Issues In The Halal Industry
The Vertical Cut Slaughter Method
The Sunnah method of slaughter is to drain all of the impure blood from the body of the animal by cutting all of the vessels of the throat including the carotid artery, trachea, oesophagus, and the jugular veins. The prophet (saw) said, “Eat from those animals whose blood was drained and upon whom the name of Allâh was recited. The blood can only be completely drained from the body if the vessels of the throat being cut.
In light of this narration, the great Imams of Fiqh have stipulated that a combination of a certain number of these four vessels must be cut in order for the animal to be lawful. For example, the preferred view according to the Hanafi school of thought is that any three of the four vessels be cut. Imâm Shâfi’î requires that the oesophagus and the windpipe of the animal be cut. Thus, the slaughter will be valid when these two are cut, even if the two jugular veins are not cut.[2] Similarly, there are also various views narrated by Imâm Ahmad. In one narration, his view is the same as Imâm Shâfi’î. According to another narration, it is necessary to cut the two jugular veins along with the oesophagus and the windpipe. In other words, it seems that he has required that all four vessels be cut. [3] There are also numerous benefits to severing all the vessels of the throat including increased shelf life, the absence of bacteria, and complete drainage of flowing blood.
The modern-day slaughter method in North America does not ensure that all the vessels of the throat are cut and that the blood is completely drained. This applies in particular to the contemporary method of slaughtering cattle which is known as the ‘European Cut’ or the vertical cut. As the name suggests, the slaughterer cuts the throat of the animal vertically starting from the heart and ending at the throat. This slaughter process does not ensure that the impure blood completely flows out of the animal and up to 18 pounds of impure blood remains in the cow after this slaughter process. Slaughterhouses employ this slaughter method to increase the weight of the animal, better preserve the hide of the animal, and for its convenient nature.
The ‘vertical cut’ is a slaughter method which is contrary to the Sunnah method and does not ensure that the minimum number of vessels of the throat is severed. After consulting with many halal authorities and experts, one arrives at the conclusion that this slaughter process is unacceptable and renders the slaughtered animal as unlawful.
The scholars are unanimous on the fact that the meat of an animal which can be subdued is unlawful to consume if it is killed without cutting the vessels.
Another related issue is with regards to severing the oesophagus during the slaughter. Many beef and lamb slaughterhouses in America purposely do not sever the oesophagus of the animal for food safety issues. The meat of the animal can potentially become contaminated if food is released from the oesophagus during the slaughter process and the company can suffer a loss in the form of less meat production. Therefore, many slaughterhouses either employ the vertical method or clip the oesophagus in the middle of the slaughter to ensure that the oesophagus is not cut. This process is problematic for Muslims and is sufficient to render the animal unlawful for followers of the Shafi school of thought.
Likewise, there are some slaughterhouses in America which employ a ‘modified’ horizontal cut which combines two cuts; one vertical and one horizontal. One slaughterer first cuts the skin vertically with a sharp knife. A second slaughterer then severs the jugular vein and carotid artery with two horizontal motions at the lower area of the throat, thus nicking the trachea in the process. Again, the common theme is that the oesophagus is purposely not cut to avoid food safety issues. To some extent, this slaughter process is slightly better than a pure vertical cut since at least some vessels of the throat are partially severed. However, the minimum number of vessels of the throat which are required by the various schools of thought are not severed in this process. The major portion of three vessels is not cut, rendering the animal unlawful according to the Hanafi School of thought. The oesophagus is not cut for the Shafi School of thought. In a similar fashion, the major portion of the trachea is not cut for the Maliki school of thought and the cutting procedure takes place in two separate actions, which violates the condition of valid slaughter of uninterrupted slaughter. The Halal Advocates personally have observed this slaughter process and have arrived to this conclusion after extensive research.
