Freeman’s of Newent – report on halal slaughter

I recently received the following in my mailbox. It is a report on Freeman’s of Newent who supply Nando’s as well as a lot of other halal meat shops and restaurants around the UK. They are the biggest supplier of halal poultry in the UK.

Over the years numerous scare stories come out about Nando’s (and by extension Freeman’s) as not being halal, most of these “reports” present hearsay and conjecture and very little substantial or verified evidence to prove their point. I recently received one such email from a councillor in Blackburn by the name of Salim Mulla, the email was a long rant against Nando’s and about chicken brains exploding, pig being handled on the same premises and non-Muslims handling the chickens. He also stated that he visited Freeman’s with 4 unnamed ulama and witnessed all this, he gave no date, no time, who he met, where he actually went and who these Ulama were.

This is the crux of the email from Cllr. Salim Mulla

  1. Cutting is done with same machine blade / knife
  2. Meat / chicken cutting is done in pieces by English workers / same apron
  3. Cutting was done in the same preparation table.
  4. They were using the same non Halal container to load and unload the meat / Chickens, what about the mixing of blood.
  5. Cross contamination: Pigs were refrigerated in same area in the fridge

I responded in detail to the honourable Councillor and discussed at length his “finding” and specifically his approach to this which I think is very shoddy. Even after discussing with him I was still left unsatisfied by what he had to say as it just was not based on any solid evidence.

What follows is a proper report on Freeman’s of Newent, presented with clear concise details by someone who has personally visited the slaughter facilities. His name is Zubbair Malik, whilst I do not personally know him, I contacted him to verify this report and he said:

“by Allah this visit took place on the date stated in my report (Tue, 12th Feb 2008)”

The story Zubbair tells is very different from the exploding chicken brains one that does the rounds and Councillor Salim says he witnessed….


Wed 13 Feb 2008Asalam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatu

I pray that you are in good health and iman and I would like to report an investigation in stunned halal poultry I have personally carried out this week.

Who and where this report reaches, only Allah (swt) knows. I have emailed this to people in my contacts list and as they know I am not an abattoir owner, meat wholesaler or retailer I am just a fellow Muslim end consumer concerned about eating halal and in addition, to inform my brothers and sisters of my findings, and pray to Almighty Allah that in this there is inshAllah knowledge that will benefit us.

I will try to keep this as brief and to the point as possible?

Recently, there has been a lot of ?hype? with regards to stunned poultry being doubtful. I am sure you have seen the emails and read the leaflets and reports.

As any concerned Muslim, I read and adapted this policy of trying to eat meat which was unstunned. I recently found out that a wholesaler (Nasons in Luton) within my region was delivering stunned poultry to almost all of my local halal butchers, takeaways and surrounding towns. With this concern, I approached Nasons, questioning their halal meat, especially the poultry.

They were adamant that the meat they supplied was halal and very open with regards to who their suppliers were. They invited me and whoever I would like to bring with me to see for myself that his poultry is most definitely halal, and there is NO doubt in their chicken being dead before slaughter.


On Tue 12th Feb 2008 we visited FREEMAN’S OF NEWENT Slaughters approx up to 50,000 – 60,000 birds a day, and is one of the main suppliers of halal poultry to the UK

I was met on arrival by Ali Bham, Head Slaughtermen of Freeman’s. After being introduced to various members of Senior Staff at Freeman’s, Ali explained his job and what measurements and Islamic standards he implements in his work to ensure that all Freeman’s chickens are 100% halal. He has worked for Freeman’s for the past 24 years.

The process for slaughter is as follows:

All the chickens are hung upside down on a line, their heads are dipped for about 1- 2 seconds in a tub of water and they are stunned with a high frequency stunner, at a set voltage of 39 volts. This temporarily knocks the chickens out.

When the chickens had been stunned, we were encouraged by Ali to touch the birds and feel their heart beat. Numerous chickens were touched and all had a heart beat and felt warm.

? Some chickens were still moving/flapping wings after being stunned.

? We removed chickens at will after stunning from the line and placed them on the floor. All birds opened their eyes after 5-10 seconds. After 1 minute the birds were trying to get up. After 2 mins, birds absolutely normal and walking around.

? After being stunned, the birds are slaughtered within 10 – 15 seconds.

? Very sharp knifes are used, no distress for chickens and ?Bismillah, Allah o Akbar? read on every single bird by the slaughtermen. Who, of course, are all Muslims. There were 6 of them, interviewed one of them and he knew all the etiquettes of halal slaughter.

