Student’s Last Name 1 Banning Halal; Act of Aggression towards Islamic religion “Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow,” (Surat Al Maidah, Quran, 5:3).In the Islamic faith, the things someone is allowed to do and those one is not allowed to do are clearly stated and have not been altered for the last 1435 years. The term “Halal” translates to ‘allow’ in Arabic. Most people associate the Islamic term “Halal” with the food recommended for consumption but also the term has a broader meaning; it stands for all things a Muslim is allowed to engage in by the Islamic religion. The opposite of Halal is Haram that is the things that one is not allowed to engage in. In recent times, there has been debate as to whether ‘Halal’ mode of killing animals should be banned or maintained. This is a controversial issue mostly in European nations and different verdicts have been arrived at by different countries. Countries that have banned or proposed the banning of Halal mode of meat preparation have shown discriminatory characteristics. The fact that we live in a global village provides that there be no space for anti-tolerance sentiments. By banning “Halal” meat preparation, the government is asking people to choose between secular laws and Islamic laws which is equal to asking them to denounce their faith. As well, it is a sign of disrespect for doctrines of a religion that has existed for thousands of years, banning Halal is seen as form of Islamphobia. On the other hand, activists for the ban claim that Halal way of preparing meat is inhumane and that is why it should be banned and replaced with other modern methods. Although most nations are banning Halal Meat preparation or thinking of it, Halal method of preparing meat should not be banned because it goes against a fundamental right of people to practice their religious rights. First, governments who ban Halal mode of slaughtering are asking a person to choose secular laws over religious laws which is equivalent to asking them to denounce their faith. Banning of Halal mode of slaughtering animals which is the only way a Muslim is allowed to eat any kind of meat is going to be detrimental to the followers of the Islamic faith because the Quran explicitly forbids eating of any meat prepared in any other way apart from the Halal way. According to Sharia law, a Muslim before eating any kind of food especially meat must have undergone specific rituals of preparing it. The method used to slaughter is referred to as Dhabi bah. In this method, a very sharp knife is used to cut an animal’s throat. The sharp knife is meant to ensure that an animal suffers the least amount of pain as it takes only one swift stroke to cut its neck during the process. Food to be eaten by a Muslim must be prepared by a Muslim who uses Halal ways of slaughtering his animals.

1. Student’s Last Name 1
Banning Halal; Act of Aggression towards Islamic religion
“Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of
swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other
than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a
violent blow,” (Surat Al Maidah, Quran, 5:3).In the Islamic
faith, the things someone is allowed to do and those one is not
allowed to do are clearly stated and have not been altered for
the last 1435 years. The term “Halal” translates to ‘allow’ in
Arabic. Most people associate the Islamic term “Halal” with the
food recommended for consumption but also the term has a
broader meaning; it stands for all things a Muslim is allowed to
engage in by the Islamic religion. The opposite of Halal is
Haram that is the things that one is not allowed to engage in. In
recent times, there has been debate as to whether ‘Halal’ mode
of killing animals should be banned or maintained. This is a
controversial issue mostly in European nations and different
verdicts have been arrived at by different countries. Countries
that have banned or proposed the banning of Halal mode of
meat preparation have shown discriminatory characteristics. The
fact that we live in a global village provides that there be no
space for anti-tolerance sentiments. By banning “Halal” meat
preparation, the government is asking people to choose between
secular laws and Islamic laws which is equal to asking them to
denounce their faith. As well, it is a sign of disrespect for
doctrines of a religion that has existed for thousands of years,
banning Halal is seen as form of Islamphobia. On the other
hand, activists for the ban claim that Halal way of preparing
meat is inhumane and that is why it should be banned and
replaced with other modern methods. Although most nations are
banning Halal Meat preparation or thinking of it, Halal method
of preparing meat should not be banned because it goes against
a fundamental right of people to practice their religious rights.

2. First, governments who ban Halal mode of slaughtering are
asking a person to choose secular laws over religious laws
which is equivalent to asking them to denounce their faith.
Banning of Halal mode of slaughtering animals which is the
only way a Muslim is allowed to eat any kind of meat is going
to be detrimental to the followers of the Islamic faith because
the Quran explicitly forbids eating of any meat prepared in any
other way apart from the Halal way. According to Sharia law, a
Muslim before eating any kind of food especially meat must
have undergone specific rituals of preparing it. The method
used to slaughter is referred to as Dhabi bah. In this method, a
very sharp knife is used to cut an animal’s throat. The sharp
knife is meant to ensure that an animal suffers the least amount
of pain as it takes only one swift stroke to cut its neck during
the process. Food to be eaten by a Muslim must be prepared by
a Muslim who uses Halal ways of slaughtering his animals.
While doing the killing, the one performing the ritual must
dedicate the animal to God by saying “Bismillah" which
translates to ‘in the name of God’, then calling out the name of
God three times, by saying "Allahu Akbar" which translates to
God is the greatest. After slaughtering the animal, all the blood
within it must be drained as it is Haram for a Muslim to take
blood. Muslims are not allowed to eat any meat slaughtered
without invoking the name of Allah, animals that have been
killed by any other means apart from the ones invoking the
name Allah or are unconscious cannot be eaten by a Muslim and
are considered Haram (Riaz,Chaudry 297)
Unfortunately, even with the knowledge of such strict doctrine
some nations have still gone ahead to disrespect laws of religion
that have been in existence for thousands of years. A good
example is Denmark in Europe. The Danish government
outlawed the slaughter of animals using both Halal and Kosher
methods. This ruling by the Danish government goes against the
stand of the European Union which Denmark is a member of,
who allows religious forms of preparation of animals before
eating. As well, it goes against the treaty on human Rights of

3. which the country is a signatory to. The reason the minister for
food and agriculture gave was that slaughtering of animals
using Halal and kosher means went against their rights but he
forgets that it also goes against the rights of the Muslim and
Jewish people to make them eat meat that has not gone through
crucial religious rights. As well, the method the Danish
government is advocating for is considered Haram in Islam as
an animal to be slaughtered in Islam according to Sharia law has
to be conscious. Denmark which has a Muslim population of 6%
and about 6000 Jews is being insensitive and disrespectful to
the beliefs of people who live their lives based on the various
doctrines of their religions (WithNall). This in a world where
everybody is allowed their own way of practicing their belief is
a dangerous trend as it means the government just like in the
days of Nazi Germany will seek to make everybody conform to
some set form of uniformity. An activist group from Denmark
"Danish Halal" in a petition which they intended to have signed
to boycott the law said that the law was "a clear interference in
religious freedom limiting the rights of Muslims and Jews to
practice their religion in Denmark”. Also A religious leader and
minister for religious services in Israel questioned the motive of
the ban and said that "European anti-Semitism is showing its
true colors across Europe, and is even intensifying in the
government institutions.” (WithNall).
Banning Halal might be seen as a direct attack on Islam
and as encouraging Islam phobia. The ban in Denmark is just
one of many in Europe whereby the Halal method of
slaughtering animals are being looked down upon as crude and
inhumane. European nations where the bans have been enforced
are Norway, Sweden and in countries like Britain where
Muslims make up about 2 million people, banning is being
considered. London Newspapers have been accused of being
biased in their reporting as regards Halal meat. They have had
continuous dramatic headlines splashed in their papers
regarding Halal meat in supermarkets and said that people of
Britain have been fed on Halal meat without their knowledge.

4. Also, while speaking on the ban they give less air time to the
banning of kosher slaughter. Most left wing politicians seem to
support the ban on Halal mode of slaughter (Hassan).A Britain
based butcher a Mr. Abdul Malik says that the enforcements of
bans on Halal slaughter of animals will foster the development
of Islam phobia. He defends Halal by saying that "When the
animal is stunned it is not always possible to tell that the animal
is still alive at the time of knife contact, and this is the
fundamental point” (Bristol Post”) Finally, he says that it his
basic right to have food suitable to his dietary needs as per
Muslim doctrine (“Bristol Post”).
On the other hand of the debate, those advocating for the
banning of Halal way of slaughtering animals have several
reasons with which they are supporting their stand. The most
prominent of reasons given by anti-Halal activists is that the
Halal method of preparing animals is a painful process. They
advocate for stunning before slaughter. They even have
scientific studies backing up their claims such as a study carried
out in the EU in the year 2010, on the issue of religious
slaughter it came to the decision that “with the utmost
probability animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior
stunning”(Hassan) However, those supporting Halal dispute
these findings as biased and not conclusive and driven by an
agenda. It can be argued also that their refusal of these
findings is agenda driven and it is true but the findings of a
professor of food science from Cornell University a Joe
Regenstein in the US, who is in charge of the initiative for
Kosher and Halal food, puts the theory of pro-ban activists to
questions. The professor says that those advocating for a ban on
Halal slaughter are more Islam phobic than objective and that
they are not looking out for the wellbeing of animals. He
contrasts the methods accepted by the secular world and the
Islamic method and says the Islamic one is more humane than
the modern methods. His scientific justification for this is that
once an animal’s throat has been cut the body automatically
releases very large amounts of endorphins. This leads to the

5. animal becoming numb and euphoric this the Professor says is
the animals own natural stunning effect, professor Regenstein
states that the argument and evidence presented against halal
slaughter is “extremely weak and has often been done poorly
with an agenda driving a desired outcome”( Hassan).
Animal Right activists have painted a picture of Muslims
as people who do not care about animal rights, but this is not
true. According to Islamic teachings by Prophet Muhammad
contained in the Quran a Muslim is not allowed to harm any
type of animal and should keep all his animals healthy. Author
Hediyah Al-Amin speaks of a Muslim parable from Prophet
Mohammed in which a man finds a tired dog by the way side he
takes out his shoe and draws water from a well and gives the
dog the water. The prophet said that God forgave this man his
sins for his act of kindness. Al-Amin says that “The Prophet
Muhammad forbade people to capture birds, burn anthills, and
whip animals. Even in slaughtering animals for food, Islam
requires that the slaughtering be done according to Islamic
procedure, which is humane and aims to cause the animals as
little suffering as possible” (Al-Amin). A study dating as far
back as 1978 conducted by a German veterinarian at the
University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover proved that animals
slaughtered using proper Halal means did not suffer. This
research was carried out on sheep and calves. He came to this
conclusion after observing the animal being slaughtered and
noticing that there were not defensive actions from the beast. As
well, the electroencephalography (EEG) readings showed that
the animal did not suffer from the process. These findings were
used in deciding a case in Germany at a 2002 case in Federal
Constitutional Court. Recent studies and writings from
authorities in the field of humane animal slaughter have come to
the same conclusion. A study by a Professor Temple Grandin an
expert in animal science at Colorado State University and an
authority in humane treatment during slaughter of livestock,
from her many years of experience she says that whenever she
observed an animal being slaughtered using ritualistic methods

6. the beast acted as if it did not feel a thing once the cut had been
done, she said that putting her arm on the animals face would
have gotten more reaction than the cut did, Grandin says that
there is no difference between stunned and Halal slaughtered
animals as long as both methods are conducted in a professional
manner. It’s been found that the use of stunning stops the heart
before slaughtered in. As well, there is not enough blood loss
when an animal is stunned before slaughter. (Anil).
From a 2004 European Food Safety Authority report the
secular methods of slaughter also have their down side for
example if consumers knew how animals were reared and killed
before slaughter they might not approve some of this methods
include; drowning, use of gas chambers, cracking of skulls with
blunt objects, and electrocution. As well, mis-stunning leaves
animals conscious and in pain and occurs on a regular basis
(Hassan).
In summary, the banning of Halal slaughter would sets a
bad precedence for the future of all religions since lobby groups
will find one thing or the other that is wrong with a religious
ritual and pressure the government to change it and nothing will
be out of boundaries. It is not fair for adherents of a religion to
be asked to choose between their religion and following secular
laws as long as they do not harm anybody else. They should be
left to their practices. As well, governments attempt at
controlling religious practices that have existed long before
even the governments did is a sign of disrespect. Again
selective banning shows a sign of Islam phobia, and lastly it has
been proven that traditional ways of slaughtering animals are
superior to even modern methods which have high chances of
failing for example Mis-stunning. It is time to stand up and put
an end to government’s interference with sacred doctrines of a
religion.

7. Annotated BibliographyAl-Amin Hediyah. “The Love of
Animals”. n.d. Web. 5 April 2014. This article looks at the way
the present world treats animals which goes against teachings of
the Prophet Mohammed it gives examples from the Quran and
parables from the Prophet that show how a Muslim is expected
to teach all types of beast one such excerpt from the article says
that “The Prophet Muhammad forbade people to capture birds,
burn anthills, and whip animals. Even in slaughtering animals
for food, Islam requires that the slaughtering be done according
to Islamic procedure, which is humane and aims to cause the
animals as little suffering as possible”(Al-
Amin,www.islamawareness.net). It will serve as proof of the
teaching of Islam towards treatment of animals.
Anil M. Haluk . ‘‘Religious slaughter: A current controversial
animal welfare issue’’ Cardiff University, School of City and
Regional Planning. July.2012.Web.5 April 2014. In this
Scholarly article Dr. Anil looks at the implications of a ban on
both Halal and Kosher methods of slaughtering animals from a

8. scientific and veterinary point of view. This is a reliable source
as Dr Anil has been an established authority in stunning
slaughter and food safety“It is of utmost importance to expel as
much blood as possible to meet religious requirements of Halal
and She Chita slaughter. It was often claimed that stunning
would adversely affect exsanguination and that neck cutting
without stunning improves blood
loss”(Anil,www.animalfrontiers.org) he says that. This source is
a good addition to the research topic as it provides a scientific
break down of the effects of Halal mode of slaughter.
“Bristol Post”. “Will debate over halal meat lead to a rise in
Islamphobia?” March. 2.2014. Web. 5 April 2014. This
newspaper article by the Bristol post looks at the sentiments of
butchers that would be affected by the blanket banning of Halal
slaughter in Europeand the adoption of stunning and other
modern methods.A practioner of Halal slaughter is interviewed
for the piece the butcher a Mr. Malik says that “"When the
animal is stunned it is not always possible to tell that the animal
is still alive at the time of knife contact, and this is the
fundamental point”(“Bristol post”,
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/).It is a good article as it provides
a firsthand look at the effect of Halal banning.
Hasan Mehdi. “Halal Hysteria”. May.9.2012.Web. 5 April 2014.
In this Scholarlyarticle Mehdi looks at the reasons why Halal
slaughter is being victimized providing evidence for both sides
of the divide and showing through scientific proof that indeed
Halal slaughter is being wrongly targeted, he quotes an expert
in Halal and Kosher studies from Cornell University who says
that the negative research against Halal is; “extremely weak
and has often been done poorly with an agenda driving a desired
outcome.”(Hassan,www.newstatesman.com,) The writer does
come off a little bit biased in favor of Halal but at the end he
provides good supporting evidence. This article is ideal for the
topic under discussion as it has concrete scientific backing.
The Qur'an (5:3) Trans by Surat Al Maidah. Retrieved from
http://quran.com/5/3.(nd.) Web. This is a verse from the Quran

9. which is the verse which dictates what is permissible to eat or
not to eat according to Sharia Laws that “Forbidden to you (for
food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on
which has been invoked the name of other than Allah; that
which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow,”
(Surat Al Maidah, Quran, 5:3).it say It is a good source for the
topic at hand as it provides religious backing for the claim of
the topic.WithNall Adam. “Denmark bans kosher and halal
slaughter as minister says ‘animal rights come before religion”.
The Independent UK. Feb.18.2014.Web. 5 April 2014. This
article is reporting on the Ban of Halal slaughter in Denmark
and the outcry from Danish Muslims as well as Jews against the
movea Danish Islamic rights group says that “a clear
interference in religious freedom limiting the rights of Muslims
and Jews to practice their religion in
Denmark””(Withnall,www.independent.co.uk).The article serves
as a good source as it provides a glimpse into some of the
outcomes of such a move and also into the argument presented
by governments that do ban Halal method of slaughter.
Work cited
Anil M. Haluk. ‘‘Religious slaughter: A current controversial
animal welfare issue’’
Cardiff University, School of City and Regional Planning.
July.2012.Web.5 April 2014.
“Bristol Post”. “Will debate over halal meat lead to a rise in
Islamphobia?” March. 2.2014. Web. 5 April 2014.
Hasan Mehdi. “Halal Hysteria”. May.9.2012.Web. 5 April 2014.
The Qur'an (5:3) Trans by Surat Al Maidah. Retrieved from
http://quran.com/5/3.(nd.) Web.WithNall Adam. “Denmark bans
kosher and halal slaughter as minister says ‘animal rights come

10. before religion”. The Independent UK. Feb.18.2014.Web. 5
April 2014.Al-Amin Hediyah. “The Love of Animals”. nd.
Web. 5 April 2014