are you calling parasite you monkey, food is fundamental in all life so it has to be as shown religiously. We do have freedom of religion in this country. You may have sold your soul to the devil but let others practice their religion. The thing is I don't think any Muslims that I know would trust supermarkets to sell proper halal meat. Muslims didn't ask for it to be sold there. We have our own butchers who can provide halal food. Label all food even non halal food, we will know how animals that are slaughtered in a job halal are kept and slaughtered.
[quote][p][bold]Steven11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shytalk[/bold] wrote: If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them[/p][/quote]Well bloody said , totally agree with your comment , this religious crap is taken too far by some of these so called Muslim parasites , only for their own convenience , when it suits them ! Ie . Drinking alcohol , lottery , Etc .[/p][/quote]Parasites who are you calling parasite you monkey, food is fundamental in all life so it has to be as shown religiously. We do have freedom of religion in this country. You may have sold your soul to the devil but let others practice their religion. The thing is I don't think any Muslims that I know would trust supermarkets to sell proper halal meat. Muslims didn't ask for it to be sold there. We have our own butchers who can provide halal food. Label all food even non halal food, we will know how animals that are slaughtered in a job halal are kept and slaughtered. salvadore
  • Score: -86

1:53am Sat 10 May 14

Janices says...

Halal IS sharia and the involvement of our government in the halal business via its ‘halal meat program’ is shameful for it implies government support for the enforcement of Sharia over us as halal meat is pushed, often unlabelled, onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the sadistic halal killing where animals aren’t stunned or where transient ‘reversible’ electrical stunning is used; it implies support for a highly discriminatory Muslim only workforce; it implies support for meat dedicated to allah to be pushed onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the religious food tax non-Muslims are inadvertently paying to Islam.

Would our government be happy to engage in a Christian or Hindu etc discriminatory meat industry where others paid a religious tax on the meat they were sold? These groups do not have the equivalent of Sharia law to enforce over others.

It is the governments that allows animals to be killed according to Sharia and against our laws and the spirit of our laws and stores complicit in this animal cruelty and support of this pro-Islamic agenda.

As consumers we have the right to have informed choices about the food we buy and all products of Religious Slaughter should be labelled as such so we know what we are thinking of buying.
Halal IS sharia and the involvement of our government in the halal business via its ‘halal meat program’ is shameful for it implies government support for the enforcement of Sharia over us as halal meat is pushed, often unlabelled, onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the sadistic halal killing where animals aren’t stunned or where transient ‘reversible’ electrical stunning is used; it implies support for a highly discriminatory Muslim only workforce; it implies support for meat dedicated to allah to be pushed onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the religious food tax non-Muslims are inadvertently paying to Islam. Would our government be happy to engage in a Christian or Hindu etc discriminatory meat industry where others paid a religious tax on the meat they were sold? These groups do not have the equivalent of Sharia law to enforce over others. It is the governments that allows animals to be killed according to Sharia and against our laws and the spirit of our laws and stores complicit in this animal cruelty and support of this pro-Islamic agenda. As consumers we have the right to have informed choices about the food we buy and all products of Religious Slaughter should be labelled as such so we know what we are thinking of buying. Janices
  • Score: 62

7:42am Sat 10 May 14

Saj143 says...

Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers. Saj143
  • Score: -74

8:23am Sat 10 May 14

salvadore says...

Janices wrote:
Halal IS sharia and the involvement of our government in the halal business via its ‘halal meat program’ is shameful for it implies government support for the enforcement of Sharia over us as halal meat is pushed, often unlabelled, onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the sadistic halal killing where animals aren’t stunned or where transient ‘reversible’ electrical stunning is used; it implies support for a highly discriminatory Muslim only workforce; it implies support for meat dedicated to allah to be pushed onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the religious food tax non-Muslims are inadvertently paying to Islam.

Would our government be happy to engage in a Christian or Hindu etc discriminatory meat industry where others paid a religious tax on the meat they were sold? These groups do not have the equivalent of Sharia law to enforce over others.

It is the governments that allows animals to be killed according to Sharia and against our laws and the spirit of our laws and stores complicit in this animal cruelty and support of this pro-Islamic agenda.