? After slaughter, ALL chickens were clearly bleeding (meaning still alive)

? Chickens flapping after slaughter. Once slaughtered the line takes the birds into another section of the factory. Just in the killing room, (where the slaughter takes place), the line was about 3 lines deep. Chickens as far along as the third line were still flapping after slaughter (i.e. up to 2mins after slaughter).

? Clearly all 4 veins in the neck were being cut.

? Very humane, very calm, very clean and hygienic.

This in short is how the slaughter process worked. Allah (swt) is my witness, but from what I saw I was extremely happy that the chickens are 100% halal. Ali informs me that several millions of pounds have been invested by Freeman’s in this factory set up and is focused on halal poultry only.

Above all, I was very pleased to hear that Mufti Yousif Sacha is the one who certifies Freeman’s as halal. Now he must be, if not the, senior mufti with regards to halal and haram in the UK. I was shown the certificate, signed by Mufti Sacha, last certified in Jan 08. Ali informs me he visits every 6 months to check and certify the Freeman’s slaughter process.

Brothers and sisters, I would be under miming Brother Ali?s work at Freeman’s if I did not inform you of his hard work. Only Allah knows what is in people?s hearts, but MashAllah, this brother is doing his up most best to ensure that every single chicken that leaves Freeman’s is halal. And I have to respect him for it. I make dua that Allah (swt) accepts his efforts and rewards him in this world and the next.

I also visited IQBAL HALAL POULTRY, Bell Farm, Bovingdon, Herts prior to visiting Freeman’s. They slaughter 40,000 chickens a week and use a similar method to Freeman’s. Again, the same tests were carried out after stunning and all the chickens regained their senses and back to normal within a couple of minutes. They have 4 slaughtermen, I interviewed their Head Slaughtermen, and his reply to the nearest meaning, because he spoke Urdu, was; Allah is our witness, why would we lie about halal for a small worldly gain, when tomorrow we will have to give our account to the Almighty on the Day of Judgement.

To summarise, we should investigate into things we are unsure about and not just take other peoples word for it. I was told about the stunning process being doubtful by a ?reliable source?. And through a little investigation he has turned out to be not so reliable at all.

I can only speak for the two I visited, and in my humble opinion, these suppliers are halal. I encourage brothers to do their own investigation to eliminate any doubts in their minds. Alhumdulillah, these suppliers were very open in what they do and the process they follow. InshAllah, abattoirs near you are just as open.

JazakAllah Kair

Zubbair Malik

St Albans, Herts

Be Sociable, Share!

32 thoughts on “Freeman’s of Newent – report on halal slaughter”

  1. JasakAllah…

    thank you so much for taking the time out to carry out this research. I however have one question. what does this mean for HMC?

    I shall email your finding to all my friends.

    Faridha

  2. I have contacted Nandoes regarding this issue and they more or less said what Bro Zubair has found out. I also contacted Mr Mulla but he has not got back to me. I also advised him to sue if he is so sure about his findings but i have received no reply as of yet.

    Thanks for making an effort do conduct this research. I can now enjoy Nandoes with a clear peace of mind.

  3. Please read the following, this reply has been conducted by my colleague. Hope thisgives you a detail explanation.

    I hope and pray you are in the best of faith and health. We appreciate your efforts and concerns for Halal and request you read the following comments.

    It is important to highlight that the act of stunning is not permissible and contrary to the Islamic Rules of Slaughter. This is the position of the majority if not all the scholars. The question is if this impermissible act is utilised to slaughter, will the animal be Halal or Haram. The simple answer is if a person is 100% sure that the animal never died prior to slaughter then it will be Halal. The condition is the person has to be 100% sure as the principle nature of Meat and Poultry according to Islamic juristic principles, contrary to other items, is Hurmah (Impermissibility) until it is proven to be Halal. Therefore, if out of a thousand fillets there is one pork fillet or one chicken fillet that died prior to slaughter, and one is unaware which one it is, all are impermissible to consume.

    In light of this, the chickens from Freemans or indeed from elsewhere can only be Halal if you can guarantee every single chicken remains alive prior to slaughter, even on those days when there is no one there to check and the voltage of stunning could easily be increased. It is not scientifically valid to deduce from your observations or with all due respect, from one or two visits by Mufti Yusuf Sacha Sahib, that this is what occurs daily throughout the year.

    Nevertheless, if we analyse your observations, firstly, immediately after an animal is slaughtered you can feel the heartbeat as it takes a few seconds for the internal system to cease to operate until all the blood has flowed out. Similarly, after slaughtering a dead animal blood will inevitably flow. The question is did it flow with the same intensity as in the correct Islamic Unstunned Method?