The pure vertical cut, modified vertical cut, and other similar slaughter methods go against the Sunnah method of slaughter and are doubtful methods of slaughter which do not completely fulfill the halal requirements. The best method of slaughter is the Sunnah method which consists of a horizontal cut on the throat of the animal and severing all four vessels of the throat in order to remove all the impure blood from the animal. This is the only method which ensures that the meat slaughtered is lawful for Muslims of all schools of thought to consume and the method which removes all doubts. On this basis, the Halal Advocates of America have stipulated in their HFSAA halal standards that the slaughterer should employ a horizontal cut on the throat of the animal and sever all four vessels of the throat. The Halal Advocates will do their best to work with the industry and slaughterhouses to promote this universal halal standard and educate the Muslim public on the benefits of this Sunnah method of slaughter.
Stunning Animals Prior to Slaughter
It is an established fact that the majority of conventional meat slaughterhouses in North America use some form of stunning to subdue and immobilize the animal before the slaughter. There are different types of stunning used for different species including turkeys, chickens, lamb, and cattle. Most halal slaughterhouses in North America also use some form of stunning before slaughter. Therefore, the Islamic ruling of stunning is an issue of paramount importance which has tremendous implications for Muslim consumers and businesses alike. This article will attempt to shed light on this important issue.
One preliminary point to consider when discussing the ruling of stunning is differentiating between the act of stunning and the legal status of the animal which has been slaughtered after stunning. These are two different issues which are independent of one another and should not be cropped together under one banner. We will discuss these two rulings separately below.
There are numerous types of stunning including the pneumatic stunner which delivers a blow to the head of the animal, captive bolt pistol which shatters the brain of the animal, electric water trough which delivers an electric shock to poultry, and electric brain stunner for sheep. Some methods are reversible and others are irreversible. When irreversible methods of stunning are applied, the animal will die if it is not slaughtered within a few minutes. Other methods are reversible in theory and the animal can get up and walk around if not slaughtered in a few minutes. The common factor in all these methods of stunning is causing extra pain to the animal above and beyond the pain experienced during the slaughter itself. For this reason, many scholars have declared that the act of stunning is extremely disliked and close to being impermissible. Stunning is a very serious matter and some scholars have used extremely strong language when describing the practice of stunning such as ‘against the spirit of Islam’ and an ‘evil innovation.’ Therefore, a Muslim should avoid using this practice as much as possible when slaughtering an animal.
A second, independent issue is the ruling of consuming an animal which has been stunned prior to a proper halal slaughter. Stunning is an unacceptable action and the person who stuns will sinful for causing extra pain to the animal. However, the impermissibility of the act of stunning does not influence the lawfulness of the animal which was stunned and does NOT necessarily mean that all stunned animals are also unlawful to consume. The legal status of an animal which has been stunned is dependent on whether the animal was alive at the time of slaughter. If the animal was indeed alive at the time of a proper halal slaughter, then the meat of such an animal will be lawful to consume. On the other hand, if it is established that the animal was indeed dead at the time of slaughter, such an animal will be unlawful to consume despite the fact that it was slaughtered in accordance to Islamic law.
Since the legal status of a stunned animal is dependent on it being alive at the time of slaughter, there is a need to discuss how to ascertain that the animal is alive at the time of death. A renowned Islamic scholar, Mufti Taqi Usmani, has shed light on this important issue and he writes:
”The jurists have mentioned many signs that can be taken as proof of an animal being alive at the time of slaughter, for example if the animal bleeds at the time of slaughter like a living animal, or closes its mouth or eyes, or pulls together its legs, or shows any kind of movement, etc. Therefore, if the fact that the animal was alive can be established in any way, it will be permissible to slaughter it, and its meat will be considered Halal. The observation of movement in the animal, or establishing the fact that a pulse exists is sufficient to prove an animal alive.”
After learning of the evil of stunning, a Muslim should do his best to consume meat which was not stunned and support businesses who supply unstunned halal meat. There are numerous advantages to unstunned meat including complete drainage of blood, better consistency of the meat, and no concern of the animal deaths due to the stunning. In practical terms, the percentage of unstunned halal meat is extremely low and the majority of halal meat is stunned. Approximately 90% or more of chickens are stunned through the reversible method of the electric water trough. The majority of beef slaughterhouses use a pneumatic stunner or a captive bolt pistol to subdue the animal before slaughter. Likewise, the vast majority of lamb and goat slaughterhouses apply an electric rod to the head of the animal before slaughter.