As consumers we have the right to have informed choices about the food we buy and all products of Religious Slaughter should be labelled as such so we know what we are thinking of buying.
Firstly your comments don't mention kosher meat by the Jews so it looks like you have a problem with Muslims only. Halal process is not sadistic, Islam teaches welfare of animals. Even when the animal is been taken to slaughter other animals are to be kept away so they can't see what's happening. You want sadistic go find out how your non halal meat comes from, how the animals are treated before they were slaughtered. The non halal methods gave is mad cow disease, it gave us foot & mouth disease. It's also giving us bird flu from chickens. You also don't mention that parts of Jewish meat that the Jews disregard is put back in to food chain. Halal slaughter is not done by any government it only allows it. Muslims did not ask supermarkets to provide halal meat we have out own butchers who has been doing this for decades. The supermarkets do it because they want a share of the market which people like you have a problem. Muslim food for that matter anything Muslim becoming mainstream it becomes a problem for you.
I agree let's label all food Muslims and Jews want this. But it has to be that all food are labelled so we and the likes you know how non halal food was slaughtered and how those animals were kept. You can not pick one or two religious practices and say let's have them labelled that's discriminatory. Go and check on your on halal meat how the animals were slaughtered and then you'll know which is animal cruelty. I'll say it again blowing the brains out of an animal with an electric bolt and them slaughtering it is torture before death. If this was done to humans people would say they were tortured to death. Some examples of non halal meat slaughter pigs being gassed, hens in batteries cattle/sheep skulls being crushed before slaughter, animals shot with a gun in the head. You tell me which is more barbaric.
[quote][p][bold]Janices[/bold] wrote: Halal IS sharia and the involvement of our government in the halal business via its ‘halal meat program’ is shameful for it implies government support for the enforcement of Sharia over us as halal meat is pushed, often unlabelled, onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the sadistic halal killing where animals aren’t stunned or where transient ‘reversible’ electrical stunning is used; it implies support for a highly discriminatory Muslim only workforce; it implies support for meat dedicated to allah to be pushed onto non-Muslims; it implies support for the religious food tax non-Muslims are inadvertently paying to Islam. Would our government be happy to engage in a Christian or Hindu etc discriminatory meat industry where others paid a religious tax on the meat they were sold? These groups do not have the equivalent of Sharia law to enforce over others. It is the governments that allows animals to be killed according to Sharia and against our laws and the spirit of our laws and stores complicit in this animal cruelty and support of this pro-Islamic agenda. As consumers we have the right to have informed choices about the food we buy and all products of Religious Slaughter should be labelled as such so we know what we are thinking of buying.[/p][/quote]Firstly your comments don't mention kosher meat by the Jews so it looks like you have a problem with Muslims only. Halal process is not sadistic, Islam teaches welfare of animals. Even when the animal is been taken to slaughter other animals are to be kept away so they can't see what's happening. You want sadistic go find out how your non halal meat comes from, how the animals are treated before they were slaughtered. The non halal methods gave is mad cow disease, it gave us foot & mouth disease. It's also giving us bird flu from chickens. You also don't mention that parts of Jewish meat that the Jews disregard is put back in to food chain. Halal slaughter is not done by any government it only allows it. Muslims did not ask supermarkets to provide halal meat we have out own butchers who has been doing this for decades. The supermarkets do it because they want a share of the market which people like you have a problem. Muslim food for that matter anything Muslim becoming mainstream it becomes a problem for you. I agree let's label all food Muslims and Jews want this. But it has to be that all food are labelled so we and the likes you know how non halal food was slaughtered and how those animals were kept. You can not pick one or two religious practices and say let's have them labelled that's discriminatory. Go and check on your on halal meat how the animals were slaughtered and then you'll know which is animal cruelty. I'll say it again blowing the brains out of an animal with an electric bolt and them slaughtering it is torture before death. If this was done to humans people would say they were tortured to death. Some examples of non halal meat slaughter pigs being gassed, hens in batteries cattle/sheep skulls being crushed before slaughter, animals shot with a gun in the head. You tell me which is more barbaric. salvadore
  • Score: -83

9:45am Sat 10 May 14

HelmshoreMan2010 says...

I would eat halal meat, I do eat it in fact.

