Londonistan, Eurabia

[Jokodo]

The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God") and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest). Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck (while the animal is concious), causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained.

Muslims must also ensure that all foods (particularly processed foods), as well as non-food items like cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, are halal. Frequently, these products contain animal by-products or other ingredients that are not permissible for Muslims to eat or use on their bodies.

This is a direct copy-paste without citing your source. In academia, we call that plagiarism and it consider it a cardinal sin.

Also, since you have already been informed that different schools differ about how serious they are about the "while the animal is conscious" part, and article in the OP clearly states that the animals from which the Subway outlets acquire their meat are stunned, you are not contributing to the discussion, nor making an argument at this point of the discussion.

If you had been reading this thread you would have seen that I posted this a few pages back with the Wikipedia source on it.
This was to reply to the post of supposedly two types of halal slaughtering, concious and stunned. If the animal is stunned it is no longer halal, get that through your head. There is only one method of halal slaughtering and that is that the animal must be concious. Sure some imans knowing westerners are uncomfortable with that fact try to cover it up.

Yes, i was asking for the inhuman specifics.

the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim,

That's not what you consider inhumane, is it?

who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God")

THAT isn't inhumane, is it?

and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest).

Okay....

Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife

Which would be better than a dull one.

by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck (while the animal is concious),

Um...no, i was asking what's inhumane about the slaughter for Subway's meat.
Not what some people who are Muslim do. I thought it was clear.

Muslims must also ensure that all foods (particularly processed foods), as well as non-food items like cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, are halal.

Um... Do UK Subways sell cosmetics?
I mean, i've heard of bacon-flavored lotion, so that might make sense. But it's not inhumane?

Frequently, these products contain animal by-products or other ingredients that are not permissible for Muslims to eat or use on their bodies.

Which does go towards why it would be expensive to maintain a dual-menu store. But not inhumane.

You have completely ignored the While the animal is concious. Therefore I'll completely ignore your response.

Bullshit.

Many halal advocates advise against the meat of animals that have been stunned - though not because the stunning itself would render the animal haram, but only because they argue that many stunning methods have a relatively high chance of accidently killing the animal immediately, and if that happens, i.e. if the animal is already dead when the ritual is performed, the meat would have to be considered carrion.

So the opposition to stunning is not universal, and purely pragmatic where it is upheld: to the extent that it can be ascertained that the animal was still alive at the time of the ritual slaughter despite its unconsciousness, the meat from a stunned animal is as good as that from an unstunned one, according to probably all Islamic scholars.

A quick google search for "halal stunning" will show that.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't mind halal or kosher alternatives, as long as one can still get cheaper regular meat. Let the religionists pay premium for their superstition if they want to.

That's impossible at a halal establishment. Halal meat is economically less efficient to produce (it's exactly the same as regular meat, except at the slaughtering stage you have to pay for the additional cost of a religious maniac to shout things to an invisible tyrant and cut throats). So either that particular Subway will be more expensive to cover the cost (if it's an individually owned store), or, if it's a franchise store and Subway tries to harmonise costs between nearby sites, all Subway customers will pay the price (including those eating at non-halal Subways).

Whilst I don't agree with Derec that this is a 'caving' to threats from a vocal minority rather than a mere byproduct of market forces, I also find arguments that the effect has been benign for all actors to be disingenuous. Of course choice and convenience is reduced if the place I used to go to now no longer sells what I previously used to and want to buy from there.

Yes, sure. But you can't blame other people for not sharing your preferences.

I don't blame anyone, but I do blame religion.

 

[angelo]

This from the RSPCA website.
The RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal.
Exemptions to pre-slaughter stunning for sheep and cattle

For cattle and sheep, the requirements for religious slaughter without prior stunning are set out in a nationally adopted guideline Ritual Slaughter for Ovine (Sheep) and Bovine (Cattle):

For cattle, this means the animal must remain in an upright position with the head and body restrained. The animal must be stunned with a captive-bolt pistol immediately after the throat is cut (known as ‘sticking’). Two separate people must perform the sticking and stunning. If there are any problems restraining the animal while attempting to stick it, then it must be stunned immediately.

