When Is This Ummat Going To Wake Up And Stop Consuming Haraam Endorsed By This Cartel

(Qalamul Haq)


Submitted by Ahmed Laher

Date: 9TH December 2010

Re: Halaal certification granted by SANHA to large commercial poultry plants (and other Halaal related issues)

Question 3.6
With regards to the Fatwa quoted above (of Mufti Taqi Usmani) does SANHA even understand the learned Mufti’s ruling?
Can SANHA perhaps please comment (individually on each of points a,b,c,d,e of Mufti Taqi’s Fatwa above) and educate us on SANHA’s understanding of the Fatwa and on whether SANHA takes note of and accepts Mufti Taqi’s Fatwa….. (Or not?)
(SANHA in deeming stunning acceptable surely thinks that the learned Mufti Taqi has erred in his ruling’s?? and by default that Darul Uloom Ifta departments of Deoband and Karachi have erred as well… and have got it wrong???)

Question 3.7
In detail, what is SANHA’s exact reasons for accepting stunning? (Especially as SANHA always proclaims to lean on the side conservatism, e.g. on the gelatin issue etc where SANHA preaches a rather safe then sorry approach)

Question 3.8
SANHA’s following comment refers;
“Where controlled stunning is applied, the stun is of a reversible nature and such bird will not die as a result thereof. If however, there are birds which may have died either pre or post stunning, such birds are removed from the line and disposed of accordingly.”
(Above by EBI Lockhat in an email dated 21st October 2010)

It is now established from SANHA’s comment above that birds that die pre stunning or post stunning are “removed from the line”

Question 3.8.1
What are the quantum of birds that die pre stunning and are removed from the line?

Question 3.8.2
What are the quantum of birds that die post stunning and are removed from the line?

Question 3.8.3
What are, in general, are the causes of death of birds that die pre stunning? (Could these birds be unhealthy in the 1st place and hence just falling down dead? Could they be treated inhumanely and be dying as a result thereof??)

Question 3.8.4
What are, in general, the causes of death of birds that die post stunning? (Could these birds perhaps be dying as a direct result of the stunning??)

Question 3.9
Please explain how exactly birds that die post stunning are removed from the line pre slaughter?
[Removed by whom? When? At what point? Perhaps removed by the same slaughterers who are already tasked, and stressed, with slaughtering birds at extremely high speed?]

Question 3.10
How exactly is a (dead) bird that dies post stunning (pre slaughter) differentiated from a live but effectively unconscious / comatose bird (for purposes of removing the dead birds from the line?

Question 3.11
SANHA claims that:
“the stun is of a reversible nature and such bird will not die as a result thereof”

Is SANHA willing to subject itself to a “surprise” random and unannounced survey where at one of the plants that it certifies 1000 birds that have been stunned are all one after another removed from the line pre slaughter and then waited on to see in how many of the 1000 the stunning process is actually reversed (as SANHA claims “the stun is of a reversible nature”) and to check if we’re left with 1000 (out of a 1000) “healthy” birds??

Question 3.12
If the survey is done as per 3.11 above and a few birds actually die (or just one) then what would SANHA’s view be of the obvious contamination between (so called) Halaal birds and those that cannot be Halaal due to dying pre slaughtering as a result of the stunning?

Question 3.13
SANHA’s words above where SANHA says that:
“ ……….stunning in commercial abattoirs may be considered.”
are very ambiguous.

What exactly is SANHA saying / suggesting?
On whose authority?
Following exactly whose Fatwa’s and who’s rulings … (please give some references to these Fatwa’s and rulings)?

Question 3.14
During SANHA’s “pre-planned” site visits / inspections to one of the plants Mufti Elias asked the supervisor to immerse his hand into the “stunning water” where the tiny birds that consumers consume are stunned. The supervisor refused.

Why did he refuse?
(he, the supervisor, told Mufti Elias that it would “kick” him or shock him)
(if the stunning would “kick” a 80kg’s+ mountain of a man then what would it do to a tiny 1kg bird??)

Question 3.15
SANHA states that;
“Senior Ulema and pious predecessors have laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter based on their interpretation of public need decades prior to the formation of SANHA.”

Question 3.15.1
What (or who) exactly is SANHA’s definition of Senior Ulema and especially of Pious predecessors?
[My understanding of the term “Pious Predecessors” is that when the term ‘Pious Predecessors’, i.e. Salf-e-Saaliheen, is mentioned, it refers to the Ulema, Sulaha, Fuqaha and Auliya of the three initial eras of Islam , which are known as Khairul Quroon (the Noblest Ages).] Is this correct??

Question 3.15.2
There is not a single personality from the Salf-e-Saaliheen who condones what Sanha is saying and doing (refer to 3.4 above).
Can SANHA cite the name of a single Faqeeh or Aalim from
among the Salf-e-Saaliheen who had contended the permissibility of
pre-slaughter injury (stunning)?

Question 3.15.3
Irrespective of SANHA’s understanding of who the Pious Predecessors are can SANHA cite tangible evidence that the Pious Predecessors have “laid down the rules” for acceptability of;
• slaughter without the direction of the Qiblah,
• stunning pre slaughter,
• immersing the chickens in blood filled scalding water with its intestines and feaces still inside,
• hanging the chickens upside down and slaughtering in motion on a tremendously fast-moving conveyor belt…..
• etc etc etc?

Question 3.16
Could SANHA comment on each of the following points/comments/facts (3.16.1 to 3.16.6);

Commercially killed chickens are electrocuted – electrically stunned by dragging their heads through a trough of electrified water. This cruel infliction of injury prior to slaughter is Haraam. Every kind of pre-slaughter injury is Haraam. The Shari’ah is emphatic on this prohibition.

Many die as a direct consequence of the stunning. Here is abundant
evidence for this. Innumerable dead chickens are thus slaughtered. All these dead chickens are certified ‘Halaal’ by the halaalizing bodies.

Even if we had to assume that the stunning does not kill the chickens, but renders them motionless, then too, the act of pre-slaughter stunning is Haraam. It is in flagrant violation of the Shari’ah.
It is therefore not permissible to consume chickens which are killed/slaughtered in a system which has in entirety displaced the
divinely-instituted Islamic system of Thabah.

Regardless of the effects being ‘reversible’. The Shari’ah can never accept a system even if devised by Muslims, if such system displaces the system which was revealed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from Allah Ta’ala. It is tantamount to kufr for Muslims to reject and displace the Waajib holy system of Islam and to substitute it with a system in which cruelty is practiced, and which system displaces Allah’s system.

Undoubtedly all true Ulema reject as Haraam pre-slaughter stunning, and every pre-slaughter infliction of injury to the animal.
Numerous non-Muslim experts in this field too reject stunning and point out its harms.
When Islam rejects every act of injury before slaughter and when Allah Ta’ala has ordained a system of Thabah for the Ummah, then it is contumacy and flagrant transgression to aver that ‘controlled stunning’ or ‘controlled infliction of injury’ is acceptable.
(Note that: A person’s personal view unsubstantiated by the evidence of the Shari’ah is devoid of substance in Islam.)

The laws of Islam are sacrosanct. These laws and systems are revealed. They came from Allah Azza Wa Jal to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is Haraam and tantamount to kufr to delete, change or displace these laws, ways and methods with systems invented, especially when the Shari’ah is explicit in prohibiting pre-slaughter injury.