Meat serves a purpose for me and I will eat it for that reason. If I was that concerned with the animals life or death I would become a veggie. If I'm going to take another living creature and end it's life to keep me going it's a bit rich to care how I do it.
I would eat halal meat, I do eat it in fact. Meat serves a purpose for me and I will eat it for that reason. If I was that concerned with the animals life or death I would become a veggie. If I'm going to take another living creature and end it's life to keep me going it's a bit rich to care how I do it. HelmshoreMan2010
  • Score: -60

11:23am Sat 10 May 14

mrdd186 says...

Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.
[quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms. mrdd186
  • Score: -57

1:08pm Sat 10 May 14

sen c b l says...

Steven11 wrote:
shytalk wrote:
If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them
Well bloody said , totally agree with your comment , this religious crap is taken too far by some of these so called Muslim parasites , only for their own convenience , when it suits them ! Ie . Drinking alcohol , lottery , Etc .
Moter uker!
[quote][p][bold]Steven11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shytalk[/bold] wrote: If i am not supposed to be bothered about buying halal meat and not being told about it until after i have eaten it, then obviously the same must be said about non halal meat/pork etc that muslims don't get told they are eating until they have eaten it... Sure they wouldn't be offended.They would probably declare jhiad on the person that sold it them[/p][/quote]Well bloody said , totally agree with your comment , this religious crap is taken too far by some of these so called Muslim parasites , only for their own convenience , when it suits them ! Ie . Drinking alcohol , lottery , Etc .[/p][/quote]Moter uker! sen c b l
  • Score: -76

1:40pm Sat 10 May 14

Openminded? says...

As other have said, it was not the Muslim community demanding the supermarkets to start to stock Halal meat, in fact it came as a surprise to me and I have only bought Halal meat from them a handful of times. We were fine with our local Halal butcher. It was not the Muslim community who demanded Subway to remove port and ham, even if the Daily fail claims so. Those franchises decided it made business sense and an opportunity to make money, if you don't like it, don't buy from them, hit them in the pocket!

It was not the Muslims who forced Pizza Express to sell all chicken Halal, in fact I didn't even know and I am a Muslim and have been to Pizza Express a few times! Again it probably was cheaper for them to cater both by making this change.

As much as you want to, you cannot pin any of this on Muslims, us Muslims, have been happy and have been happy for decades to visit our dedicated Muslim Halal butcher round the corner and get our meat.

But it is clear that mainstream businesses are seeing a money making opportunity and want to sell halal meat to Muslims. If you do not like avoid them, hit them in the pocket! Until then.......

Lets see all meat producers label all meat clearly, whether its halal or not halal and how the animal is treated, that's the only way to keep everyone happy, so then at least you know whether you buying halal or not.

Hell if that happened, it would my life easier as a Muslim!
As other have said, it was not the Muslim community demanding the supermarkets to start to stock Halal meat, in fact it came as a surprise to me and I have only bought Halal meat from them a handful of times. We were fine with our local Halal butcher. It was not the Muslim community who demanded Subway to remove port and ham, even if the Daily fail claims so. Those franchises decided it made business sense and an opportunity to make money, if you don't like it, don't buy from them, hit them in the pocket! It was not the Muslims who forced Pizza Express to sell all chicken Halal, in fact I didn't even know and I am a Muslim and have been to Pizza Express a few times! Again it probably was cheaper for them to cater both by making this change. As much as you want to, you cannot pin any of this on Muslims, us Muslims, have been happy and have been happy for decades to visit our dedicated Muslim Halal butcher round the corner and get our meat. But it is clear that mainstream businesses are seeing a money making opportunity and want to sell halal meat to Muslims. If you do not like avoid them, hit them in the pocket! Until then....... Lets see all meat producers label all meat clearly, whether its halal or not halal and how the animal is treated, that's the only way to keep everyone happy, so then at least you know whether you buying halal or not. Hell if that happened, it would my life easier as a Muslim! Openminded?
  • Score: -58

9:31pm Sat 10 May 14

Openminded? says...

Wow so far -31 for my comment, I thought people would agree to open labelling !
Wow so far -31 for my comment, I thought people would agree to open labelling ! Openminded?
  • Score: -79

10:09am Sun 11 May 14

salvadore says...

Don't worry it's some Sadi who has nothing better to do then put a negative on anyone who defends Islam. Lancashire pensioner is one of them, you'll find within a day all pro Muslim comments have minus and all anti Muslim comments have pluses. They can't win an argument so they try and prove they are right by playing little games like the little girls they are.
Don't worry it's some Sadi who has nothing better to do then put a negative on anyone who defends Islam. Lancashire pensioner is one of them, you'll find within a day all pro Muslim comments have minus and all anti Muslim comments have pluses. They can't win an argument so they try and prove they are right by playing little games like the little girls they are. salvadore
  • Score: -70

11:22am Sun 11 May 14

mrcool says...

It's so funny. The ignorant people don't even understand the issue here. Muslims ARE NOT behind this. If they were aware all these supermarkets and food chains were selling halal, don't you think there would be queues at the supermarkets and takeaways? Muslims haven't and won't buy at these establishments because it isn't labelled as such. Bring on the labels. It will make our life easier. The problem is two fold here: the establishments are buying halal to sell on to you because it is cheaper for them: secondly, the islamaphobics have twisted it all to make it seem like some big conspiracy. I suggest you all don't buy your meat from supermarkets till they give in to your demands. Muslims don't buy from them anyway, so as usual, you can go nuts while we sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about. Fools, the lot of ya.
It's so funny. The ignorant people don't even understand the issue here. Muslims ARE NOT behind this. If they were aware all these supermarkets and food chains were selling halal, don't you think there would be queues at the supermarkets and takeaways? Muslims haven't and won't buy at these establishments because it isn't labelled as such. Bring on the labels. It will make our life easier. The problem is two fold here: the establishments are buying halal to sell on to you because it is cheaper for them: secondly, the islamaphobics have twisted it all to make it seem like some big conspiracy. I suggest you all don't buy your meat from supermarkets till they give in to your demands. Muslims don't buy from them anyway, so as usual, you can go nuts while we sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about. Fools, the lot of ya. mrcool
  • Score: -64

1:09pm Sun 11 May 14

Saj143 says...

mrcool wrote:
It's so funny. The ignorant people don't even understand the issue here. Muslims ARE NOT behind this. If they were aware all these supermarkets and food chains were selling halal, don't you think there would be queues at the supermarkets and takeaways? Muslims haven't and won't buy at these establishments because it isn't labelled as such. Bring on the labels. It will make our life easier. The problem is two fold here: the establishments are buying halal to sell on to you because it is cheaper for them: secondly, the islamaphobics have twisted it all to make it seem like some big conspiracy. I suggest you all don't buy your meat from supermarkets till they give in to your demands. Muslims don't buy from them anyway, so as usual, you can go nuts while we sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about. Fools, the lot of ya.
Mr cool , you are right. At the moment majority of Muslims do not but any meat from supermarkets and the decision to sell halal is purely down to the economics of the situation.

How many Muslims has anyone seen campaigning for halal meat to be stocked in supermarkets...none.


Greedy Money is my god people decide to sell halal , then the whole argument becomes distorted and twisted by the usual suspects.

Cruel not cruel , stunned or not to be stunned , battery farmed or free range all those are things that need to be addressed , but the story is regarding halal being stocked by supermarkets without labelling. The supermarkets are at fault in this instance , just as they were with the horse .

Again in times of austerity the whole blame of the situation has been shifted to the poorest in society , when it was the bankers who are responsible. The vehicles may be different the principle the same.

Frightening state of current affairs.
[quote][p][bold]mrcool[/bold] wrote: It's so funny. The ignorant people don't even understand the issue here. Muslims ARE NOT behind this. If they were aware all these supermarkets and food chains were selling halal, don't you think there would be queues at the supermarkets and takeaways? Muslims haven't and won't buy at these establishments because it isn't labelled as such. Bring on the labels. It will make our life easier. The problem is two fold here: the establishments are buying halal to sell on to you because it is cheaper for them: secondly, the islamaphobics have twisted it all to make it seem like some big conspiracy. I suggest you all don't buy your meat from supermarkets till they give in to your demands. Muslims don't buy from them anyway, so as usual, you can go nuts while we sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about. Fools, the lot of ya.[/p][/quote]Mr cool , you are right. At the moment majority of Muslims do not but any meat from supermarkets and the decision to sell halal is purely down to the economics of the situation. How many Muslims has anyone seen campaigning for halal meat to be stocked in supermarkets...none. Greedy Money is my god people decide to sell halal , then the whole argument becomes distorted and twisted by the usual suspects. Cruel not cruel , stunned or not to be stunned , battery farmed or free range all those are things that need to be addressed , but the story is regarding halal being stocked by supermarkets without labelling. The supermarkets are at fault in this instance , just as they were with the horse . Again in times of austerity the whole blame of the situation has been shifted to the poorest in society , when it was the bankers who are responsible. The vehicles may be different the principle the same. Frightening state of current affairs. Saj143
  • Score: -59