For religious slaughter of sheep, the guideline requires cutting both the carotid arteries and the jugular veins. This must be confirmed — if they are not completely severed, then the animal must be immediately stunned.

Cattle and sheep requirements are different because cattle have an extra blood supply to the brain through the back of the neck. Therefore, cutting cattle’s throats results in less rapid loss of consciousness.

The RSPCA is concerned there are greater risks of animal suffering during religious slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. The number of animals involved is a tiny percentage of all animals killed but, regardless, the method is distressing to the animal due to:

increased restraint
injury caused by the slaughter methods
subsequent bleeding out.

The use of stunning during the slaughter process can remove some, but not all, of these concerns.

The RSPCA definition of humane killing is: ‘an animal must be either killed instantly or rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes’. When killing animals for food, this means they must be stunned before slaughter so they immediately become unconscious. The RSPCA policy on ritual slaughter is clear: slaughter without prior stunning is inhumane and completely unnecessary. The RSPCA is opposed to inhumane methods of killing and continues to promote this view to governments and the public.

 

[Jokodo]

<snipped irrelevant - and poorly sourced: are we talking about the British or the Australian RSPCA? - third party text>

So you didn't do a google search? Is it that hard?

Here's a quote from a site that actually argues to avoid stunning altogether - and even they say it's for pragmatic reasons only, i.e. difficulty in ascertaining that an unconscious animal is still alive:

The legal status of a 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. (source: http://halaladvocates.net/site/our-issues/stunning-animals/)

Here's a vendor of "organic halal" meat describing its approach to stunning:

If any animal is stunned and as a consequence dies, it would be haram to eat. However the chances of this happening are extremely slim if not impossible. As we personally slaughter we are also able to see if signs of life still exist in the animal and that it has been bled properly.

Before starting this company we researched the area of stunning and were confused by mixed messages. The popular belief that stunning rendered meat as haram did not actually correspond to what scholars have said. We therefore sought guidance from trusted scholars. They, in agreement with many others, concluded that the act of stunning does not make meat haram as long as the animal is alive and the rules of slaughter are adhered to.

The Halal Meat Authorities

Many people in the UK are now obsessed with the issue of stunning having been given the impression that it is haram. What has in truth happened is that some within a certain UK halal meat authority have taken a disliking to stunning and as a consequence people have been (mis)informed that it is totally haram. In fact, the meat is still halal - all it means is that businesses can not get that authority's logo on their produce.

If one reads their literature or website carefully one will note that they do not term stunned meat as haram anywhere. What one finds is that they have implemented a "blanket policy" against stunning on the basis that there may be some doubt over whether or not an animal is alive at the time of slaughter. This shows that they agree that if a stunned animal is alive at the time of slaughter it is halal.

<snip>

Conclusion

As mentioned above, in an ideal world stunning would not be used. However the act of stunning according to the principles of fiqh (jurisprudence) are not seen as rendering any meat haram as long as the animal is treated well, alive at the time of slaughter and all other necessary actions and conditions are carried out properly. (source: http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/stunning.php)

Here's a Fatwa by what appears to be a pretty far-out fundamentalist nut-job from googling his name, and even he doesn't, and even he doesn't say that stunning is bad as such:

From an Islamic perspective, two main questions arise here:

1) Is using the method of stunning permissible?

2) Will the animal be considered lawful (halal) if it was slaughtered according to the rulings of Shariah after being stunned?

As far as the answer to the first question is concerned, this depends on whether stunning the animal reduces the pain or causes more unnecessary pain.

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:

“Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus, if you kill (an animal), kill well; and if you slaughter, slaughter well. Let each one of you sharpen his blade and let him spare suffering to the animal he slaughters.” (Sahih Muslim)

Some of the methods used to stun animals are indeed very painful and as a result have been banned in many countries, like the method of pitching, for example. Therefore, such methods will indeed be impermissible according to Shariah.

As far as the other methods of stunning are concerned, although experts claim that they minimize the suffering of the animal, but this can not be said for certain. An electric current or a bolt pistol does cause pain to the animal, whereas gas stunning may cause severe breathing difficulties.

However, if it is ascertained that the claim of the experts is correct, in that stunning does minimize the suffering of the animal, and also the animal does not die prior to the actual slaughtering, then it would be permissible to use the method of stunning, otherwise impermissible, but the chances for this are very slim.