In the current situation, the supply of unstunned halal meat is insufficient to meet the supply needs of the North America Muslim community. The majority of halal lamb and goat in America and a good percentage of the halal beef is imported from New Zealand and Australia. The Halal Advocates of America sent a delegation to research the halal status of this meat and found that almost all of this meat is stunned due to the governmental regulations in these countries. This presents challenges for the Muslim consumer who makes a conscious decision to consume only unstunned halal meat. This is further complicated by the fact that authentic, hand slaughtered meat itself is not readily available and the majority of the ‘halal’ meat in America is processed using doubtful slaughter methods. A good percentage of Muslims are not consuming authentic halal products, are not concerned about halal, or cannot find authentic halal products in their cities. This point is verified by extensive research at the ground level on the halal supply chain in numerous cities all over America. If the halal authorities were to completely reject stunned halal meat and only accept unstunned meat, then it would be extremely difficult to find authentic halal meat in America.
Based on the halal needs of the Muslim community, many renowned international halal organizations and authorities have accepted animals which are stunned with strict requirements and measures in place to ensure that the animal is alive when slaughtered. The level of voltage and the application of the stunning mechanism is closely monitored by halal inspectors and supervisors. The slaughterers are trained to look for signs of life and to reject animals which do not bleed properly or do not display signs of life. They are authorized to remove such animals from the line and ensure that they are not included in the halal production.
The stance of the Halal Advocates of America is that stunning should be avoided as much as possible and Muslims in the long term should move towards removing stunning completely from halal slaughterhouses. The Jews have historically taken a strong stance against stunning and do not allow it under any circumstance. Likewise, there are many Muslim leaders who are completely opposed to stunning and do not allow it. The Halal Advocates will do their best to educate the Muslim public with regards to the harms of stunning and plan to introduce a system to label products which are stunned and products which are not stunned. The Halal Advocates are also dedicated to working in the long term with Muslim businesses and the meat industry to build the infrastructure needed to eliminate stunning once and for all of the halal slaughter plants.
At the same time, the Halal Advocates acknowledge the scarcity of authentic halal products and understand that stunning is needed in the short term to meet the needs of the Muslim community. Therefore, after careful consideration, the Halal Advocates have decided to approve reversible methods of stunning in the short term for poultry and sheep under strict supervision to ensure that the animal does not die. However, the Halal Advocates will not allow lethal and irreversible stunning methods for cattle which will cause the death of the animal in a few minutes and will initiate a cardiac arrest. There is a viable alternative in the form of the ‘kill box’ which restrains the animal for slaughter and eliminates the need to stun. The Halal Advocates have adopted a balanced approach in the short term with regards the issue of stunning and have consciously chosen the ‘lesser of the two evils’ in order to provide more options for Muslims to consume authentic halal products. The long-term goal is to move closer to the Sunnah method of slaughter and stop causing extra pain to the animal through stunning.
Not Reciting God’s Name When Slaughtering
The mechanical slaughter process raises many major concerns from the point of view of Islamic law. One of these concerns is with regards to the recitation of the name of Allah on the slaughtered chickens. Three of the four major schools of thought requires that the name of Allah is recited at the time of slaughter. In the poultry slaughterhouses in America which implement a ‘halal’ mechanical slaughter, there are three ways in which there is an attempt to fulfil the requirement of the recitation of the name of Allah. Sometimes there is a Muslim who says the name of Allah once while turning on the machine in the morning. Alternatively, a Muslim not associated with the machine in any way stands and recites the name of Allah for each chicken. There are other methods such as a tape recorder or a ‘blessed blade.’
In reality, it is difficult to say that the requirement of reciting the name of Allah on each chicken is met through the above-mentioned procedures. Mufti Taqi Usmani has discussed this issue at length in his book, Legal Rulings on slaughtered animals and examined each case separately. We will quote this entire discussion for the benefit of the Muslim community below:
“There are many complications with regards to reciting the name of Allâh while using the automated method. The first complication is in specifying who is the slaughterer because only the slaughterer is responsible for reciting the name of Allâh. It is not valid for one person to slaughter and for another to recite the name of Allâh for him. Therefore, the question to ask is that who is the slaughterer in this automated method? We could say that the slaughterer is the person who started the machine because he controls the movement of the machine. The machine itself does not have the level of intelligence which would allow us to attribute the act of slaughtering to it.