    Since the UK has exempted Muslims and Jews from the necessity of pre-slaughter stunning, the only justification or benefit of stunning is the time factor and as a result cost implications. From your observations, it sounds as though this benefit is not being obtained as the chickens are flapping their wings after slaughter and prior to slaughter so why stun the animals? You also mention that only ‘Some chickens were still moving/flapping wings after being stunned’. My question is why were all of them not moving or flapping? It is common sense that if a human being is given an electric shock he will start to wither and dither and in the case of poor weak chickens, flapping is inevitable provided of course they are alive. Also bear in mind the Defra Statistics which state 33% of stunned chickens die prior to slaughter.

    A leading Mufti of the UK , Mufti Ismail Kacholwi once related he visited a slaughterhouse where the voltage of the stunning was bare minimal. As the slaughter started, Mufti Sahib picked a few chickens prior to slaughter and found some of them dead. The owner informed Mufti Sahib that this was probably due to the start of the slaughter process and he should perhaps return after one hour. Mufti Sahib insisted on waiting there and after one hour he tested a few chickens and once again he found some of them to be dead. In any case, chickens from this slaughterhouse enter the Halal Market and Allah knows Best.

    The Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) said, Leave what is doubtful and adopt that which is not doubtful. Given that in the UK we now have an alternative with an independent organisation HMC monitoring unstunned slaughter with a clear set of Islamic principles, I see no justification why Muslims should continue to stun animals. After all, even Mufti Yusuf Sacha Sahib will agree that the act of stunning is not permissible.

    If you require further information about stunning please visit this link http://www.halalmc.co.uk/resources/issue_stunning.html and for your information i have also attached a document by Mufti Zubair Sahib.

    Yusuf Patel
    Vice Chairman
    Blackburn Muslim Association
    W: http://www.bmassociation.org

    1. Salam brother,

      While i respect your intentions i cannot, in all good conscience, allow your views to go unchallenged. For to tell lies, spread false information and or mislead whether intentional or not…is without question haram.

      The picture you paint is not totally, omitts any real research and is entirely misleading. I have seen several such post from the BMA tending to point to some sort of agenda rather than the true jist of this matter.

      Firstly, to say most scholars take the position that stunning is not permissible is completely misleading. Most scholars are agreed that stunning which kills cannot be permissible. As to stunning to a level that the animal is alive and can recover the consensus is completely divided…to such a level it is STILL being debated.

      STUNNING to stun:
      There are fixed process now that are capable of delivering standard shocks that keep the animal alive (can be recovered from within 3) and mins) DO NOT cause fibrillation of the heart i.e do not interfere with the blood draining process.

      Infact most research points to the fact the more blood is drained quicker when the animal is stunned and then slit (while still alive). At the worst case scenario the blood draining is the same rate. I suggest you look at this page http://halaltransactions.org/electrical-stunning/ and read the research articles posted at the bottom.

      So you talk 100%, nothing is 100% accept allah, he is 100% truth and 100% everything. to say ‘unless you can say 100% halal’ is poor statement that would render us all vegetarians in this country. Can you tell me with 100% accuracy that your muslim slaughter man/butcher has performed the cut correctly while the chicken was flapping around? or that is blade is sharp? or that he did not sharpen his blade infront of the animal? can you hand on heart tell me that when he killed 20,000 chickens by hand he did every single one correctly? of course you cannot. the burden which i placed upon you there is unreasonable. there is equal doubt in those slaughter houses that do not stun, because quite simply killing thousands of chickens by hand while they are flapping around will cause inevitable mistakes. it is said ‘Give up what raises doubt in your mind and take what does not raise doubt in you’. let us not forget this was in a time when you go and watch the animal being killed, your slaughter was local or you did it yourself so you could be sure. now in modern times nobody can be 100% sure with so many chickens being killed.

      so what then for modern time? you must approach this from a position of reasonable doubt. like i stated earlier there are processes now by which the stunning process can regulated and standardised to high degree of accuracy, leaving the vast majority of birds alive after stunning. in the same way that a muslim slaughterman killing thosands of chickens by hand, unstunned will kill the majority properly. Provided that the stunning is properly checked and regulated there is no reason that it should be doubted anymore or less than the non stunning killing process.

      Stunning the principle:
      Why do i constantly here stunning is not permissible, this is utter non sense. there is nothing that directly forbids a stun that does not kill, but subdues the animal.

