Halal Animal Slaughter - Contemporary Issues

Halal Animal Slaughter

Contemporary Issues - Dr. Bilal Philips

Opening

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Most Merciful. I'd like to welcome you, dear viewers, to another in our series, Contemporary Issues. May Allah's peace and blessings be on each and every one of you.

In this segment of our program, we'll be looking at the issue of animal slaughter. And we're looking at it particularly because of the fact that there has been an accusation pointed at Muslims as being somewhat bloodthirsty.

The Accusation Against Muslims

You know, among those who led this accusation was Brigitte Bardot, the famous French actress, who observed in France that, you know, every time Eid al-Adha would come around, that the Muslims would be buying sheep and cutting their necks, you know, and she's very much into this protection of animals from human cruelty, etc., etc. So she had made some very disparaging remarks about Muslims there in France. She was taken to court and, in fact, required to apologize to Muslims.

But the idea still is out there, you know, of Muslims really very bloodthirsty. We are known as wanting to fight everybody and we like to cut the necks of these animals. This is how we are presented.

Now, I remember there was actually a case a couple of years back also. It was in the newspaper in New York City, you know, where a Muslim, he had bought a rooster or whatever, a chicken, and he'd fatten it up in his home and he was going to, you know, kill the animal and cook it up and eat it. And, you know, the SPCA, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, got wind of it.

I guess one of his neighbors informed on him that he was going to kill this animal in his home. And they, you know, they burst in his front door. You know, they had pictures of them bursting in the front door and catching this man, saving the life of this chicken, taking the chicken away from him.

I mean, very, quite hilarious really.

Irrational Sentimentality

But anyway, let's look at the issues involved here. The basic issue, you know, is one of what we could call irrational sentimentality.

Because here we have people very much concerned about the killing of animals. And there are millions, literally millions of human fetuses which are aborted every year in America, millions in England, millions in France, millions and millions of children are killed. They are aborted every year.

But at the same time, for us to kill an animal and eat it, this becomes a major case that people are going to be up in arms about. So really, I think this is very distorted, the whole image that they have of saving lives, animal lives. What about those fetuses? They may not be human beings in your perception, but surely that's animal life that is being destroyed.

Comparing Slaughter Methods

Anyway, if we leave that, and we actually tackle the claim that Muslims are cruel to animals in their slaughter. And we say, well okay, let's look at the methods that you have as an alternative. What are the western methods?

Western Methods for Small Animals

Okay, western methods for small animals like chickens, what they will do, number of slaughterhouses. They put the chickens, they put them on these racks, and their legs are hanging down. And then they put them and dip their feet in water, and then they electrify this water, so they're zapped. And they say, okay, this zaps them into unconsciousness or kills them, whatever, and then they cut their heads off.

This is supposed to be more humane, because they're cutting the head after they're dead. But hey, has any of you stuck your finger in a socket or got a shock? It's not a very pleasant experience. And enough electricity to kill you is definitely not going to be a pleasant experience at all.

So to claim that this is a more humane way, this is very painful. This method of electrifying these animals is a very painful method. It is not in any way, you know, more humane.

Western Methods for Larger Animals

The other method for the bigger animals is what they call like a stun gun, right? They have a gun with a piston at the end. When they put bullets in, it's not the bullet with the lead which flies out and shoots like regular guns do. Instead, the bullet explodes inside and drives a piston out, which hits the animal in the head.

And then the piston goes back in the gun. You can use it again. They put it near the head of the animal. They pull the trigger. The piston bangs the animal in the head, knocks it unconscious. And then they will string him up and cut his neck, whatever.

This is more humane. But again, if somebody were to take a crowbar or a baseball bat and whack you at the side of your head until you fell into unconsciousness, is this a humane method? Is this without pain? Or is this a very painful experience? I mean, anybody who has been involved in boxing, et cetera, knows even with all those padded gloves on, blows to the head that are going to knock you out are very painful. It's not a painless experience at all.

So this claims that this in fact is more humane are false claims.

The Islamic Method of Slaughter

And when we look at the method that Islam prescribes where the animal's neck is cut, I mean, the reality is that the whole of the neck isn't cut. Only the veins, the jugular veins of the neck and the esophagus, this is what is cut.

So the spinal cord is intact. Signals from the brain is still going to the heart of the animal, that's the animal. And the animal will eventually die slowly. It's not a quick death. It's a slow death where the blood comes out. And as blood decreases in the body, blood not getting to the brain, the animal goes unconscious and it dies.

Why This Method is Painless

Now this is more in keeping, for example, with the popular method of suicide in Western society where people will get a razor blade, you know, fill their tub with warm water and then cut their wrists and lie there as the blood seeps into the water or whatever. Eventually they go into unconsciousness and die gradually. This is a popular method of suicide, and I'm not suggesting it for anybody, but just it is chosen because it's painless.

Why? Because when you cut yourself with a razor blade, you don't feel it. I mean, we know it. People handling sharp instruments, you may cut yourself very easily and not even realize it. A shave or whatever, you don't realize until you see the blood, you know.

So similarly, when Muslims are prescribed, you know, to kill the animals by cutting the jugular vein and the esophagus, this knife is supposed to be razor sharp. So when they cut it, the animal doesn't even feel the cut.

And, as I said, the animal loses consciousness gradually and it's a very painless death. It is not a harsh and inhumane way of taking the life of the animal. It is far superior to the electric shocks given or the stun gun used, by the way, in Western method. It is far superior.

The Vegetarian Argument

Now, that's one point. The other point, you know, which is the vegetarians' arguments, you know, that, well, humans are really not meant to eat meat. You really shouldn't be killing the animals anyway, you know. We

don't need to kill the animals. We can get all our needs from vegetable sources, etc., etc.

Humans Are Omnivores

The reality is that human beings are neither herbivores nor carnivores. We are omnivores. Our systems are made to eat both meat and vegetable matter.

So if, you know, if we say we are created, Mother Nature, as they would say, created us this way, I mean, there is a purpose here. We are created able to eat meat. Why? To eat meat.

So this is a very, you know, fallacious argument, you know.

Hindu Origins of Vegetarianism

And, in fact, when we go and look to see what is behind this argument, we find that the root of this argument comes out of India, out of those people who believe that you shouldn't eat meat, period. And, of course, it's good to point out that, really, this is something rather new in Hindu tradition because the early writings, you know, in the Bhagavad Gita and the other books, when they talk about the gods, etc., the gods are eating meat.

They are meat eaters. Actually, this not eating meat is something which developed later on in their history. It is not the early beliefs and the early practices of the original Hindus.

But, in any case, this is their standard belief now. And this really came along with the belief in reincarnation. So, for a Hindu, I mean, killing an animal, eating that animal, is a situation where, due to the reincarnation belief, that a person, when he dies or she dies, if they were not good, if they were good in this life, they move up the ladder, right? This is up the caste ladder, towards the top caste, which is the Brahmin caste.

And after that, they unite with God, with the universal soul, Brahman. But if they are not good, they go down the ladder. And they can be reborn as an animal, as a sheep or a goat, and if you are really unlucky, maybe as a cockroach.

So, the point is that, here, what is happening? People don't want to eat meat, don't want to eat a goat or a cow, because this may be your grandfather. This may be your great-grandfather that you're eating. So, this is where this dislike for the eating of meat came from.

I mean, of course, it's been cloaked in other language, you know. Oh, medically, arguments, you know, our bodies, and, you know, it's better. But really, that is the essence of it. It's based on that belief. And, of course, it's nonsense. It's nonsense.

Americans eat beef burgers, you know, how many cows are eaten every year, you know, at the Wimpy's and McDonald's, etc., etc., you know. So, this is really a pointless argument.

Islamic Perspective on Animals

From the Islamic perspective, animals were created for the benefit of human beings, just as the rest of the world is. We have an obligation to them, to look after them, to treat them well.

Stories of Kindness to Animals

In fact, so much so that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) described the circumstance in the time past, where he said that a woman who was, in fact, a prostitute from among the Israelites, she came to a well, she went and got herself some water, and then when she came out, she saw a dog, thirsty, dying from thirst, so much so that it was licking the earth, trying to get some moisture out of the earth. She climbed back down in the well, tied her shoe to a scarf and filled it with water, brought it up and fed the dog.

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3467)

And out of that act of mercy for that animal, God forgave her her sins and put her in paradise.

On the other hand, there was another woman who had a cat, which she tied up. And she didn't allow that cat, didn't feed it and didn't allow it to go and find its own food, and it stayed and starved to death.

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3482)

And due to the evil of that act that she did, God put her in hell. As the Prophet informed his followers, stressing here the importance of kindness to animals, opposed fundamentally to the cruelty to animals.

And his companions had even asked him, I mean, is there goodness in animals and feeding? He said, in every living being, there is a chance to earn good deeds, to gain goodness through helping them.

Prohibitions on Cruelty

So, Islam is very much in favor of protecting animals, looking after them. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had even said that we should never take animals as our targets, never make them a target that we fire our bows or arrows or guns, etc. Take them for target practice. This is forbidden in Islam.

So, the whole process, the Western safaris, where Western civilization sent certain elements, the upper crust of the society into Africa and Asia, hunting down elephants and rhinoceroses and killing them, to bring back trophies for their fireplaces, etc. This is something abhorrent in Islam, forbidden in Islam.

Legitimate Reasons for Taking Animal Life

In Islam, an animal's life may only be taken for the reason of protecting ourselves from its harm, because it's a dangerous animal, threatening our lives. We take its life for that reason, to protect human life.

Secondly, we may kill them for food, for our own benefit, to eat.

Thirdly, we may kill them because their skins will provide warmth for us, for example, in winter, provide shoes or provide belts or whatever, our needs. We may kill them for our needs.

I mean, of course, those people would argue, well, hey, we have artificial means of creating these other things, now we don't need it anymore. Well, of course, we don't have to. But if some people prefer leather, they want to have leather, the leather is there for us to use, we can still utilize it. But the method in which these animals are killed should be humane methods.

I mean, when you look at how they would take the furs of the animals to create these fur coats, you know, where they show pictures of these people with the small, these little animals, and then they have these people's clubs just bashing in their heads and things like this. Of course, this is inhumane, this is evil, and Islam would never support it. But the use of the animals for human benefit, from the Islamic perspective, is legitimate.

But we have bounds by which we are bound. We have to stay within them. We are humane to them when we take their lives, and we don't take their life for sport.

I mean, the hunt, you know, letting out the fox and letting the animals and going for the hunt, you know, which is a very popular game and sport from the Islamic perspective is evil. Islam would not support that. But hunting animals to eat, to go bird hunting or whatever, and when you kill the animal, you cook it and you eat it, so you're taking benefit from it. It is permissible.

The Issue of Dogs in Islam

The other topic which I would like to cover in this segment is concerning dogs. Now, a lot of people are familiar with the fact that Muslims tend to avoid dogs.

Generally speaking, people maybe think that Muslims fear and hate dogs. You know, usually Westerners, if they come in the presence or in areas where Muslims are, they're carrying a dog on a leash, you find Muslims running in all directions. They don't want to be near the dog.

So it gives the impression of this great fear.

Western Attitude Toward Dogs

In the West, of course, where the dog has become man's best friend, right, the dog is treated like a child. People who lose family members or they grow up and they're left alone, instead of adopting a child, you know, they will get a dog or get an animal, which they will look after, and then you find them, you know, petting the animal, giving it clothing, and, you know, really so much so that you find even people leaving all of their inheritance to their dogs.

I mean, this is the kind of love which is developed around dogs, replacing even love for children.

Common Misconceptions

Now, we have to look at the Muslim reaction to the dogs in general and to understand whether, in fact, this is according to Islamic teachings or not. Muslims tend to run from dogs whenever dogs come.

Why? Where did this come from? Well, they believe, commonly many people believe, that if a dog touches you, your state of ablution or your state of ritual purity is gone. You have to go and wash up again, wash your face, hands and feet, so on and so forth. It's their belief.

If the dog touches you or if it licks you, you know, you touch its hair, its body touches you anyway, you are defiled in that sense. Really, however, this is not true. Islamic law does not, in fact, really teach this.

The Authentic Islamic Teaching

The Prophet (peace be upon him) did say in an authentic hadith, that if a dog licks the food or drink from a vessel in which you are drinking, you should pour out its contents, let him finish eating it, and then wash that vessel seven times, one of which should be with clean earth. Clean it with earth.

(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 279)

And one might question, well, why earth? Well, the point is that the vast majority, 70% of antibiotics come from the earth. So the earth carries with it certain properties which can clean, due to its antibacterial action, et cetera, in a way most other products and things cannot. But, and of course there's a point to mention that, I mean, this was something identified over 1,400 years ago.

But, however, what it's pointing out here is that there's harm in the saliva of the dog. If a person is in that direct contact, there's some harm which is being passed on. Maybe modern science has not detected all of the harm, although, you know, there is some harm already identified. The dog tapeworm, known as dipylidium caninum, you know, and there are other diseases which are passed on by dogs, you know, whether it's rocky-mountain spotted fever and a variety of other diseases which dogs are known to pass on.

Statistical Evidence

The number of dogs that harm people, whether, you know, they're fighting dogs which chew up kids and people who are bitten by dogs every year, you know, the numbers are quite large. In fact, the JAMA, the Journal of American Medical Association, in an article entitled, "Dog Bites Recognized as a Public Health Problem," said that every year in the United States, almost 2% of the population is bitten by a dog. That is about 800,000 people are bitten seriously enough to require medical attention.

And 18 people die from dog bites every year. These are physical facts.

Legitimate Uses for Dogs

Now, from an Islamic perspective, dogs may be kept for hunting purposes, to guard a home, or to herd one's sheep or cattle or camels, et cetera. These are uses which are legitimate from the Islamic perspective.

But just keeping one in a home as a best friend, eating with you, sleeping with you, et cetera, this is what Islam does not permit.

Conclusion

With that, dear viewers, I'd like to thank you for being with us on this segment of our program, Contemporary Issues, bringing clarity to issues that may be somewhat confused in the minds of non-Muslims as well as Muslims today.

And we hope that you continue to follow our program over the coming episodes.