3:02pm Sun 11 May 14

mrdd186 says...

mrdd186 wrote:
Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.
I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..
[quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.[/p][/quote]I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles.. mrdd186
  • Score: -53

7:29pm Sun 11 May 14

Saj143 says...

mrdd186 wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.
I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..
The mind does boggle how an issue regarding for want of a better phrase , dubious business practices has been turned into a race / religious issue.

Don't pay too much attention to the thumbs issue , these pages are littered with people with thumbs up there arses !
[quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.[/p][/quote]I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..[/p][/quote]The mind does boggle how an issue regarding for want of a better phrase , dubious business practices has been turned into a race / religious issue. Don't pay too much attention to the thumbs issue , these pages are littered with people with thumbs up there arses ! Saj143
  • Score: -64

2:33pm Mon 12 May 14

George Khan says...

Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain George Khan
  • Score: -67

10:19pm Mon 12 May 14

Jackael says...

George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !! Jackael
  • Score: 50

4:01pm Tue 13 May 14

George Khan says...

Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
[quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity George Khan
  • Score: -73

9:28pm Tue 13 May 14

Jackael says...

George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity[/p][/quote]Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ?? Jackael
  • Score: 34

11:06am Wed 14 May 14

George Khan says...

Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??
Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual
I do detest certain aspects of your culture
They fill me with contempt and vitriol
Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia
‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat..
It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea
Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’
You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over
Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East
From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture
Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet
You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever
[quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity[/p][/quote]Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??[/p][/quote]Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual I do detest certain aspects of your culture They fill me with contempt and vitriol Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia ‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat.. It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’ You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever George Khan
  • Score: -82

10:07pm Wed 14 May 14

Jackael says...

George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??
Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual
I do detest certain aspects of your culture
They fill me with contempt and vitriol
Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia
‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat..
It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea
Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’
You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over
Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East
From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture
Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet
You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever
If Pakistan is the promised land what the **** are you doing here, if you're so **** clever why can't supposedly hard working god fearing members of the "epicenter of culture" make a go of it there ?, shall i tell you ? it's because you're all inherantly corrupt, it's in your genes it's in every fibre of your being, Pakistan is a shith0le because of it and you're doing your best to do the same here you **** parasites.
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity[/p][/quote]Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??[/p][/quote]Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual I do detest certain aspects of your culture They fill me with contempt and vitriol Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia ‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat.. It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’ You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever[/p][/quote]If Pakistan is the promised land what the **** are you doing here, if you're so **** clever why can't supposedly hard working god fearing members of the "epicenter of culture" make a go of it there ?, shall i tell you ? it's because you're all inherantly corrupt, it's in your genes it's in every fibre of your being, Pakistan is a shith0le because of it and you're doing your best to do the same here you **** parasites. Jackael
  • Score: 39

10:39am Thu 15 May 14

George Khan says...

Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??
Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual
I do detest certain aspects of your culture
They fill me with contempt and vitriol
Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia
‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat..
It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea
Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’
You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over
Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East
From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture
Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet
You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever
If Pakistan is the promised land what the **** are you doing here, if you're so **** clever why can't supposedly hard working god fearing members of the "epicenter of culture" make a go of it there ?, shall i tell you ? it's because you're all inherantly corrupt, it's in your genes it's in every fibre of your being, Pakistan is a shith0le because of it and you're doing your best to do the same here you **** parasites.
Salaam Jackass, as a patriotic Pakistani, I have to spread the word
I’ve been in this country for over fifty years
I have seen the indigenous putter community getting worse
Not wanting to work for a crust, living only for drinking beers
You have become dependent and resentful of migrants-
Like my fellow Paks, who have excelled in business and industry
Whilst the sofa settee Herberts have lived off benefit payments
Look around you , look at the state of Mill Hill and Roman Road locality
It’s full of feral anti-social lazy twisted fat slobby putters
Whose goal in life is to degenerate themselves and their family
There’s a lot of work to be done, to stop the rot of these slackers
A convoy of Mullas will be touring these areas soon, to bestow humanity
And preach virtue, bow down in front of them with humility, not with hostility
[quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity[/p][/quote]Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??[/p][/quote]Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual I do detest certain aspects of your culture They fill me with contempt and vitriol Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia ‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat.. It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’ You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever[/p][/quote]If Pakistan is the promised land what the **** are you doing here, if you're so **** clever why can't supposedly hard working god fearing members of the "epicenter of culture" make a go of it there ?, shall i tell you ? it's because you're all inherantly corrupt, it's in your genes it's in every fibre of your being, Pakistan is a shith0le because of it and you're doing your best to do the same here you **** parasites.[/p][/quote]Salaam Jackass, as a patriotic Pakistani, I have to spread the word I’ve been in this country for over fifty years I have seen the indigenous putter community getting worse Not wanting to work for a crust, living only for drinking beers You have become dependent and resentful of migrants- Like my fellow Paks, who have excelled in business and industry Whilst the sofa settee Herberts have lived off benefit payments Look around you , look at the state of Mill Hill and Roman Road locality It’s full of feral anti-social lazy twisted fat slobby putters Whose goal in life is to degenerate themselves and their family There’s a lot of work to be done, to stop the rot of these slackers A convoy of Mullas will be touring these areas soon, to bestow humanity And preach virtue, bow down in front of them with humility, not with hostility George Khan
  • Score: -70

5:10pm Thu 15 May 14

Jackael says...

George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??
Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual
I do detest certain aspects of your culture
They fill me with contempt and vitriol
Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia
‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat..
It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea
Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’
You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over
Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East
From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture
Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet
You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever
If Pakistan is the promised land what the **** are you doing here, if you're so **** clever why can't supposedly hard working god fearing members of the "epicenter of culture" make a go of it there ?, shall i tell you ? it's because you're all inherantly corrupt, it's in your genes it's in every fibre of your being, Pakistan is a shith0le because of it and you're doing your best to do the same here you **** parasites.
Salaam Jackass, as a patriotic Pakistani, I have to spread the word
I’ve been in this country for over fifty years
I have seen the indigenous putter community getting worse
Not wanting to work for a crust, living only for drinking beers
You have become dependent and resentful of migrants-
Like my fellow Paks, who have excelled in business and industry
Whilst the sofa settee Herberts have lived off benefit payments
Look around you , look at the state of Mill Hill and Roman Road locality
It’s full of feral anti-social lazy twisted fat slobby putters
Whose goal in life is to degenerate themselves and their family
There’s a lot of work to be done, to stop the rot of these slackers
A convoy of Mullas will be touring these areas soon, to bestow humanity
And preach virtue, bow down in front of them with humility, not with hostility
How smug are you !! 50 years you say, it should be a bit of a wrench then when you're given the old heave-ho .
I wish i could see the look on your face on that day, in fact i would pay good money for that.
oh and by the way the ferals as you describe them, i would'nt upset them too much they'll be the one who'll be coming for you....
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity[/p][/quote]Is that your answer to everything caliing people bigots or having a chip on your shoulder becuase most English people dislike certain aspects of your culture ? if that's the case why not go and live elsewhere Asia maybe you'll fit right in there.......or would you ??[/p][/quote]Jackass, the feeling is totally mutual I do detest certain aspects of your culture They fill me with contempt and vitriol Lager louts low life, living in total paranoia ‘Ooh the halal chicken might stick in my throat.. It wasn’t humanely killed, I might get diahorrea Or even lay an egg, my stomach has started to bloat…’ You stupid, ignorant oafs, you think you’re being taken over Then maybe you should, civilisation started from the East From my beloved Pakistan, the epicentre of culture Go to Whalley Range and bow down at some Mulla’s feet You uneducated ignorant fool, repent now and forever[/p][/quote]If Pakistan is the promised land what the **** are you doing here, if you're so **** clever why can't supposedly hard working god fearing members of the "epicenter of culture" make a go of it there ?, shall i tell you ? it's because you're all inherantly corrupt, it's in your genes it's in every fibre of your being, Pakistan is a shith0le because of it and you're doing your best to do the same here you **** parasites.[/p][/quote]Salaam Jackass, as a patriotic Pakistani, I have to spread the word I’ve been in this country for over fifty years I have seen the indigenous putter community getting worse Not wanting to work for a crust, living only for drinking beers You have become dependent and resentful of migrants- Like my fellow Paks, who have excelled in business and industry Whilst the sofa settee Herberts have lived off benefit payments Look around you , look at the state of Mill Hill and Roman Road locality It’s full of feral anti-social lazy twisted fat slobby putters Whose goal in life is to degenerate themselves and their family There’s a lot of work to be done, to stop the rot of these slackers A convoy of Mullas will be touring these areas soon, to bestow humanity And preach virtue, bow down in front of them with humility, not with hostility[/p][/quote]How smug are you !! 50 years you say, it should be a bit of a wrench then when you're given the old heave-ho . I wish i could see the look on your face on that day, in fact i would pay good money for that. oh and by the way the ferals as you describe them, i would'nt upset them too much they'll be the one who'll be coming for you.... Jackael
  • Score: -44