      The principle of subueing already already exists in slam and has been used for hundreds of years and is still going on now. Why are cattle and sheep layed on there side before the cut? why is a camels left leg tied before the cut? why is it permissible that a camel can layed on the ground and subdued before the cut if necessary?

      there are 3 reasons for this:
      1. to restrain such that it reduces its suffering and stress
      2. so the animal does not harm itself during the process
      3. so the animal does not harm anyone/anything else

      so the islamic principle of suduing the animal in such a way that is does not affect the blood draining or killing process but increases saftey and humanity already exists. Thus, a stun decided soley with purpose of stopping animal moving, flapping, thrashing around while keeping it alive is COMPLETELY inline with muslim teaching and principles. the intention behind it being to reduce the harm to the animal and make it more humane (the same reason the cut to the specific blood vessels was chosen by our prophet, pbuh) is entirely within muslim deen.

      the appropriate analogy here would be transport. transport the concept is completely accept in islam, it was around in the times of our prophets. the prophets walked, they used donkeys and horses. then something was invented such as the chariot or cart, vehicle pulled by several horsess. This was a faster and more efficient way to travel, hence the prophets accept this…even encouraged the use of new tools. in the same way now that cars and aeroplanes are inivations (not in deen, but invations in life/technology) that are not haram. the concept of travel methods is islamic and hence the technology is approved.

      so in this case there is not specific ruling, that i am awar, that poulty must be full freely to moving before the cut. there are no specific method on how to sudue poultry (probably because its a diffiult thing to do given their size). But the principle is there to subdue an animal to reduce risk of injury and suffering. hence an inovation of a stun to subdue poultry is simply a technology improvement and extension of an already existant islamic concept. in the cases of cattle, sheep and cammels there are specific subduction methods already given in isalm.

      So in summary:
      There are possible benifits to stunning before cutting, in terms of bloodflow.
      The consensus is divided, and large amounts of research s being ignored…for whatever agender.
      The concept of stunning itself CANNOT be deemed unpermissible. (it depends on the details and the effect of the stunning not the principle itself)
      The concept of findng methods to refine and subduing and reducing animal harm is COMPLETELY within the islamic framework.

      There is one thing i will confirm you as correct on brother and that is you are right to try n ask these questions. For in seacrhing for answers we will find truth. “Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allaah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.” [Bukhari]

      My only request is that you give the full picture actually, thus not to mae your own actions haram or the actions of others. Use all the modern tools available, do not ignore the research and do not approach from a given agenda. In fact approach from a modern angle, forward thinking, an angle of scientific and logical approach. our prophet (pbuh) would never shy away from science technology and invations…provided the deen remained the same of course. invations in deen would be striclty bidda. Please also note that i do not the exact specifics of any slaughter house, i am dealing with the general concepts. the general concept is completly permissible but more research need to be done into the processes and the individual slaughter houses. we must remain both vigilante and open minded, we must not propagate things which are opinion based or simply untrue (such as you comment about the only reason to stun is cost related). as i mentioned earlier to do so even unwittengly is haram.

      i praise your intentions but not your logic or omission of information.
      from a fellow brother

      1. Salam brother,

        While I respect your intentions I cannot, in all good conscience, allow your views to go unchallenged. For to tell lies, spread false information and or mislead whether intentional or not…is without question haram.

        The picture you paint is not totally, omits any real research and is entirely misleading. I have seen several such posts from the BMA tending to point to some sort of agenda rather than the true gist of this matter.

        Firstly, to say most scholars take the position that stunning is not permissible is completely misleading. Most scholars are agreed that stunning which kills cannot be permissible. As to stunning to a level that the animal is alive and can recover the consensus is completely divided…to such a level it is STILL being debated.

        STUNNING to stun:
        There are fixed process now that are capable of delivering standard shocks that keep the animal alive (can be recovered from within 3 mins) DO NOT cause fibrillation of the heart i.e. do not interfere with the blood draining process.

        In fact most research points to the fact the more blood is drained quicker when the animal is stunned and then slit (while still alive). At the worst case scenario the blood draining is the same rate. I suggest you look at this page http://halaltransactions.org/electrical-stunning/ and read the research articles posted at the bottom.

        So you talk 100%, nothing is 100% accept Allah, he is 100% truth and 100% everything. To say ‘unless you can say 100% halal’ is poor statement that would render us all vegetarians in this country. Can you tell me with 100% accuracy that your Muslim slaughter man/butcher has performed the cut correctly while the chicken was flapping around? Or that is blade is sharp? Or that he did not sharpen his blade in front of the animal? Can you hand on heart tell me that when he killed 20,000 chickens by hand he did every single one correctly? Of course you cannot. The burden which I placed upon you there is unreasonable. There is equal doubt in those slaughter houses that do not stun, because quite simply killing thousands of chickens by hand while they are flapping around will cause inevitable mistakes. It is said ‘Give up what raises doubt in your mind and take what does not raise doubt in you’. Let us not forget this was in a time when you go and watch the animal being killed, your slaughter was local or you did it yourself so you could be sure. Now in modern times nobody can be 100% sure with so many chickens being killed.

        So what then for modern time? You must approach this from a position of reasonable doubt. Like I stated earlier there are processes now by which the stunning process can regulated and standardised to high degree of accuracy, leaving the vast majority of birds alive after stunning. In the same way that a Muslim slaughter man killing thousands of chickens by hand, unstunned will kill the majority properly. Provided that the stunning is properly checked and regulated there is no reason that it should be doubted any more or less than the non stunning killing process.

        Stunning the principle:
        Why do I constantly here stunning is not permissible, this is utter non sense. There is nothing that directly forbids a stun that does not kill, but subdues the animal.

        The principle of subduing already exists in Islam and has been used for hundreds of years and is still going on now. Why are cattle and sheep laid on their side before the cut? Why is a camels left leg tied before the cut? Why it is permissible that a camel can be laid on the ground and subdued (and further tied) before the cut if necessary?

        There are 3 reasons for this:
        1. To restrain such that it reduces its suffering and stress
        2. So the animal does not harm itself during the process
        3. So the animal does not harm anyone/anything else

        So the Islamic principle of subduing the animal in such a way that is does not affect the blood draining or killing process but increases safety and humanity already exists. Thus, a stun decided solely with purpose of stopping animal moving, flapping, and thrashing around while keeping it alive is COMPLETELY in line with Muslim teaching and principles. It does not contradict anything in terms of poultry. The intention behind it being to reduce the harm to the animal and make it more humane (the same reason the cut to the specific blood vessels was chosen by our prophet, pbuh) is entirely within Muslim deen.

        The appropriate analogy here would be transport. Transport the concept is completely accepted in Islam, it was around in the times of our prophets. The prophets walked, they used donkeys and horses. Then something was invented such as the chariot or cart, vehicle pulled by several horses. This was a faster and more efficient way to travel, hence the prophets accept this…even encouraged the use of new tools. In the same way now that cars and aeroplanes are innovations (not in deen, but innovations in life/technology) that are not haram. There are no specific rulings on their use, because they were not around so we look at the principle and purpose. The concept of travel methods is Islamic and hence the technology is approved.

        So in this case there is not specific ruling, that I am aware, that poultry must be full freely to moving before the cut. There is no specific method on how to subdue poultry (probably because it’s a difficult thing to do, given their size). But the principle is there to subdue an animal to reduce risk of injury and suffering. Hence an innovation of a stun to subdue poultry is simply a technology improvement and extension of an already existing Islamic concept. In the cases of cattle, sheep and camels there are specific subduing methods already given in Islam.

        So in summary:
        There are possible benefits to stunning before cutting, in terms of blood flow.
        The consensus is divided and large amounts of research s being ignored…for whatever agenda.
        The concept of stunning itself CANNOT be deemed impermissible. (It depends on the details and the effect of the stunning not the principle itself)
        The concept of finding methods to refine and subduing and reducing animal harm is COMPLETELY within the Islamic framework.

        There is one thing I will confirm you as correct on brother and that is you are right to try n ask these questions. For in searching for answers we will find truth. “Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.” [Bukhari]

        My only request is that you give the full picture actually, thus not to make your own actions haram or the actions of others. Use all the modern tools available, do not ignore the research and do not approach from a given agenda. In fact approach from a modern angle, forward thinking, an angle of scientific and logical approach. Our prophet (pbuh) would never shy away from science technology and innovations…provided the deen remained the same of course. Innovations in deen would be strictly bidda. Please also note that I do not know the exact specifics of any slaughter house, I am dealing with the general concepts. The general concept can easily be shown to be permissible but more research needs to be done into the processes and the individual slaughter houses. We must remain both vigilante and open minded, we must not propagate things which are opinion based or simply untrue (such as your comment about the only reason to stun is cost related). As I mentioned earlier to do so even unwittingly is haram.

        I praise your intentions but not your logic, approach, apparent agenda and omission/ignoring of information and research.
        From a fellow brother

        1. apologies my previous post contained lots of errors and i cannot delete. i shall post a less erroneous version.

          Salam brother, (Salim Mulla)

          While I respect your intentions I cannot, in all good conscience, allow your views to go unchallenged. For to tell lies, spread false information and or mislead whether intentional or not…is without question haram.

          The picture you paint is not totally, omits any real research and is entirely misleading. I have seen several such posts from the BMA tending to point to some sort of agenda rather than the true gist of this matter.

          Firstly, to say most scholars take the position that stunning is not permissible is completely misleading. Most scholars are agreed that stunning which kills cannot be permissible. As to stunning to a level that the animal is alive and can recover the consensus is completely divided…to such a level it is STILL being debated.

          STUNNING to stun:
          There are fixed process now that are capable of delivering standard shocks that keep the animal alive (can be recovered from within 3 mins) DO NOT cause fibrillation of the heart i.e. do not interfere with the blood draining process.

          In fact most research points to the fact the more blood is drained quicker when the animal is stunned and then slit (while still alive). At the worst case scenario the blood draining is the same rate. I suggest you look at this page http://halaltransactions.org/electrical-stunning/ and read the research articles posted at the bottom.

          So you talk 100%, nothing is 100% accept Allah, he is 100% truth and 100% everything. To say ‘unless you can say 100% halal’ is poor statement that would render us all vegetarians in this country. Can you tell me with 100% accuracy that your Muslim slaughter man/butcher has performed the cut correctly while the chicken was flapping around? Or that is blade is sharp? Or that he did not sharpen his blade in front of the animal? Can you hand on heart tell me that when he killed 20,000 chickens by hand he did every single one correctly? Of course you cannot. The burden which I placed upon you there is unreasonable. There is equal doubt in those slaughter houses that do not stun, because quite simply killing thousands of chickens by hand while they are flapping around will cause inevitable mistakes. It is said ‘Give up what raises doubt in your mind and take what does not raise doubt in you’. Let us not forget this was in a time when you go and watch the animal being killed, your slaughter was local or you did it yourself so you could be sure. Now in modern times nobody can be 100% sure with so many chickens being killed.

          So what then for modern time? You must approach this from a position of reasonable doubt. Like I stated earlier there are processes now by which the stunning process can regulated and standardised to high degree of accuracy, leaving the vast majority of birds alive after stunning. In the same way that a Muslim slaughter man killing thousands of chickens by hand, unstunned will kill the majority properly. Provided that the stunning is properly checked and regulated there is no reason that it should be doubted any more or less than the non stunning killing process.

          Stunning the principle:
          Why do I constantly here stunning is not permissible, this is utter non sense. There is nothing that directly forbids a stun that does not kill, but subdues the animal.

          The principle of subduing already exists in Islam and has been used for hundreds of years and is still going on now. Why are cattle and sheep laid on their side before the cut? Why is a camels left leg tied before the cut? Why it is permissible that a camel can be laid on the ground and subdued (and further tied) before the cut if necessary?

          There are 3 reasons for this:
          1. To restrain such that it reduces its suffering and stress
          2. So the animal does not harm itself during the process
          3. So the animal does not harm anyone/anything else

          So the Islamic principle of subduing the animal in such a way that is does not affect the blood draining or killing process but increases safety and humanity already exists. Thus, a stun decided solely with purpose of stopping animal moving, flapping, and thrashing around while keeping it alive is COMPLETELY in line with Muslim teaching and principles. It does not contradict anything in terms of poultry. The intention behind it being to reduce the harm to the animal and make it more humane (the same reason the cut to the specific blood vessels was chosen by our prophet, pbuh) is entirely within Muslim deen.

          The appropriate analogy here would be transport. Transport the concept is completely accepted in Islam, it was around in the times of our prophets. The prophets walked, they used donkeys and horses. Then something was invented such as the chariot or cart, vehicle pulled by several horses. This was a faster and more efficient way to travel, hence the prophets accept this…even encouraged the use of new tools. In the same way now that cars and aeroplanes are innovations (not in deen, but innovations in life/technology) that are not haram. There are no specific rulings on their use, because they were not around so we look at the principle and purpose. The concept of travel methods is Islamic and hence the technology is approved.

          So in this case there is not specific ruling, that I am aware, that poultry must be full freely to moving before the cut. There is no specific method on how to subdue poultry (probably because it’s a difficult thing to do, given their size). But the principle is there to subdue an animal to reduce risk of injury and suffering. Hence an innovation of a stun to subdue poultry is simply a technology improvement and extension of an already existing Islamic concept. In the cases of cattle, sheep and camels there are specific subduing methods already given in Islam.

          So in summary:
          There are possible benefits to stunning before cutting, in terms of blood flow.
          The consensus is divided and large amounts of research s being ignored…for whatever agenda.
          The concept of stunning itself CANNOT be deemed impermissible. (It depends on the details and the effect of the stunning not the principle itself)
          The concept of finding methods to refine and subduing and reducing animal harm is COMPLETELY within the Islamic framework.

          There is one thing I will confirm you as correct on brother and that is you are right to try n ask these questions. For in searching for answers we will find truth. “Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.” [Bukhari]

          My only request is that you give the full picture actually, thus not to make your own actions haram or the actions of others. Use all the modern tools available, do not ignore the research and do not approach from a given agenda. In fact approach from a modern angle, forward thinking, an angle of scientific and logical approach. Our prophet (pbuh) would never shy away from science technology and innovations…provided the deen remained the same of course. Innovations in deen would be strictly bidda. Please also note that I do not know the exact specifics of any slaughter house, I am dealing with the general concepts. The general concept can easily be shown to be permissible but more research needs to be done into the processes and the individual slaughter houses. We must remain both vigilante and open minded, we must not propagate things which are opinion based or simply untrue (such as your comment about the only reason to stun is cost related). As I mentioned earlier to do so even unwittingly is haram.

          I praise your intentions but not your logic, approach, apparent agenda and omission/ignoring of information and research.
          From a fellow brother

          1. I am no scholar but I think the HMC position is also untenable and impractical.

            There is no such thing as 100% sure of halal status unless you went and did the zabah yourself and knew exactly what you were doing. Islam is a religion of moderation and demanding 100% is an extreme requirement which makes the religion overly difficult.

            The HMC position:
            1) You can no longer trust a Muslim that claims the meat is halal due to the untruths told within the Halal industry
            2) If it is not HMC certified, it may or may not be Halal

            The problem with the HMC position:
            1) The HMC inspectors cannot possibly examine each and every chicken, cow, etc. to make sure there is compliance
            2) The HMC inspector does not know what is in the heart of the slaughterer (whether he is a true believer or not)

            The hidden hadith that never gets mentioned by HMC:
            The Hadith which has been reported by Ummul Mumineen Aisha (r.a) states that some people asked the Messenger of Allah (s.a.s), ‘Some people bring meat to us and we do not know if the name of Allah was recited upon it or not.’ He, the Prophet (s.a.s) answered, ‘You should recite the name of Allah upon it and eat.’ Aisha (r.a) adds, ‘these people were new Muslims.’ (Sahih Al Bukhari – Chapter of the Slaughtering of the bedouins and others like them).

            It is obviously wrong to have blinkers on and use this hadith as justification that you can eat at McDonalds because it is quite obvious that it is more likely than not to be haram.

            However, it seems perfectly legitimate to me to use this hadith as justification to trust Halal labelling where you do not have evidence / no way to realistically identify that the halal label may be incorrect.

            I of course am most likely wrong in my view, but I am happy for someone to correct it with a well reasoned and logical counter.

          2. Asalam Alaikum, I have personally visited a couple of slaugherhouses and witnessed both the stunned and non-stunned process. What I witnessed with stunned chickens is that they were not moving. One chicken was taken off the line and upon inspection we found it was dead. Also I observed that the non-stunned chickens blood would spray out and as a result the walls had blood and the overalls would get blood on them too. However with the stunned chickens only a few drops of little blood came out.
            With my observation I concluded that it’s not possible to tell whether the stunned chicken is alive or dead.
            I will say that most people reading and contributing to this discussion will be most likely adults and are accountable for their own decisions. One should not enforce his/her opinion on another. Some of have weaknesses when it comes to consuming food as we find it difficult to try and consume just non-stunned food. However we should not because of our own weaknesses try to defend something which is wrong. Also the non-stunned party should also refrain from criticising muslims who eat stunned chicken as that’s their choice. No one should insist on the other eating what one eats themselves.

          3. Correction to the above – I think I quoted the above hadith out of context. I have come across many others which stress the importance of halal and ensuring what is eaten is halal.

  4. Received this from a Brother:
    Hope it explains the matter,

    Assalamu alaykum Respected Brother Zubair,

    Jazakallah for your efforts and concern for Halal.

    I hope you will receive this e-mail as sincere advice and try to understand a few issues in terms of Halal.

    I can see the purpose and motive of your trip to Freeman’s but to take the burden of millions of chicken being slaughtered after stunning on the basis of a pre-arranged visit to a slaughterhouse is a huge responsibility one is undertaking.

    What one has to realise from an Islamic perspective is that according to Islamic jurists and Muslim scholars around the world, the direct method of Islamic slaughter is the only one that should be employed and can only be the best as the Prophet (PBUH) came to show us everything which is best.

    Even the UK Government recognises that the direct method of slaughter without stunning is the correct accepted Islamic method and hence provides the Muslims along with the Jewish community the privilege to practice their religion when carrying out the Dhabh (see exemption to stun law on DEFRA website).

    Where stunning is used prior to slaughter, what is the ruling concerning the act of stunning? According to majority of Muslim scholars they regard stunning to be at least makruh and some categorise it as makruh tahrimi (very close to Haram).