We could attribute the slaughter to the person running the machine and consider him to be the slaughterer whilst using the machine as a tool. However, the problem with this is that the person who starts the machine only starts it once, for example in the morning. Thereafter, the machine runs continuously during the work day and sometimes for 24 hours, cutting the necks of thousands of chickens. If the person who starts the machine recites the name of Allâh once in the beginning of the day, will this one recitation suffice for the thousands of chickens slaughtered by this machine during the day? The outward meaning of the verse of the Qurân, “And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allâh has not been mentioned” proves that the name of Allâh must be recited separately for each animal and that it should be slaughtered immediately thereafter. Based on this principle, the scholars of Fiqh have derived the following laws:
“One of the conditions for the slaughter under normal circumstances is that one must specify the animal for which he is reciting the name of Allâh. From this principle, we can derive the ruling for when a person slaughters one animal whilst reciting the name of Allâh and then slaughters another animal while assuming that the first recitation of the name of Allâh will suffice for both animals. This second animal will be unlawful in this case. Therefore, it is necessary that the name of Allâh be recited separately for each animal.”
“If a person places a sheep on the ground to slaughter it, takes a knife, recites the name of Allâh, leaves this sheep, and slaughters another sheep in its place while intentionally leaving out the name of Allâh, then this animal will be unlawful to consume. This is mentioned in Khulâsatul Fatâwâ (written by Tâhir Bukhâri). . .
If a person lays a sheep on the ground for slaughter, recites the name of Allâh upon it, then speaks to a person, drinks water, or sharpens his knife, or eats a morsel of food, or does another similar action which is not considered to be an extended action, then this recitation of the name of Allâh will suffice for that animal. However, it will be Makruh (disliked) to consume that animal if he talks for a long time and the action becomes extended. No exact time has been stipulated for an action to be considered extended, rather we will look at the normal trend. An action will be considered to be extended if people normally consider it to be extended. Similarly, the time period of an action will be considered to be short if people consider it so.”
Ibn Qudâmah says, “The recitation of the name of Allâh is valid [if recited] at the time of slaughter or close to it, as is the case in Wudhû (ablution for prayer). It is not permissible to recite the name of Allâh on one sheep, take another sheep, and slaughter it while relying on the first recitation of the name of Allâh. This ruling will apply, irrespective of whether the slaughterer releases the first sheep or slaughters it because he did not make the intention of slaughtering the second sheep when he recited the name of Allâh the first time.
It is also unlawful for a person to recite the name of Allâh upon seeing a herd of sheep, then take a sheep, and slaughter it without repeating the name of Allâh. A person who is unaware of the need to repeat the name of Allâh will not be in the same ruling as a person who forgets to recite the name of Allâh because a person who forgets is not held accountable for reciting the name of Allâh while a person who is unaware of the need to recite the name of Allâh is held accountable. This same principle applies to fasting; the fast of a person who eats forgetfully does not break, while the fast of a person who is unaware that his fast will break by eating does break. If a person lays down a sheep for slaughter, recites the name of Allâh, puts his knife down and takes another one, or returns the Salâm (greeting of a Muslim), or speaks to a person, or asks for water, or does something similar, then the slaughter will be valid because he had recited the name of Allâh on a specific sheep and there was only a short interval between the recitation of the name of Allâh and the slaughter. Thus, we will consider this interval as if it did not take place.”
Al-Mawwâq Al-Mâliki says, “Imam Mâlik holds the view that it is necessary for a person to recite the name of Allâh while shooting his weapon, releasing his hunting-animal, and slaughtering because of the verse, “And mention the name of Allâh upon it.”
These passages from the books of Fiqh clearly show that the majority of scholars who require that the name of Allâh be recited at the time of slaughter also require that the name of Allâh must be recited on a specific animal and at the time of slaughter. They also make it a condition that a significant interval of time does not pass between the recitation of the name of Allâh and the slaughter.
These conditions are not found in the automated process mentioned above. If the person who starts the machine recites the name of Allâh, then he is not reciting the name of Allâh on a specific animal, and a significant period of time will elapse between his recitation of the name of Allâh and the slaughtering of thousands of chickens throughout the work day, 24 hours, or longer. Apparently, this recitation of the name of Allâh will not suffice for the slaughter of all these chickens. This is similar to the situation mentioned by Ibn Qudâmah above in which he says that it is unlawful for a person to recite the name of Allâh upon seeing a herd of sheep, then take a sheep, and slaughter it without repeating the name of Allâh.
It is possible for someone to raise an objection to this view based on the following statement, “It will be sufficient to recite the name of Allâh only once when a person lays down two sheep, one on top of the other and slaughters both in one motion. However, if he places two sparrows in his hand, recites the name of Allâh, and slaughters them in succession, then the second sparrow will be unlawful to consume. Reciting the name of Allâh once will suffice if he slaughters both in one stroke.”
There is a possibility that someone might say that the ruling for reciting the name of Allâh using an automated machine is similar to the above-mentioned ruling where a person lays down two sheep together or gathers two sparrows in his hand in that reciting the name of Allâh once will suffice. However, in reality, the two situations mentioned above cannot be applied to the automated slaughter because the two sheep and two sparrows mentioned above are slaughtered simultaneously without a significant interval of time elapsing between the slaughter and recitation of the name of Allâh. For this reason, the author of this passage clearly states in this ruling that the second sparrow will be unlawful to consume if a person takes two sparrows in his hand, recites the name of Allâh, slaughters the first, and thereafter slaughters the second one. This is because of the fact that the second sparrow was not slaughtered simultaneously with the first. We cannot say that all the chickens slaughtered by automated machine in the period of one or two days are slaughtered at once because they are in reality slaughtered separately, one after the other. Thus, there is a clear difference between the two situations.
This proves that it is not sufficient for the person starting the machine to recite the name of Allâh once for all the animals slaughtered by the machine. If a person is stationed by the rotating blade to recite the name of Allâh every time the throat of a chicken is cut (I witnessed this in a slaughterhouse in Canada), then there are the following difficulties in considering the recitation of the name of Allâh to be valid in Islâmic law:
1. The name of Allâh should be recited by the slaughterer himself, whereas the person standing by the machine does not participate in the slaughter in any way; he has neither started the machine, moved the rotating blade, or placed the chicken in front of the rotating blade. He is completely detached from the slaughter. Therefore, his recitation of the name of Allâh cannot be considered as being the recitation of the slaughterer.
2. Many chickens pass through the rotating blade in the span of a few seconds. Therefore, it is not possible for the person standing to recite the name of Allâh separately for each one.
3. The person standing is a human being and not an automatic machine, meaning that it is not possible for him to continuously recite the name of Allâh without doing anything else. He will sometimes have to attend to his needs and thus will be distracted from reciting the name of Allâh. In this period of time, many chickens will pass through the rotating blade and be slaughtered without having the name of Allâh recited upon them. I personally saw in the slaughterhouse in Canada that this person would be away from his place near the machine for intervals which would sometimes extend for half an hour or more.
The rotating blade should be removed and replaced with four Muslims who take turns in cutting the throats of the chicken while reciting the name of Allâh as the chickens are brought by the hooks. I proposed this idea to a large slaughterhouse in Reunion and they implemented my proposal. Experience has shown that implementing this method does not affect the number of chickens slaughtered in the least bit because the four slaughterers take the same amount of time to cut the necks of the chicken as the rotating blade.