The second question is: what is the ruling regarding an animal that was stunned prior to being slaughtered?

The answer to this depends on whether stunning causes the animal to die. Animal experts claim that it does not cause the animal to die; rather it only causes it to lose its consciousness, thus not feel the pain of the slaughter. (quoted in this forum: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?3281-Stunned-Meat-Halal)

From a British Muslim certifying agency:

Q 3. Does Halal Food Authority allow stunning of birds and animals?
A. Yes, however, one has to be reminded that HFA has always maintained "no stunning to kill".
1. Captive Bolt Stunning – proscribed – prohibited
2. Percussion Stunning – proscribed – prohibited
(although above procedures for cattle are allowed by some Ulema's in Africa & Germany)
3. Gas Stunning – proscribed – prohibited
(although Turkish Ulema's have approved this method for pre-slaughtering of chicken)
4. Halal Food Authority allows controlled electric stun-with-minuscule amperage, where the Official Veterinary
Surgeon validates that animals or birds do not die prior to slaughtering.
5. There are two types of electric stunning
a. Stun to Kill
b. Stun to Immobilize only (and not to kill)
Halal Food Authority only allows and approves of “Stun to Immobilize” method. It is used in the following two forms:
i. Water-bath Stun – for Poultry
ii. Electric Tong Stun – for Ovine meat (source: http://www.halalrc.org/images/Research Material/Report/Pressrelaese_faqs.pdf)

All of these are from the first page of results if you do a google search of halal + stunning, and 3 of them are from British Muslim organisations (the first is North American).

 

[Sabine Grant]

The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God") and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest). Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck (while the animal is concious), causing the animal’s death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained.

Muslims must also ensure that all foods (particularly processed foods), as well as non-food items like cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, are halal. Frequently, these products contain animal by-products or other ingredients that are not permissible for Muslims to eat or use on their bodies.

This is a direct copy-paste without citing your source. In academia, we call that plagiarism and it consider it a cardinal sin.

Also, since you have already been informed that different schools differ about how serious they are about the "while the animal is conscious" part, and article in the OP clearly states that the animals from which the Subway outlets acquire their meat are stunned, you are not contributing to the discussion, nor making an argument at this point of the discussion.

If you had been reading this thread you would have seen that I posted this a few pages back with the Wikipedia source on it.
This was to reply to the post of supposedly two types of halal slaughtering, concious and stunned. If the animal is stunned it is no longer halal, get that through your head. There is only one method of halal slaughtering and that is that the animal must be concious. Sure some imans knowing westerners are uncomfortable with that fact try to cover it up.

Yes, i was asking for the inhuman specifics.

the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim,

That's not what you consider inhumane, is it?

who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God")

THAT isn't inhumane, is it?

and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest).

Okay....

Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife

Which would be better than a dull one.

by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck (while the animal is concious),

Um...no, i was asking what's inhumane about the slaughter for Subway's meat.
Not what some people who are Muslim do. I thought it was clear.

Muslims must also ensure that all foods (particularly processed foods), as well as non-food items like cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, are halal.

Um... Do UK Subways sell cosmetics?
I mean, i've heard of bacon-flavored lotion, so that might make sense. But it's not inhumane?

Frequently, these products contain animal by-products or other ingredients that are not permissible for Muslims to eat or use on their bodies.

Which does go towards why it would be expensive to maintain a dual-menu store. But not inhumane.

You have completely ignored the While the animal is concious. Therefore I'll completely ignore your response.

Bullshit.

Many halal advocates advise against the meat of animals that have been stunned - though not because the stunning itself would render the animal haram, but only because they argue that many stunning methods have a relatively high chance of accidently killing the animal immediately, and if that happens, i.e. if the animal is already dead when the ritual is performed, the meat would have to be considered carrion.

So the opposition to stunning is not universal, and purely pragmatic where it is upheld: to the extent that it can be ascertained that the animal was still alive at the time of the ritual slaughter despite its unconsciousness, the meat from a stunned animal is as good as that from an unstunned one, according to probably all Islamic scholars.

A quick google search for "halal stunning" will show that.

Unfortunately for me, ignoring this "parallel universe belonging thread" is impossible due to my Staff duties. So, there again, I find myself exposed to Angelo's misinformed claim that "the animal must be conscious" or "it is not halal". To add water to your well, the verses which discuss Haram versus Halaal and that without any mention of "must be conscious" or anything semantically compatible with "must be conscious" regarding the dhabiha from a translation of Arabic into English :

http://www.parsquran.com/eng/subject/halal.htm

You are absolutely correct Jokodo that meat consumed from an animal "which has died of itself" is what is haram. The prohibition encompassing carrion meat.

To add that some scholars reject the stunning method to render the animal unconscious as they believe (based on scientific research they frequently quote) that stunning induces more pain than a precise and swift incision which (according to the same studies) causes unconsciousness within seconds.

But to directly address Angelo's claim that the animal must be conscious and thus stunning makes the animal haram, it is a "cover up" by Imans etc...

http://halaladvocates.net/site/hfsaa/our-standards/

The ruling regarding an animal which has been stunned is that the animal is lawful to consume provided that the animal was alive at the time of slaughter.

The following requirements must also be fulfilled for HFSAA to permit the use of stunning:

1. The operation and control of the stunning apparatus shall be performed by a trained individual

2. Only reversible methods of stunning and non-lethal methods are accepted such as the electrical stunning, percussive stunning (mushroom stunning), and the water bath with a electric current

3. The stunning apparatus must not penetrate the skull of the animal

4. The animal should be alive at the time of slaughter and must be able to regain consciousness

5. The Halal inspector should (and HFSAA may) regularly conduct recovery tests to ensure that the animals are alive after the stunning procedure

6. The Halal inspector and slaughterers must monitor the animals after stunning to verify that the animals are alive before the point of slaughter. They should look for the following signs to determine if an animal is dead before slaughter:

a. fully dilated pupils

b. absence of papillary and corneal reflexes

c. flaccid tongue, and

d. absence of blood flowing freely from the animal

To note the key introductory phrase :

The ruling regarding an animal which has been stunned is that the animal is lawful to consume provided that the animal was alive at the time of slaughter.

"is lawful" is based on the condition of the animal was alive at the time of the slaughter which is not to be confused with "fully conscious". Of course, we can certainly expand in the Science Discussion Forum on the difference between alive and "fully conscious" in case Angelo is still confused.

 

[Keith&Co.]

by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck (while the animal is concious),

Um...no, i was asking what's inhumane about the slaughter for Subway's meat.

You have completely ignored the While the animal is concious. Therefore I'll completely ignore your response.

Bullshit. I responded directly to that. That claim doesn't apply for Subway's meat.

The whole point several of us have been trying to make is that the animal is not conscious during the slaughter for meat that is being sold in these Subway outlets. Several people have pointed it out, including the article linked in the OP. Your continued insistence that it is is getting bizarre. Or phobic.

If you have some evidence that the halal-approved meat is not from stunned animals, please provide it, rather than just insisting on an argument-by-wiki.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, sure. But you can't blame other people for not sharing your preferences.

I don't blame anyone, but I do blame religion.

It doesn't make any difference to you whether the reason other costumers' demands are different from yours are religious, purely cultural, or whatever else: If people want to make sure that their food hasn't touched any pork, they'll create a demand for eateries that don't sell pork whether their reason is that they consider it a sin, or that the idea of the knife that cuts their turkey stake having previously cut ham is as appalling to them as the idea of a cockroach having crawled across the ham is to you for purely cultural reasons, or a biological difference in their taste-buds/scent receptors makes them actually faint from the mere smell of ham.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This from the RSPCA website.
The RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal. ....blah, blah, blah.

How does this have any impact on the animals slaughtered for Subway's meat?
Does the RSPCA have a statement on Subway's change?

 

[angelo]

Concern for animal welfare who some disregard in case it offends some minority. That is my gripe!

 

[Jokodo]

Concern for animal welfare who some disregard in case it offends some minority. That is my gripe!

So your argument boils down to "can't be bothered to read"?

 

[angelo]

Oh no. I've read all I care to read on the subject and am not convinced in the least. Minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

 

[Jokodo]

Oh no. I've read all I care to read on the subject and am not convinced in the least. Minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

I agree, and let's make that a stronger claim even: Nobody has the right to dictate to anybody what to eat.

As far as I can tell, though, the only ones trying are you and Derec.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Concern for animal welfare who some disregard in case it offends some minority. That is my gripe!

Then you're offended by all Subway restaurants that offer meat products?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

Everyone who's not muslim eats pork?
The 85% doesn't include any vegetarians (for religious or moral reasons)?
No Jews in the 85%?
No one under a doctor's care and told to knock off the bacon for any of a number of health concerns?

How many of the 85% actually do eat pork?
How many of the 85% actually would demand pork each and every time they enter a Subway? Any numbers? Any research? I'm guessing Subway HQ at least asked that question before they made the switch.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, sure. But you can't blame other people for not sharing your preferences.

I don't blame anyone, but I do blame religion.

It doesn't make any difference to you whether the reason other costumers' demands are different from yours are religious, purely cultural, or whatever else: If people want to make sure that their food hasn't touched any pork, they'll create a demand for eateries that don't sell pork whether their reason is that they consider it a sin, or that the idea of the knife that cuts their turkey stake having previously cut ham is as appalling to them as the idea of a cockroach having crawled across the ham is to you for purely cultural reasons, or a biological difference in their taste-buds/scent receptors makes them actually faint from the mere smell of ham.

I don't know what you mean: the reason something is no longer available on the market matters, if only in a moral sense.

I can envision a world far in the future where cage eggs might be considered so morally repulsive that there is simply no market for them. But the people avoiding cage eggs now are (generally) doing it for a good reason: cage eggs cause unnecessary suffering compared to eggs produced without birds locked in tiny cages. The consciences of the egg eaters are assuaged, but the suffering of millions of birds is actually reduced.

Eating halal meat over haram meat might assuage the conscience of Muslims, but their beliefs are delusional. They'd be better off, and the world would be better off, if they did not have such deluded beliefs.

But I'll bring it a bit closer to home. My mother is a devout Catholic and when we were growing up, there was no meat on Fridays. We had fucking fish or something even grosser. It certainly made sense to me in a religious sense that if Friday was a day we were supposed to suffer, banning meat and eating fish instead was the best way to do it.

But of course, no-one benefits from eating something they would not have eaten had it not been for their deluded beliefs.

How I hated Friday dinners growing up.

 

[angelo]

How many of that 15% actually walk into a Subway to buy a sandwich? It means that minority is even lower than the original 15%

 

[Jokodo]

How many of that 15% actually walk into a Subway to buy a sandwich? It means that minority is even lower than the original 15%

Enough for Subway to decide that it might be a good idea to offer something to them.

And that's all that counts.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How many of that 15% actually walk into a Subway to buy a sandwich? It means that minority is even lower than the original 15%

So, No numbers to support your 85/15 split.
Just attack the 15% some more.
Yeah, you're not upset about the halal. Or the slaughter methods. You're upset about the 15%.

 

[angelo]

Perhaps that particular Subway may thrive or sink, I hope it sinks!

 

[Keith&Co.]

How many of that 15% actually walk into a Subway to buy a sandwich? It means that minority is even lower than the original 15%

Enough for Subway to decide that it might be a good idea to offer something to them.

And that's all that counts.

This.
It's a business. It's not the 15% that's the issue. It's the customers.
Whatever their dietary bandwith. While Subway&Co. may want to manufacture a menu that will appeal to 100% of the market, and draw in 110% of their fair market share, all they really need to know is if there will be enough % of the market to make a profit.

These stores will draw in:
* any Muslims who want to eat Western-Style Food without pissing off their imams or their parents.
* any non-muslims that flat out don't give a shit about dietary restrictions
* any progressives who want to show that they're so liberal that they support the Muslim World Domination Agenda by being seen buying food from a halal-only Subway (and taking selfies outside the store, next to the sign, holding their certified pork free sandwich in the distinctive bag)

If that turns out not to be a sufficient % of the market to be profitable, the stores will close.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps that particular Subway may thrive or sink, I hope it sinks!

THAT Subway? I thought you said you were reading the posts here...?