- 29,867
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Halal. Pertaining to an action or object which is permissible under Islamic law. Most frequently, the term is used in conjunction with food when talking about the dietary laws of Muslims. Critically, the topic of animal slaughter (Dhabīḥah) generates most controversy due to the way it is conducted;
This aggravates both animal rights activists, who claim that halal preparation and slaughter is unethical, and Islamaphobes, outraged that food they consume might be prepared in this way.
The topic rumbles on in the UK and surfaces every so often a red top decides it wants to stir the pot. In the space of a week, two 'scandals' have broken out;
1) Subway has announced that in 200 of its 1400 UK outlets it is withdrawing ham and bacon out of respect for Muslim dietary laws.
2) This very morning, 7th April, a few red tops ran a story about the 'outrage' that all Pizza Express chicken is halal approved causing outrage amongst those of a UKIP disposition.
Freedom of religion is an important principle as a sub-entry of freedom of expression. People can believe what they want, but can they do what they want? The uproar arises from people who do not conform to halal standards in their everyday life eating food which does conform. They didn't want their animal stabbed in the throat and hung upside down in order for the blood to drain. But if you are slaughtering animals to prepare for consumption, does it matter how it is killed?
To cushion this devastating blow to Western tradition, and in order to comply with our own standards, halal prepared animals are stunned before slaughter. Whether this is better for the animal or whether it at all gives us peace of mind is open to debate.
Equally, captive bolt stunning is argued by Halal supporters to be inhumane and that the halal method is better.
Specifically regarding public opinion, much of any outcry is dependent on whether the consumer knows ahead of purchase. Pizza Express claim to have always noted the fact that their chicken dishes are 100% halal on their website, but not all consumers will take the time to check these things out.
A common argument against the Subway UK precedence is that you couldn't set up a butchers in Tehran or Dubai and be allowed to sell ham and bacon over there. "It doesn't work both ways." But this argument is a strawman argument because even if you could set up such an establishment, the market for anybody who actually wanted those products is slim to zero. Such countries in the Middle East (wrongfully) have religion dictate their judiciaries and executives, further hampering the likelihood of a successful pork shop.
I suspect the alteration to the 200 Subway outlets will be exclusively in areas of significant Islamic majorities. Lastly, as anyone from the US and Canada could tell you, regional differences to menus and availabilities of certain products are very common elsewhere.
So where are the lines drawn? Is this an unethical import which is part and parcel of multiculturalism which should be phased out, or is this a matter of perspective and is simply another method to reach the same goal?
Discuss.
Wikipedia
This aggravates both animal rights activists, who claim that halal preparation and slaughter is unethical, and Islamaphobes, outraged that food they consume might be prepared in this way.
The topic rumbles on in the UK and surfaces every so often a red top decides it wants to stir the pot. In the space of a week, two 'scandals' have broken out;
1) Subway has announced that in 200 of its 1400 UK outlets it is withdrawing ham and bacon out of respect for Muslim dietary laws.
2) This very morning, 7th April, a few red tops ran a story about the 'outrage' that all Pizza Express chicken is halal approved causing outrage amongst those of a UKIP disposition.
Freedom of religion is an important principle as a sub-entry of freedom of expression. People can believe what they want, but can they do what they want? The uproar arises from people who do not conform to halal standards in their everyday life eating food which does conform. They didn't want their animal stabbed in the throat and hung upside down in order for the blood to drain. But if you are slaughtering animals to prepare for consumption, does it matter how it is killed?
To cushion this devastating blow to Western tradition, and in order to comply with our own standards, halal prepared animals are stunned before slaughter. Whether this is better for the animal or whether it at all gives us peace of mind is open to debate.
Equally, captive bolt stunning is argued by Halal supporters to be inhumane and that the halal method is better.
Specifically regarding public opinion, much of any outcry is dependent on whether the consumer knows ahead of purchase. Pizza Express claim to have always noted the fact that their chicken dishes are 100% halal on their website, but not all consumers will take the time to check these things out.
A common argument against the Subway UK precedence is that you couldn't set up a butchers in Tehran or Dubai and be allowed to sell ham and bacon over there. "It doesn't work both ways." But this argument is a strawman argument because even if you could set up such an establishment, the market for anybody who actually wanted those products is slim to zero. Such countries in the Middle East (wrongfully) have religion dictate their judiciaries and executives, further hampering the likelihood of a successful pork shop.
I suspect the alteration to the 200 Subway outlets will be exclusively in areas of significant Islamic majorities. Lastly, as anyone from the US and Canada could tell you, regional differences to menus and availabilities of certain products are very common elsewhere.
So where are the lines drawn? Is this an unethical import which is part and parcel of multiculturalism which should be phased out, or is this a matter of perspective and is simply another method to reach the same goal?
Discuss.
Last edited:
