What's in a name?

Author’s note: sincere apologies for the long absence, at the moment I am undergoing a bit of hullabaloo in my personal life. Hopefully things will even out in a month or two, but until then please enjoy this belated update.
Within the mass media there exists a popular taxonomy within which to classify members of the Islamic religion. Basically, one is either

1. Liberal/Secular/Reformist
2. Moderate

Or

3. Conservative/fundamentalist

Although such a classification may be politically convenient and easy for the masses to digest, it reflects reality poorly and generates more questions than answers. For instance, if a Muslim man refuses to shake the hands of women but constantly misses his prayers, where does that leave him? Being people, Muslims possess the complexity which goes hand in hand with the possession of humanity. Such reductionism, consciously or not, thus also serves to lessen the humanity of the subject.

We should also keep in mind that these terms have developed in a Western social context. The word ‘fundamentalism’ only came into being in the early 20th century when certain American Protestants took issue with what they perceived to be the abandonment of tradition by their cooreligionists. They thus decribed themselves as ‘fundamentalists’, in order to imply that they alone had any real grasp of the fundamentals of Chirstanity. However, this term became pejorative after the Stokes Trial of 1925, when the teaching of evolutionary biology in schools was legally challenged. So what is an Islamic fundamentalist then? In the West we usually use this term to describe members of such organizations like al-Qaeda and Hamas. But as may be figured out from previous posts of mine, these organizations are far from traditional. Presumably, this rules them out from being conservative as well – the Taliban may not believe in women’s education, but this makes them repressive rather than conservative.

Let us consider liberal/secular Muslims. Popular discourse would regard them as the polar opposite of the individuals which we discussed in the last paragraph. But rather, they are two sides of the same coin. Both liberals and so-called ‘fundamentalists’ are at best indifferent and at worst disdainful of traditional scholarship and practices. They share a revolutionary mentality, oppose ‘superstition’ and are obsessed with modern sciences and technologies and political institutions which they deem as useful for achieving their goals. They differ in form but are essentially the same in content.

In popular terminology, we are also led to believe in the existence of ‘moderate’ Muslims, who, if not the desirable standard, are at least the second best thing to having liberal Muslims. This term is problematic as it implies the inherent inferiority of the Islamic religion, and that to be an acceptable member of society one has to water down one’s religion – “Oh, don’t worry, he’s just a moderate Muslim!” “Islam eh? Oh, I suppose it’s alright in moderation!”. Actually, the use of the entire liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum itself reinforces this insinuation.

Recent news reports about the attempted bombing of an airliner by a Nigerian man, in profiling him made special effort to mention his, quoting one newspaper “increasingly religious beliefs”. The newspaper itself was no tabloid, being a historically respected publication which prided itself on the quality of its journalism. However, such thoughtless use of emotion-baiting language like this which establishes a causal link between a Muslim’s orthodoxy and extremist practices, is detrimental to media objectivity. It additionally has harmful real-world implications in that Islam itself is framed as the culprit, contributing to poor policy which punishes the innocent and ignores the fundamental causes of terrorism. Language frames how we see the world. We must make and effort to make sure it is reflective of what is actually going on in the world.

Hating Halal

Easting is one of the most central aspects of human existence. It is a fact for the pious Muslim that everything is an act of worship, and the eating of food serves this purpose by reminding us of our Sustainer and in turn sustaining us for the fulfillment of worship in other areas of life.

This philosophy is reflected in how animals are raised for consumption by Muslims. However, halal slaughter has often been a topic of contention by parties who view it as a barbaric practice. It is my intention to address this issue, but first let us define what exactly we mean by halal slaughter, both as a reminder for Muslims and as information for other persons.

In Sura Al-Ma’idah it is stated:

“ FORBIDDEN to you is carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been invoked, and the animal that has been strangled, or beaten to death, or killed by a fall, or gored to death, or savaged by a beast of prey, save that which you [yourselves] may have slaughtered while it was still alive; and [forbidden to you is] all that has been slaughtered on idolatrous altars.”

Also, in the hadith, it is stated in Sahih Muslim:

“On the authority of Abu Ya'la Shahddad ibn Aus, the Messenger of Allah said: “Verily Allah has prescribed proficiency in all things. Thus, if you kill, 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”

In Sahih Bukhari:

“Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet cursed the one who did Muthla to an animal.” Muthla refers to the practice of amputating a part of an animal whilst it is still alive.

Tradition also states that animals are not to be ill-treated prior to slaughter, that the knife is to be hidden from their sight, and that they do not see other animals being slaughtered. When the incision is made, all major blood vessels are to be severed

Thus we can see that halal slaughter has the objectives of:

1. Hygiene
2. Ritual purity
3. Humane treatment of animals

These days, stunning before slaughter is a common practice in the halal meat industry. However, some slaughterhouses do not perform stunning, which certain parties hold to be inhumane. In response, anti-stunning Muslims state that stunning, in the case of Australia by use of captive bolt pistol, contaminates meat (via crushed brain matter and restriction of bleeding) and is unreliable in ensuring painless death.

However, both these parties are missing the bigger picture. Sure, cutting an animal’s throat is inhumane – if not done properly. Likewise, captive bolt stunning before exsanguination is painful if not done properly. Rather than continue to take cheap cultural pot shots at each other, we should aim to improve slaughter standards across the board.

For instance, in their report ‘Animal Welfare and Humane Slaughter’ revised in 2004, Grandin & Smith from Colorado State University reiterate that knife design and cutting technique are crucial in preventing reaction to incisions. In a study of his in 1994 Grandin observed that near-immediate collapse was induced in over 95% of cattle when an incision was made of suitable rapidity and depth. Now considering the thousands of animals slaughtered each day, even if there is only a 1% rate of error, that’s still a lot of animals being screwed over at their deaths. The same goes for stunning. The reality is, if we choose to slaughter on an industrial scale, and the primary motivation for corporations is profit rather than simply getting some meat to feed one’s family for the day, then these mistakes are an inevitability.

All around the world, animals are being crowded into transport vessels and endure hours of torture before finally arriving at the processing facility, where they may spend further time in inhumane conditions before slaughter. They are hung upside down, and regularly witness other animals being killed. And everywhere, people who are increasingly becoming divorced from their sources of basic sustenance continue to turn a blind eye to these practices. The real problem is the global capitalist system which is only concerned with efficiency and output, we can scream and cry all we want about the presence or lack of stunning but at the end of the day a rusty knife is a rusty knife, a poorly aimed bolt pistol is a poorly aimed bolt pistol and all sorts of critters are regularly finding out what it’s like to be catching the train to Treblinka.

I would rather eat meat from a non-stunned animal swiftly killed before my eyes with a ‘Bismillah’ by the Bedouin nomad who lovingly raised it from birth, than consume some supermarket product with a story more mysterious than the origins of AIDS. Let’s all pay more attention to the full stories behind our food.