Also, this machine is not entirely independent of human labour. We have seen that the managers of slaughterhouses are often forced to appoint workers to stand in sections of the machine where the hooks pass through and remove the intestines from the stomachs of the chickens either by hand or by using tools. I do not know of any slaughterhouse which is completely independent of such human labour. If they can appoint people for this type of work, then they can definitely appoint four people to slaughter. By doing so, the slaughter can take place according to Islâmic law at the hands of Muslim slaughterers who recite the name of Allâh while slaughtering, and the remaining processes can be done automatically by the machine. Besides Reunion, I also saw the same method being implemented in a much larger slaughterhouse in Durban, South Africa. Thousands of chickens are slaughtered there daily. They accepted this request from the Muslims and are implementing it without any difficulty.
In the same way, I also spoke to the owners of a slaughterhouse which I visited in Canada and I requested them to do the same (to modify their method of slaughter). They expressed their willingness to implement this method if the Muslims requested it. However, it is a great disappointment that the Muslim group which sanctions their chickens as being lawful did not accept this proposal.
As long as this replacement is practical to implement, there is no pressing need to use the rotating blade. Allâh knows best.”
Mechanical/Machine Slaughter on Chickens
Mechanical slaughter is one of the most controversial aspects of the halal slaughter process and there has been much debate between ‘zabihah’ (hand slaughtered animals) and machine slaughtered animals. The majority of ‘halal’ chickens sold in America are machine slaughtered, largely in part due to the cheaper price. The majority of halal meat stores and restaurants also use machine slaughtered chicken instead of hand slaughtered chicken. It is of vital importance for the Muslims in America to know the legal status of mechanical slaughter in Islamic law and become more educated this issue if they are truly concerned about consuming authentic halal products. This paper aims at presenting the main concerns regarding mechanical slaughter in a summarized fashion. One should refer to the many detailed papers and research articles on this topic.
One must first understand the contemporary application of mechanical slaughter at North American poultry plants and observe the process first-hand before issuing a ruling on its legality. Most poultry slaughterhouses employ a rotating blade/mechanical knife which slits the throat of the chickens which pass by on the automated assembly line. This rotating blade operates continuously once turned on and can slaughter over 200,000 chickens in one day. Although many Islamic scholars have discussed pressing a button for the slaughter of each individual chicken, such a slaughter method does not exist in North America in practical terms.
The primary aspect of human intervention in this process is to turn the machine on and manually sever the vessels of chickens missed by the machine. The machine does the rest of the work as there is no need for pressing the button except in the beginning. These chickens are also not killed simultaneously by one press of the button, rather the machine slaughters the chickens individually – one after the other – over a period of many hours. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that there is no human involvement in the slaughter of the majority of the chickens and they are being slaughtered by a machine rather than a human being.
The Sunnah method of slaughter is to apply the sharp instrument to the throat of the animal with one’s own hands. Rasulullah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam himself slaughtered 63 camels with his own blessed hands during the Farewell Hajj and left the remaining 37 for Ali Radhiyallahu Anhu to slaughter. One can imagine the time needed to manually slaughter so many camels and the physical exertion which our beloved Prophet undertook for this task. He has set the standard for us and left behind a model for the most humane and personal method of taking the life of a animal. There numerous advantages in manual slaughter which are not found in mechanical slaughter. Allah, the most high, also makes reference to manual slaughter which is attributed to a human being in Surah 5 v. 5) A human being’s direct involvement and personal touch help calm the animal during the slaughter process and adds to the spiritual value of the meat which is slaughtered. This same factor is not found in the mechanical process.
The scholars of Fiqh have stipulated that the slaughterer must meet the Islamic criteria for the slaughter to be valid. He/she must be a Muslim or a believing Jew or Christian. There exists a definite doubt as to whether a machine meets this requirement. Likewise, many schools of thought require that the legal intent of slaughter be found in order for the slaughter to be acceptable in Islamic law. This legal intent is not found in the case of the mechanical blade. The actions of a machine cannot substitute for the actions of a human being in Islamic law. For example, it would not be acceptable to train a robot to perform the postures of the prayer, recite the Quran, and lead the congregation as the Imam. Many scholars have declared mechanical slaughter to be unacceptable based on this point alone and they have declared all the chickens slaughtered to be unlawful.
