UK - Masood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority (HFA)

We all have heard of Sepp Blatter the head of the world football ruling body FIFA, equally the fact that he refuses to stand down despite corruption and scandal in the multi billion pound organization he cannot be removed.

The years go by and the rumours thicken and he is so out of touch with reality he carries on as though he has not a problem in the world.

 

Fewer people have heard of Masood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority (HFA) who appears equally out of touch with reality and perhaps more importantly out of touch with his own people.

When I read that he had been talking about stunning sheep and cattle after they had been cut with a knife, I was reminded of Monty Python’s John Cleese and the dead parrot it was so bizarre.

To realise that this man is responsible for the grading of Halal Meat and certifying the same seemed incredulous. At least Sepp Batter got a massive pay cheque when he awarded the World Cup to Qator, and then I thought there must be more to this man than meet the eye.

 

 

The more people I asked the more confused I became but it was generally felt he has and is doing massive damage to the Halal meat industry.

 

 

Masood Khawaja, is running with the fox and chasing with the hounds, which only causes confusion and will lead to disaster. The HFA has become a laughing stock especially after the raids in Birmingham yesterday. Prevention is far better than cure if at all possible.

 

You do not see the Board of Shechita apologising for Kosher slaughter and they are proud of 5,000 years of tradition. Whereas Masood Khawaja is sucking up to the likes of the Daily Mail and Murdoch’s gutter press, who’s top brass all appeared in court in London yesterday.

 

We do not need more Islamaphoebia or do we need to deny our heritage. We must explain to the public at large the importance of Kosher and Halal, which is the same as Christians taking communion.

 

Tradition, tradition, imagine the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury without their robes and gold crucifix. Imagine taking communion in a disposable plastic throw away cup. Catholics like fish on Friday and there are no animal rights rules concerning fish.

 

Halal is an Arabic term meaning permissible in Islam.

 

One of the scholars speaking at the event in June, said: “Mass machine slaughter of animals is totally not allowed in Islam.

 

“The prescribed holy words should be said upon every animal and not just once.

 

“What’s more is, it can’t be one person just flicking a switch which kills a mass number of animals by rotary blade. It needs to be on an individual basis.

 

“Some people say during machine slaughter, just the first chicken is halal, but what’s for sure is that the majority are not.”

 

There are around 3.5 million Muslims living in the UK – about three per cent of the population.

 

 

The halal meat/poultry market therefore is a multi-billion pound contributor to the British economy.

 

The latest figure issued by Food Standard Agency carried out a survey for one week from September 19th to 25th 2011.

 

They carried out checks in every slaughterhouse whilst slaughtering was being undertaken.

 

A total of 16,101,844 poultry were slaughtered at 73 establishments, of which 4,766,237 were slaughtered halal at 29 establishments.

 

Of this number 3,523,313 were slaughtered halal by automation by a rotary blade (machine slaughtered) and 1,242,924 were slaughtered halal manually (hand slaughtered).

 

With over 3.5 million poultry being slaughtered halal by machines, this method could now be stopped.

 

A spokesman from Trading Standards said they would be looking into this matter following the decision.

 

Chief Executive of Cappoquin, one of the UK’s biggest halal meat slaughter houses was at the meeting over the weekend.

 

He said: “The decision that was reached is a good beginning but it’s not the end of it.  There’re a lot of other things that we need to address.

 

“The issue of machine slaughter is something that really needs to be looked at.

 

“Although what I would advise people to do is go down and see for themselves at slaughter houses across the country to experience what goes on, both the right and wrong way to do it .

 

“But these are all steps in the right direction.”

 

Naved Syed, Member of Eblex Halal Steering Group and responsible for organising the Halal Authority Board event in June, said: “We need to resolve this matter, this can only be resolved by our religious authorities, as they are custodian of our religion and have no vested interest in the commercial industry, the question is to do with Religion, legitimacy and not  commercialism.”

 

The guidance note on halal food issues, as issued by Sarah Appleby, Head of Enforcement and Local Authority Delivery Division, reads: “The mislabelling and misrepresentation of halal foods is of real importance to the Muslim community, and continues to be an issue of concern.

 

Image provided by Prime Equipment Group “For this reason we are re-issuing the advice drawn up in association with relevant Muslim organisations, LGR and Defra, Food enforcement officers are requested to: Use this advice when planning inspections, food sampling and labelling checks relating to halal foods.”

 

However, on the issue of machine slaughter the Halal Food Authority (HFA) have said it is permissible under Islamic law despite widespread objection.

 

Masood Khawaja president of the Halal Food Authority, said: “Yes it is frowned upon in some circles but we think it’s fine as long as three main criteria are upheld and they are, the animal is not dead before slaughtered, the blood is drained out and that no other name other than Allah’s (God’s) is said over the animal before its death.

 

“The Quran doesn’t say anything about mechanisms; all these machines were invented only recently.

 

“Everything is done according to science and technology now and technology has moved on.”

 

But Mr Syed said the very nature of machine slaughter totally went against Islamic law. He added: “The problem with machine slaughter in my opinion is that it does not fulfil the requirement for being halal, this being that you cannot perform the Tasmiah (Holy prayer) on each animal when you are machine killing 20,000 chickens per hour.

 

“Another inherent problem with machine slaughter is that it will decapitate about 5 per cent or 1,000 of the heads thereby cutting the spinal cord, which according to halal guidance issued by FSA, will restrict convulsion, which in turn restricts the pumping out of blood.

 

 

“The criteria for halal slaughtering needs to be addressed, especially on the subject of machine slaughter by the religious authorities.

 

“With over 40 Mufti’s and Imam’s having made the decision on Sunday 4 June it will enable us to lay the foundation for halal here in the UK or so we thought, with Ramadan due start around July 20th this important matter has to be resolved so that the legal authorities can take appropriate action.”

 

One of the reasons why machine slaughter was voted against was there is no definite way to seeing whether all the blood has been drained out of the animal and also the spinal cord be cut, which is necessary under Islamic law, and secondly each animal needed to be sacrificed individually rather than using one blade.

 

The debate which  took place at the Hijaz Centre, Nuneaton was attended by some of the country’s most respected Islamic scholars  voted on whether machine slaughter of animals for halal consumption is strictly permitted under Islamic law or not.

 

The halal meat/poultry market therefore is a multi-billion pound contributor to the British economy.

 

The latest figure issued by Food Standard Agency carried out a survey for one week from September 19th to 25th 2011.

 

 

They carried out checks in every slaughterhouse whilst slaughtering was being undertaken.

  

 

Naved Syed, Member of Eblex Halal Steering Group said: “We need to resolve this matter, this can only be resolved by our religious authorities, as they are custodian of our religion and have no vested interest in the commercial industry, the question is to do with Religion, legitimacy and not  commercialism.

 

Masood Khawaja president of the Halal Food Authority, said: “Yes it is frowned upon in some circles but we think it’s fine as long as three main criteria are upheld and they are, the animal is not dead before slaughtered, the blood is drained out and that no other name other than Allah’s (God’s) is said over the animal before its death.

“The Quran doesn’t say anything about mechanisms; all these machines were invented only recently.

“Everything is done according to science and technology now and technology has moved on.”

But Mr Syed said the very nature of machine slaughter totally went against Islamic law. He added: “The problem with machine slaughter in my opinion is that it does not fulfil the requirement for being halal, this being that you cannot perform the Tasmiah (Holy prayer) on each animal when you are machine killing 20,000 chickens per hour.

 

“Another inherent problem with machine slaughter is that it will decapitate about 5% or 1,000 of the heads thereby cutting the spinal cord, which according to halal guidance issued by FSA, will restrict convulsion, which in turn restricts the pumping out of  blood.

 

The government has rejected a call to ban the method used to kill animals for halal and kosher meat that is required by Muslims and Jews.

 

While animal welfare activists claim the process is cruel, Jews and Muslims say the rules dictated by their ancient religious texts cannot be changed.

 

BBC News Online's Paula Dear talked to some of the interested parties in the ongoing debate.

 

Last year the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) recommended that killing animals without stunning them first caused severe suffering.

 

However the rules governing halal and kosher meat production say the animal should be killed by a single cut to the throat and nothing else.

 

It must be alive and healthy before the slaughter, according to both the Jewish Torah law, and the Muslim Koran.

Some people have erroneously taken this message and decided the Muslim method is cruel

 

But FAWC has maintained its position since first bringing up the possibility of a ban in 1985.

 

Chairwoman Judy MacCarthy-Clark said their work had at least brought about some changes in the handling of animals prior to and during slaughter.

 

"It is not a simple thing, to kill an animal without stunning it. The animal doesn't take to it very well," she said. This is where correct handling comes in.

 

Although the government has ruled out an outright ban on the throat-cutting without prior stunning, it is consulting on whether animals should be stunned immmediately after the cut, rendering it unconscious, which is akin to closing the stable door, after the horse has bolted.

'Natural convulsion'

"It is significant that the government has accepted there is pain and distress involved, she said. This is not the case if the process is conducted correctly, you can break a baby’s leg changing a nappy if you do not handle the baby with care.

 

This aspect of the report has angered the Jewish community.

 

Shechita UK promotes awareness of the "Jewish religious humane method of dispatching animals for food", known as 'shechita'.

 
Shechita is unequivocally humane and it cannot be compromised
Henry Grunwald, Shechita UK

Its chairman Henry Grunwald, who is also president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said the government had failed to publish evidence proving the animals suffered.

 

"In working constructively with the government, we will clarify that shechita is unequivocally humane and it cannot be compromised," he said.

 

The group says opposition to the method is often due to ignorance of the facts or "ill will " towards Jews.

 

FWAC insists that post-cut stunning would "significantly benefit cattle, who can remain conscious for up to 90 seconds after the incision," said Ms MacCarthy-Clark - an assertion Mr Grunwald calls "nonsensical".

 

"When the cut takes places there is an instant drop in blood pressure in the brain. The animal is dead," he said.

 

And president of the Halal Food Authority (HFA) Masood Khawaja has some doubts the suggested compromise will satisfy religious requirements.

 

Of vital importance, according to the Koran, is that the animal's blood flows from its body by "natural convulsion".

 

Embedded

"The post-cut stun would have to be looked at. It may affect the way the blood drains out, we would have to see what happened to the convulsions," he said. Where doed this man get his information.

 

He said HFA had been taking part in research to design new machinery that could carry out "controlled stunning" to the satisfaction of Muslims. You would never here the Jewish people trying to change 5,000 years of history and tradition.

 

"We have animal welfare already encapsulated in our manifesto," he said.

 

"It covers all aspects, from transport, to conditions, to distress caused to the animals."

 

While compromises may be found, there can be no movement from the Muslim and Jewish communities on what meat they can and cannot eat.

 

"The reason it is so important that the law should stay as it is, is that Muslims are forbidden by the Koran to eat carrion (flesh that is already dead), and they cannot eat flowing blood," said Mr Khawaja.

 

"Some people have erroneously taken this message and decided the Muslim method is cruel. If you use the sharp blade on the animal's throat they don't feel the pain.

 

"Jewish and Muslim methods cannot be changed, because they are in the religious books."

 

Ms MacCarthy-Clark said FAWC appreciates that these methods have been embedded in religion for thousands of years.

 

"The rules of both religions are concerned with welfare and hygiene.

 

"The method at the time the rules were written was probably the most humane way of killing an animal, but of course that has changed."

 

 

It was almost two decades ago that a joint committee of Jewish and Muslim groups resolved the furore over pre­stunning by presenting the government with the case for halal and kosher being essential to fulfil requirements of Divine Law.

 

On the surface of it, this was an admirable display of inter-faith and, I dare­say, 'intra-faith' unity. But in reality, the show of solidarity between the different Muslim groups masked a fundamental split in method and ideology between some of the delegates. Q-News has discovered that the seemingly straightforward attempt to convince the government of the need to continue with the exemption may be undermined by the controversial stance of one lone group in this debate: the Halal Food Authority (HFA).

 

 

Enter Mr Masood Khawaja, Director of the HFA, who signed the petition on June 12th, but does not, it seems, really believe that the exemption is necessary at all. In a press release displayed on the HFA website, Mr Khawaja states that "experiments carried out to immo­bilise the animal through controlled stun­ning, if successful, would be looked at with an open mind." When Q-News spoke to Mr Khawaja it became apparent that, for reasons of sheer pragmatism, he was behind the scenes eager to endorse any method of stunning which hopes to immobilise animals without the risk of them dying in the process.

 

 This would introduce a method of producing halal meat that is at once pre-stunned, and failsafe, something that is, according to those in the opposing camp, by its very nature an oxymoron. And so, enter Dr Majid Katme, spokesper­son of the MCB on issues of halal meat.

 

 

Dr Katme ardently presents the case against all stunning, not only in the case of halal and kosher meat, but for all other meat, on the grounds that non-stunned meat is better for the health of the nation. He cites numerous scientific studies that have shown stunning has a detrimental effect both on meat quality and safety. More specifically, in relation to halal meat, stunning can present major problems that obstruct the process of dhabiha (halal slaughter).

 

One of these is that currently, a large proportion of animals are killed by the stunning process, which makes the meat carrion and therefore unlawful. According to the FAWC, 33% of stunned chicken is dead before it reaches the blade; this would enter the market labeled 'halal.' Stunning can also cause hemorrhaging and subsequent retention of blood that is required to flow away. Moreover, stunning causes massive changes in the chemical composition of the meat as the animal goes into stress and shock, releas­ing hormones into the muscle tissue. Not only this, but stunning also increases the risk of the spread of BSE. The picture then, does not look too good. These salient argu­ments against stunning render such meat to be at the very least non-tayyib (good/wholesome), if not haram (imper­missible).

 

 

But these issues did not seem to con­cern the director of the Halal Food Authority. Mr Khawaja, instead, wants a system whereby licensed slaughter men operating in licensed slaughterhouses would stun meat before slaughter to bring about immobilisation before the process of dhabah, with vets on hand to ensure that animals are well treated before slaughter.

 

 When asked about checking each animal to determine it was still alive between stun­ning and slaughter, he deemed it an unnec­essary or unworkable idea, and gave the analogy of cooking rice and not having to check whether each individual grain of rice in the pot was cooked through before you can eat it.

 

 

Mr Khawaja obviously does not realise the implications of potentially haram meat being passed through his proposed system, and to liken this to someone eating a cou­ple of grains of undercooked rice is about as crass an analogy you can get. To think that the HFA have such disregard for the welfare of the Muslim community's physi­cal and spiritual state and yet is widely considered an authority on halal food in this country is in my opinion, scandalous.

 

 

As far as my investigations indicate, the HFA may as well change its acronym from HFA to DFA, the Doubtful Food Authority.

 

 

Another problem with Mr Khawaja's proposal is that it leaves Jewish concerns for kosher meat out in the cold. For meat to be kosher, no stunning may be used in any circumstances, and so to call for mass 'controlled' stunning shows no regard for the joint work carried out with Jewish groups over the years. And the plain truth is, that on this issue at the very least, the old maxim could never ring more true: if united we stand, then divided we must surely fall.

 

 

I believe we need a united front against stunning or else we will lose not only the halal and the tayyib, but our voice and our rights. There should be no shame in saying we cannot have an 'open-minded' attitude when it comes to stunning. Such an atti­tude, after all, conforms only to the conve­nience of those who have no idea what halal and kosher means, both spiritually and practically, to Muslims and Jews.

Source: Argentine Beef Packers S.A.

Back to News Headlines