Connaitre ses droits

The underside of the halal

Last Updated on Sunday, 22 May 2011 08:47 Written by Administrator Sunday, 10 August 2008 23:15

The halal, what does it end? Even associations that certify halal meat does not agree to a unanimous definition. Between pro-and stunning against the consumer "muslim" does not know where to turn. The association AVS (In Your Service), halal certification label, a member of Dialrel (Group Dialogue on religious slaughter), we clarify its positions. Interview with Fethallah Otmani, its executive director.

what is the Dialrel, the organization which you belong.

Fethallah Otmani: Dialrel The work platform is a development about four years ago, composed of scientists, veterinarians, researchers and field workers, associations and persons who are for some community members Muslim and Jewish religious and others not. The aim is to try to propose conclusions to be presented to the European Commission on the debate between animal welfare and religious freedoms. The task force began work in 2006. We built in 2008 and things have advanced quite calm and quite slow. We thought the project be finally died last year, but it was revived in late 2009, we have unfortunately learned that last March. A next meeting is scheduled in June.

Why have refused to participate in the sale closing in Istanbul in March 2010?

F. O: Not only have we been warned late but it is mainly because, in the reports that have been passed, we realized that the considerations of scientists and researchers did not take enough - if not more - opinions that challenged the validity of stunning. We therefore decided not to participate because we did not play the Stooges, and it was impossible in three days to make a real difference. Taking into account our findings and those of other organizations involved, the coordinators have decided to Dialrel a next meeting in June, which I hope will bear fruit.

By the way, how does electronarcosis on AVS?

F. O: It is quite complex. First, the electrical stunning is a method of stunning, among others, such as gas or gun perforating the skull. The latter process, for example, kills the animal and the debate does not arise. However, regardless of religious considerations, stunning in itself poses many problems. Many dispute that this process destroys the pains of animals and is found in practice, ie on the ground that these are processes that are very difficult to implement and cause considerable pain. From there, we do not see the benefit of adding additional suffering.
Moreover, assuming that there are scientists who made the stunning show that animals suffer less, we are confronted with a principle in Islam, which advocates that the animal must be alive at the time of sacrifice. Yet many studies show the non-reversibility of the process. The electrical stunning does not always work, and we still do not know what may be the consequences. Our position is clear: we will not use any method of stunning before bleeding, as there is doubt about the fact that it is better for the animal.

But it's still a common practice ...

F. O: If we talk only of ritual slaughter, it depends: yes for poultry and not the rest! Casually, many slaughterhouses today do not practice electronarcosis. So we did it again on the back of ritual slaughter, but that is wrong, it's just for economic reasons we avoid its use because it causes, for example, in the case of sheep, speeds at idle, especially because of the poor equipment of slaughterhouses in France, and this obviously not interested slaughterhouses!

And it is halal?

F. O: A study we conducted in 2008, it is estimated that in France 70% of ritually slaughtered animals are poultry, and of these 70%, 90% are electrocuted before bleeding. It is then faced with a problem of religious freedoms are not respected as much as regards the sheep - which are also for the vast majority of imported - electronarcosis known some successes, as in the case of poultry we are sure now that this does not work. Either because the animal dies as a result of electric shock, or, if you follow some settings, the beast, a priori, does not die but is not unconscious long enough. The process thus serves to do nothing, because it causes unnecessary pain double. But what is important to note is that, unlike what happens for sheep abattoirs French are very well equipped for poultry and electronarcosis allows increased speeds by three in average.

Fatwas are saying?

F. O: Either they prohibit the stunning - and that in particular the position of the European Council for Fatwa, which was banned on poultry - are they permitted provided that the beast is alive before bleeding. Which is, again, impossible to ensure the poultry and bovine animals. Now the question is whether it can stun the animal after bleeding, which could help shorten the duration of suffering, and reduce the financial impact caused by the refusal of the stunning first. This is a topic recently and we had to do our research on our own, since the literature is very poor on the subject. We begin to have more evidence that we must submit to scholars, it is expected to meet in the coming weeks. We have the view of many imams in France recognized that allow the practice, but to be sure, we preferred to study the matter thoroughly and submit it to the scientists recognized internationally.

Is there an "ethics" of halal?

F. O: Very often, the consumer looks at the technical side for reassurance, which is natural, but it is clear that the question arises. We talk about halal cosmetics, Halal Quick, etc.. But the dimension of the ethical consumer is absent. I was in a halal fair in the Middle East, where the presenter spoke of halal as if he were promoting a brand like Coca-Cola. It's embarrassing because the ethical dimension has disappeared in favor of the economic dimension. We are in a consumer society in which Muslims face should remain vigilant. We recognize that the financial aspect can be important, even if we are certifying that we are doing everything we can to make the meat halal accessible. The message of Islam is meant to be as a model of consumption.

Establish a halal standard in France as was done recently in Belgium, would you say?

F. O: There's something wrong: we are constantly rehashing the principle of neutrality of the state deal with religious issues, or the act of legislating on the halal completely contrary to this rule! This is unacceptable, even if we are aware that Belgium and Austria have laws and a different history of France. The real problem is that we do not agree today on a clear definition of halal. According to our definition, for example, 90% of poultry slaughtered by electrical stunning are not halal, but other instances - which is useless to name - believe that they are halal ...

You think of the Great Mosque of Paris, the Great Mosque of Evry ...?

F. O: Yes ... For example ... but it's an open secret, because anyone who wants to know is to ask them, they claim their position clear ... We are at an impasse and it is difficult to get out, because now anyone can sell whatever he wants, except pork, and put the halal label. The fact that even to agree on a definition at the very least could solve some problems. Nevertheless, our priority is to get records that properly inform our scientists so that they take as soon as possible a clear position. Indeed, the biggest concern today is certainly the lack of information scientists on the issue, since it is a sensitive and highly technical. Then everyone will assume his position based on what scientists have found useful.