Another major issue regarding mechanical slaughter is the issue of reciting the name of Allah. Many schools of thought including the Hanafi and Maliki schools maintain that it is a requirement to verbally recite the name of Allah on each and every animal slaughtered. They base their view on numerous verses of the Quran and hadiths of the Holy Prophet which emphasize the need to recite the name of Allah. Allah says in the Quran, “Do not eat from an animal upon which the name of Allah was not recited.” The scholars from these schools of thought derive from this verse that it is not sufficient to say the name of Allah once in the beginning, rather, it must be recited separately for each animal.
There are many issues which complicate the recitation of the name of Allah for mechanical slaughter. The first issue is that the name of Allah must be recited by the slaughterer himself and not by a third party who is not involved in the slaughter process in any way. Slaughterhouses employing mechanical slaughter use different methods in an attempt to meet the requirement of reciting the name of Allah, but all of these methods fail to do so. Sometimes, a independent third party ‘reciter’ is stationed next to the mechanical blade to bless each individual chicken slaughtered by the machine. However, it is difficult to say that this blessing meets the halal requirements because of the fact that this individual is not the slaughterer and is not involved in the slaughter process in any way whatsoever. Other futile attempts to fulfill this requirement include a ‘taped’ recitation of the name of Allah. In practical terms, most ‘halal’ poultry slaughterhouses employing mechanical slaughter in North America do not have any Muslim present at the facility to oversee the process or even to recite the name of Allah. The failure to fulfill the requirement of reciting the name of Allah also by itself is sufficient to render the mechanical slaughter process unlawful for many Muslims.
There is also a third major concern with regards to mechanical slaughter. Depending on the type of rotating blade used, a percentage of chickens are not cut properly and the required vessels of the throat are not severed. The chickens sometimes move at the point of slaughter and can be missed completely by the rotating blade. Therefore, most plants appoint a back-up slaughterer to stand beyond the mechanical knife in order to examine the throats of the birds and ensure that the required vessels are cut. This back-up slaughterer will sometimes sever the remaining vessels of the throat in the event of a missed cut. The question is whether such a secondary slaughterer is a Muslim or believing Jew or Christian. As mentioned above, most ‘halal’ poultry slaughterhouses have no Muslims employees for the sake of convenience. This matter also casts doubt on the mechanical slaughter method.
There are strong viewpoints and detailed arguments presented on both sides of the machine slaughter debate. Some Islamic scholars argue that mechanical slaughter is completely lawful, whereas other argue that the process is completely unacceptable and the animal slaughtered in this process is unlawful. The legal rulings of many senior scholars against the permissibility of mechanical slaughter clearly cast doubt on the legality of this slaughter method. Along with this, the three legitimate concerns discussed above regarding the contemporary application of this slaughter process further push mechanical slaughter into the gray area in halal and haram. There are numerous texts from the Quran and Hadith which emphasize leaving all doubtful matters. “He who leaves doubtful matters has indeed preserved his religion, [whereas] he who falls into doubtful matters will [eventually] fall into haram.
No clear consensus exists with regards to the permissibility of this slaughter method, whereas all scholars accept the fact that the Sunnah method of hand slaughter does meet the halal requirements. Hand slaughter is truly the universal slaughter method which leaves no doubt in the halal status of the slaughtered chickens. Caution dictates that hand slaughter should be given preference over mechanical slaughter for Muslims to avoid consuming products slaughtered through a doubtful method.
In order to ensure that the slaughter method is closer to the Sunnah method and is acceptable by all Muslims, the Halal Advocates of America require in their HFSAA halal standards that the animal must be slaughtered by a Muslim. In this way, all the doubtful elements associated with mechanical slaughter discussed above are avoided completely. A few Muslim slaughterers can do the same job as the mechanical blade without any major difficulty and there are many poultry plants in America which currently employ hand slaughter. Muslims in America should also demand the ‘gold standard’ of hand slaughter when purchasing halal meat products. The HFSAA halal seal on a halal product is your assurance that the meat was slaughtered according the universal and Sunnah method of hand slaughter.
Lack of Verification in the Industry
There are currently thousands of halal meat stores and restaurants in America. The vast majority of these establishments are not verified or are just endorsed by a third party halal website. Likewise, there is currently no regulation or oversight from the government through the USDA to ensure that halal integrity is maintained and to eliminate ‘halal fraud’ and misuse of the term ‘halal.’ This means that the Muslim consumer is left to his own to determine the halal status of a establishment, and it can become a daunting task.
By conducting research at the ground level of halal meat stores and restaurants in America, one does come to the conclusion that there are many deceptive practices taking place in the halal industry in America. There are halal meat stores and restaurants that purchase meat from conventional supermarkets and sell it as ‘halal’ under the interpretation of the food of the people of the book. Many restaurants sell both ‘halal’ and ‘non-halal’ and have so-called partial halal menus. Most of these restaurants do not clearly label which menu items are in fact halal and which are ‘non-halal.’ There are many restaurants which claim that they are using hand slaughtered chicken and are even charging customers for the price of hand slaughtered chicken, whereas in reality it is machine slaughtered. The vast majority of restaurants in America use machine slaughtered chicken. Restaurants regularly switch their suppliers and buy their meat from questionable sources when they run out on the weekends. Restaurant owners and meat store owners regularly lie and deceive their customers. These are just some of the issues at the store level and many more items can be added to this list. This does not even include the questionable practices of the halal meat suppliers and the distributors.
These incidents and reports definitely establish that there are major issues regarding the reliability of the halal meat stores and restaurants in America. One prominent Muslim scholar was even quoted to have said that the problem has reached such epidemic proportions that it reached the level of absolute truth and cannot be denied. Muslims in America need to acknowledge this situation and take steps to remedy this situation.
Many Muslims hold the view that one should just take the word of the Muslim brother selling the ‘halal’ meat and if the meat turns out to be unlawful, the sin will be on the seller and not on the buyer. Furthermore, they say that the Muslim should not ask about the authenticity of the halal meat and it is wrong to do so. This view does not have a strong basis in Islamic law and is not corroborated by the texts. On the contrary, there is a authentic narration about the esteemed companion, Abu Bakr. His slave would bring him food every day from his earnings and Abu Bakr would regularly enquire as to the source of the income. One day, he forgot to ask and started eating the food. The slave asked Abu Bakr if he knew about the source of this food. Abu Bakr replied in the negative. The slave explained that in the days of ignorance, he would pretend to be a fortune teller and charge people. This food which Abu Bakr was eating was in fact from the income earned through fortune telling after a past customer came and made a delayed payment for the fortune telling services. Abu Bakr immediately put his finger in his mouth and threw up all the food in his stomach.
The principles derived from this incident is that there is nothing wrong in enquiring about the source of halal food or income using wisdom and tact. This does not mean one is doubting the word of his Muslim brother or purposely offending him. Secondly, Abu Bakr understood that the entire blame and sin is not on the person who feeds or sells unlawful food. Otherwise, Abu Bakr could have simply shrugged it off and said that the sin is on the slave.
Now that we have established the deceptive practices within the halal industry, the next question is how a Muslim can ensure that ‘halal’ products he purchases at a establishment truly meet all the halal requirements. There is a need for a comprehensive halal verification and auditing system to ensure that stores and restaurants behave honestly and sell only 100% halal verified food products. There must be legal commitments as well as full disclosure from the establishment. The Halal Advocates traveled to numerous countries including South Africa, England, Canada, and others who already have a advanced halal certification system in place tracking the halal integrity of a product from ‘farm to fork.’ They have spent time learning this system and done extensive research with lawyers and other professionals to develop a customized national verification system for America.
America is a huge country which spans over thousands of miles. This greatly complicates any efforts to oversee halal establishments spread out throughout the country. The Halal Advocates have been working to set up local chapters consisting of Islamic scholars, concerned individuals, and volunteers who will implement the verification system locally and coordinate with the national program. This comprehensive halal verification system aims to bring integrity, transparency, and accountability to the halal industry as a whole and to halal meat stores and restaurants in particular. When one sees the HFSAA certificate at a store, one can be assured that that establishment sells only authentic halal hand slaughtered products and has made a legal commitment to bind itself to approved suppliers. This establishment will provide full access to the Halal Advocates for inspections and invoices.