8:24am Fri 16 May 14

wilddog says...

Bottom line is, it does not matter on wot religion you practice. Its no ones business. Just force shops to clearly display the type of meat it is. It ends all arguments. Perhaps people should spend more time complaining to the shops and taking there business elsewhere until it happens. Trouble is, to many people now depend on the major chains to live!
Bottom line is, it does not matter on wot religion you practice. Its no ones business. Just force shops to clearly display the type of meat it is. It ends all arguments. Perhaps people should spend more time complaining to the shops and taking there business elsewhere until it happens. Trouble is, to many people now depend on the major chains to live! wilddog
  • Score: 44

10:12pm Sun 18 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

Saj143 wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.
I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..
The mind does boggle how an issue regarding for want of a better phrase , dubious business practices has been turned into a race / religious issue.

Don't pay too much attention to the thumbs issue , these pages are littered with people with thumbs up there arses !
and you are the biggest one !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.[/p][/quote]I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..[/p][/quote]The mind does boggle how an issue regarding for want of a better phrase , dubious business practices has been turned into a race / religious issue. Don't pay too much attention to the thumbs issue , these pages are littered with people with thumbs up there arses ![/p][/quote]and you are the biggest one !!!!! ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 61

11:20am Mon 19 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

ConcernedOssy wrote:
Saj143 wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
mrdd186 wrote:
Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.
I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..
The mind does boggle how an issue regarding for want of a better phrase , dubious business practices has been turned into a race / religious issue.

Don't pay too much attention to the thumbs issue , these pages are littered with people with thumbs up there arses !
and you are the biggest one !!!!!
or is it a banana
[quote][p][bold]ConcernedOssy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrdd186[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]it was all over every news channel for weeks and millions of pounds lost in meat trade and arrest were made, so yes people were up in arms.[/p][/quote]I can't understand why my comment got 26 thumbs down, a question was asked which I answered with facts, the mind boggles..[/p][/quote]The mind does boggle how an issue regarding for want of a better phrase , dubious business practices has been turned into a race / religious issue. Don't pay too much attention to the thumbs issue , these pages are littered with people with thumbs up there arses ![/p][/quote]and you are the biggest one !!!!![/p][/quote]or is it a banana ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 57

7:08pm Tue 20 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
You should know you only eat fruit anyway
[quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]You should know you only eat fruit anyway ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 42

9:01am Sat 31 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

ConcernedOssy wrote:
Saj143 wrote:
Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ?

I bet you weren't .

Jokers.
You should know you only eat fruit anyway
Have you still got a banana up your Jacksy ?? Turd brain
[quote][p][bold]ConcernedOssy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saj143[/bold] wrote: Were any of you up in arms as much , when you found out that you'd been eating horse meat as much as you're now eating it's halal ? I bet you weren't . Jokers.[/p][/quote]You should know you only eat fruit anyway[/p][/quote]Have you still got a banana up your Jacksy ?? Turd brain ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 37

9:09am Sat 31 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

George Khan wrote:
Jackael wrote:
George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !!
Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken
But you don’t want it to die painfully-
Even though halal way causes least suffering
You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty
Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling?
As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty
And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living
It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity
You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity
TW**T
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jackael[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]Why is it so hard for you people to understand ? you are so brainwashed by your mumbo jumbo religion you cant even understand what people are trying to get across to you, i think it's a cultural thing and to be honest with you some aspects of your outdated culture makes you look like savages who belong in the third world !![/p][/quote]Jackass, what I understand is you like chicken But you don’t want it to die painfully- Even though halal way causes least suffering You want to gulp it but without feeling guilty Or is the real reason, you detest the halal labelling? As you feel it infringes your English sovereignty And that you don’t like Muslims and their way of living It destabilises your weak mind-set and your identity You fool, stop being an ignorant bigot full of insecurity[/p][/quote]TW**T ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 31

12:13pm Sat 31 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

Openminded? wrote:
As other have said, it was not the Muslim community demanding the supermarkets to start to stock Halal meat, in fact it came as a surprise to me and I have only bought Halal meat from them a handful of times. We were fine with our local Halal butcher. It was not the Muslim community who demanded Subway to remove port and ham, even if the Daily fail claims so. Those franchises decided it made business sense and an opportunity to make money, if you don't like it, don't buy from them, hit them in the pocket!

It was not the Muslims who forced Pizza Express to sell all chicken Halal, in fact I didn't even know and I am a Muslim and have been to Pizza Express a few times! Again it probably was cheaper for them to cater both by making this change.

As much as you want to, you cannot pin any of this on Muslims, us Muslims, have been happy and have been happy for decades to visit our dedicated Muslim Halal butcher round the corner and get our meat.

But it is clear that mainstream businesses are seeing a money making opportunity and want to sell halal meat to Muslims. If you do not like avoid them, hit them in the pocket! Until then.......

Lets see all meat producers label all meat clearly, whether its halal or not halal and how the animal is treated, that's the only way to keep everyone happy, so then at least you know whether you buying halal or not.

Hell if that happened, it would my life easier as a Muslim!
IF YOU PEACE OFF AND TAKE YOUR BRETHEREN WITH YOU LIFE WOULD BE MUCH EASIER FOR EVERYONE ELSE ALSO !! THE SOONER THE BETTER
[quote][p][bold]Openminded?[/bold] wrote: As other have said, it was not the Muslim community demanding the supermarkets to start to stock Halal meat, in fact it came as a surprise to me and I have only bought Halal meat from them a handful of times. We were fine with our local Halal butcher. It was not the Muslim community who demanded Subway to remove port and ham, even if the Daily fail claims so. Those franchises decided it made business sense and an opportunity to make money, if you don't like it, don't buy from them, hit them in the pocket! It was not the Muslims who forced Pizza Express to sell all chicken Halal, in fact I didn't even know and I am a Muslim and have been to Pizza Express a few times! Again it probably was cheaper for them to cater both by making this change. As much as you want to, you cannot pin any of this on Muslims, us Muslims, have been happy and have been happy for decades to visit our dedicated Muslim Halal butcher round the corner and get our meat. But it is clear that mainstream businesses are seeing a money making opportunity and want to sell halal meat to Muslims. If you do not like avoid them, hit them in the pocket! Until then....... Lets see all meat producers label all meat clearly, whether its halal or not halal and how the animal is treated, that's the only way to keep everyone happy, so then at least you know whether you buying halal or not. Hell if that happened, it would my life easier as a Muslim![/p][/quote]IF YOU PEACE OFF AND TAKE YOUR BRETHEREN WITH YOU LIFE WOULD BE MUCH EASIER FOR EVERYONE ELSE ALSO !! THE SOONER THE BETTER ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 30

1:45pm Sat 31 May 14

ConcernedOssy says...

George Khan wrote:
Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate
It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering-
Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late
The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping
Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane
If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken
It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain
WHY DON'T YOU TRY YOUR THEORY ON YOURSELF ******LE
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Salaam Putters, as always, another daft debate It’s blody common sense, the best way to cause less suffering- Is to use a sharp item that will end life quicker rather than late The stunning prolongs the conclusion, chicken will still be flapping Anyway, all you hypocrites who say that this method is inhumane If you’re that worried about poultry, why eat any dead chicken It’s still been killed, whichever way, become veggies and refrain[/p][/quote]WHY DON'T YOU TRY YOUR THEORY ON YOURSELF ******LE ConcernedOssy
  • Score: 22

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree