To refuse eating or buying anything halal?

[ClaryIsTheBest]

Is somebody unreasonable to refuse to buy or eat anything halal?

I'm not sure. I mean, everybody gets to choose what they want to eat (or not eat). But still...

I wouldn't eat halal or kosher meat, purely on animal welfare grounds (if I was going to have my throat slit, I'd prefer to be unconscious when it happened...). I'm an atheist, so it's irrelevant to me if someone was reciting a prayer or singing the theme tune to Barney the Dinosaur while slaughtering the animal. That said, I don't eat meat anyway, so it doesn't make any difference to me in practice anyway!

Other stuff that's labelled halal is likely to be halal by chance, and just so happen to have that label on. An onion is inherently halal, kosher, vegetarian, vegan... but it doesn't mean that people from other groups can't eat an onion!

citrus thanks for your reply back on page 7! Have just caught up with the thread. Good to know about the queueing outside.

This thread is so annoying. Why are so many people ignoring what other posters are saying?

So OP's family does eat Kosher meat but she hasn't 'thought' about the impact of this, but has loud opinions over halal. OP you can say you're not racist all you want but your comments suggest you definitely are. Or if not racist then woefully ignorant.

As for the Kosher meat not entering food supply - that's wrong. Usually both kosher and halal meat will enter the general food supply via cuts that aren't suitable for Jewish/Muslim consumption. You just won't know about it

But Bill, if that logic holds true couldn't it be argued that it's offensive to expect non-Christians to respect the proceedings and decisions of the British Parliament, because those proceedings have been blessed by Christian prayer and are therefore presumably tainted?

As an atheist, I fall into the 'prayers are meaningless and have no impact on me, if they make other people feel nice then they can fill their boots, as long as they don't force them on me and mine' camp. I don't regard saying a prayer while an animal being killed as forcing it on me and mine. It has zero impact on me.

I have researched this before and the amount of kosher food in the food supply is tiny, less than 1%. Very little kosher food is sold (as the Jewish population of uk fairly low) and it's only half of those animals that enter the non kosher labelled food supply

However, the amount of halal is very large despite the fact less than 2% of the population ear halal. Halal is therefore imposed, often unlabelled, on the other 98%.

TinyRick

That's awesome, a user from the same board on mumsnet :)!!!

My angle is exactly the same. I have left out certain things (to prevent arguments. and also identifiability. Which obviously failed... lol). But I thought that the issue, the argument and the general gist stayed exactly the same. If you don't think so then please message me.

We have found a great place, btw.
No alcohol and vegan. Which well, anyhow. Everybody will hopefully (?) be happy.

The difference between eating halal meat and taking communion are obvious. A better comparator is grace - I'm not aware of Muslims making a habit of walking out of formal meals if grace is said beforehand.

If we object to what is said in the vicinity of our meat before the animal is slaughtered, there really is no alternative to going vegetarian - by all accounts the the language in slaughterhouses is far from pure and reverent. But frankly, I've never come across a practising Christian who boycotts halal meat, including Indian restaurants, for religious reasons, and I really question how many there are who do so.

People can't boycott halal because it's isn't labelled. If it was you might find people choosing not to buy it, of course

But Bill, if that logic holds true couldn't it be argued that it's offensive to expect non-Christians to respect the proceedings and decisions of the British Parliament, because those proceedings have been blessed by Christian prayer and are therefore presumably tainted?

I didn't know they did that. But actually I would apply exactly the same logic, I'm actually quite shocked that in this day and age no multi faith element is offered. Perhaps along the lines of Alcoholics Anonymous where it's to God 'as you understand it'. Or at least adding something at the end to cover people of other religions or none. I'm kind of disappointed that there is something so exclusionary.

Nevertheless, the proceedings aren't actually 'blessed', just preceded by a prayer. So the actual proceedings are secular so it doesn't apply in the same way.

Eating food over which grace has been said is forbidden and a 'major shirk' (sin). Muslims are advised to object and leave according to this link:

islamqa.info/en/146436

It's not really comparable either, because grace does not directly affect the food and bless and purify it, but gives thanks.

Both that, and the example of the parliamentary prayer above are different as they do not claim to change or affect the item prayed over and make it distinctly Christian in character. Halal prayers (and the draining of blood) do actually specifically make it something Muslim in character which is 'changed' at least spiritually in the view of the religious.

of course YANBU!

because non Halal meat slaughter is fucking humane! they barely knows its even happening .

I hate the way that people disguise Islamophobia as care for animals, fucking bullshit

Nevertheless, the proceedings aren't actually 'blessed', just preceded by a prayer. So the actual proceedings are secular so it doesn't apply in the same way.

How does something get blessed, if a prayer asking for God's blessing doesn't count?

With an established church and CofE bishops having special reserved places in the legislature it's difficult to argue that the proceedings are entirely secular. But even if they were, I honestly can't see the difference between 'secular proceedings with a prayer said first' and 'animal slaughter of a pre-stunned animal with a prayer said nearby' in terms of taint to other or no faiths.

Views on the efficacy of pre-stunning, etc, may come into play but that's a separate issue.

I take it that posters on here are over 20, which means most likely you've eaten meat in your lifetime without asking or bothering whether it's Halal, Kosher or otherwise.
Some of you have probably flown Emirates, Qatar, Etihad and also visited the Airline countries where the good is strictly Halal.
My point is: Who has died from eating Halal or Kosher food or meat?

stop those videos are obviously not from halal or kosher slaughter houses.
Muslims and Jews don't eat pigs for a start.... so yeah non halal slaughter houses are not humane!

This would be very hard to achieve. The fact is that the majority of meat is halal even when not destined for that market. Also the majority of slaughter men are muslim.

Iknow

the whole meat and dairy industry, Halal or not is off the scale inhumane

In fact I dare say the egg and milk industries are even worse, at least the meat ones get to die

anyway- ! happy happy ! not

I agree. It's just in your comment you said non halal slaughter houses are humane then posted a video of non halal slaughter houses that clearly wasn't humane.

There needs to be better regulations.

I am lucky enough to know where the meat we buy comes from so this not need issue for me but may others won't know.

i was being sarcastic, and uncleaer!

Its all off the scale inhumane and anyone who thinks that halal mass produced is worse than non halal needs their head examining

TheOriginal True, a very good example is New Zealand.
News flash: All the lamb you buy in Waitrose from New Zealand is Halal. This Halal bashing is not easy actually laughable. I say love and enjoy meat or go Veggie.

Ah sorry I get that now. Not easy to interpret sometimes.

Imagine if mumsnetters had to boycott the overrated Waitrose!

Because the prayers in parliament are very different from those said over halal meat. The prayers in parliament ask for help not to act in self interest, in the best interests of the country etc. The prayers said over halal food are 'There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet' or 'In the name of Allah who is the greatest'. I think we can both agree that if the HoC opened with a prayer saying 'There is no God but the Holy Trinty and that God is the greatest' it would be very offensive to a lot of people and exclude them. The prayer that's said doesn't explicitly bless parliament or claim that it is purified by God. If it did I am sure plenty of people would feel that it didn't represent them and they couldn't recognise it.

Also, those prayers are voluntary - there is an opt out which there often isn't in the case of halal meat because it's not labelled.

I'm not really sure how I feel about those prayers in parliament. On one hand we are nominally a Christian country and it is part of our tradition, history and culture. On the other it's not nice to exclude people. I wonder if alternatives are offered outside the main house for people of other religions like there is an alternative to the bible in courts?

Wallis, the easy answer to that is that 'just go veggie' is what Muslims used to be told and it was decided pretty fairly that rather than being forced to have the veggie option every time they should be offered a suitable alternative. So now other people are being told if they don't want to eat halal just go veggie. Which is unfair as it wasn't seen as a good enough option for Muslims and gives the correct impression that some people are more equal than others.

A labelling system would be the fair and equitable way of doing things, and one which you rarely hear Muslims opposing because it would give them better information and choice. In fact the only people who seem to object are the usual assortment of drippy liberals who get their knickers in a twist and instantly get combative just because something touches on Islam.

And nobody has managed to explain what exactly the problem with a labelling system is. Surely more information is a good thing, what exactly is so wrong with it? What's the problem?

Well, let's just look at the language of the main prayers in the Commons:

"Lord, the God of righteousness and truth... so may your kingdom come and your name be hallowed."

And in the Lords:

"O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes..." "Almighty God, by whom alone Kings reign, and Princes decree justice; and from whom alone cometh all counsel, wisdom, and understanding; we thine unworthy servants, here gathered together in thy Name,"

And of course the Lord's Prayer does heavily suggest there are no other gods...

But at any rate, if someone thinks it's billocks, why does it matter? Why does reciting a bit of fiction render the meat offensive?

I'd say that having prayers relating to one religion only, to the exclusion of others, in a parliament making laws that aply to everyone is a damn sight more problematic than reciting a bit of poetry near meat. But it's not really logically defensible to say that meat that has been prayed over is or should be unacceptable for those of other faiths or none, while a parliament that is prayed over is just peachy to those who don't follow the faith of those doing the praying.

Denmark may be trying to ban non-stun halal slaughter, but given Denmark and various other EU countries like Italy and Germany have failed to implement pig welfare legisation that would give sows a much better life, that's probably much more about protecting their meat industry and/or pacifying anti-Muslim voters.

It is perfectly feasible to slit a throat and induce unconsciousness as rapidly as with a stunning gun. Which means it can be equally humane. All the published research says that. Now whether animals can be slaughtered in bulk that way and keep it humane is a bit more questionable but should be possible.

The obsession with wanting to know about stunning is rather wierd given no-one wants to know about the hoists used, the noise insulation preventing animals hearing what happens at slaughter, the number of rest breaks they get on their journey to slaughter, etc. So being only 'concerned' about the one moment of the process that happens to be of interest to Muslims... looks like unconscious racism to me.