    That is the act of stunning alone and if that stun kills the animal, then the animal is rendered Haram. (see Regent Park Mosque website

    http://www.iccservices.org.uk/downloads/reports/stunning_issues__definitions_reasons_humaneness.pdf)

    So even without the stunning killing the animal, the act of stunning is considered as a minimum makruh and it has gone against the sunnah method of Dhabh.

    Furthermore, one of the aspects that makes Halal Slaughter method different from Haram is that Halal slaughter allows the drainage of the blood thus makes it pure whereas stunning prevents a large amount of blood being drained.

    In terms of your visit,

    * You say, “I was told about the stunning process being doubtful by a ?reliable source?. And through a little investigation he has turned out to be not so reliable at all.” You cannot generalise ?unreliability of an individual? on the basis of one planned visit to a slaughterhouse. There are many methods of stunning and majority without any supervision of its affects on the animal. Maybe a couple more unannounced visits with a greater sample may make that person reliable again.

    * The stunning method administers a current apparently making the animal unconscious for a short period of time. In your experiment, none of the chickens which were taken off the line died and therefore you reached a conclusion that all the chickens on the line did not die. I think the sample number which were removed from the line in comparison to the number being slaughtered in a day (50/60,000) are too small to be accepted in any fair, unbias and impartial independent study or trial. You fail to mention the number of chickens taken off the line. Even if you had removed 50, this would amount to less than 0.1% of the total slaughtered during that day.

    * Freemans are able to make sure that 60,000 birds a day are definitely alive after stunning and none of them are dead at the time of slaughter and bismillah read on them at a speed of 7000/hour, and you are endorsing this through an e-mail, it is quite an undertaking especially based on one trip in which less than 0.1% were tested for life after stunning.

    * Chickens just like humans come in different sizes, shapes, weights and their ability to absorb a current will differ according to the animal. Is it not possible that a small weak bird might die from the current due to its inability to absorb such a current?

    * Currently there is no independent monitor or monitoring system which checks every bird on the line to verify it is alive prior to slaughter after stunning.

    * The proper method of Islamic slaughter is direct without stunning. The direct method

    ? will relieve the animal from being electrocuted

    ? will leave no doubt in the animal being alive at the time of slaughter

    ? will allow the animal to be conscious at the time of slaughter and hear the name of Allah placing blessings and barakah in the animal

    ? will allow all the blood to flow freely from the animal after slaughter

    The question then arises as to why slaughterhouses use this method and do not produce the animals with the best method of slaughter, direct, non-stunned? The answer to this question is ECONOMICS. Nearly all slaughterhouses use the stunning to increase the speed of the line and help slaughter more animals in an hour, thus increasing profit.

    If Freeman’s are so concerned about Halal for Muslims, why do they not adopt the method of slaughter shown to us by the Prophet of Islam (PBUH)? Should economics dictate the Islamic method of slaughter?

    I would encourage Freeman’s to become non-stunned and spend money in introducing systems in their slaughterhouse where this would become possible without compromising on quality.

    The stunning method of slaughter would never replace the direct sunnah method.

    I would sincerely urge you to consider the above points and if you are still satisfied, then use your visit for your own contentment and do not take the burden of responsibility of millions of chicken being eaten in your name.

    Jazakallah

  5. Salaams all,

    I would like to say 2 things:

    -Mufti Sacha Freemans certifier will not eat from Freemans’ chickens,…try you’ll see…offer him a box of Freemans chicken (he gets his chickens from Ummah poultry a HMC certified non stunned slaughterhouse) and see for yourself,he also said that he didn’t issue certificates to Nandos…

    Ali Bham,the halal manager of freemans is saying to people that he only have the key for the stunner room and he only, has the control of the intensity of the stunning machine…so why is a list of 7 people of the slaughterhouse on that door stating that all thoses individuals have got the key in case of emergency…

    The last time i went there there were only 3 slaughtermen,kurdish,…not saying bismillah,when asked their reply was that we say it in our heart…and they were not practising muslims…

    Obviously Freemans need to make sure that when Br.Zubair comes…every thing must be according to what he is coming for and what they are expecting from him…a great mise en scene…

    Even Bristol university professors,the initiators of the stunning equipment are saying that we can’t garantee a 100% live birds after being stunned…Defra/FSA telling us between 1 to 33 per cent of the chickens dies…

    Is Freemans revolutionning the stunning method of slaughter???…

    I,inch’Allah, can challenge Freemans and Mufti Sacha as he is responsable in front of Allah and will have to answer for the fact that he gave the certificate to freemans to feed us Haram for the sake of money,i want them to give me a carte blanche and a full access to their slaughterhouse at ANYTIME and i want them to allow me to film it.
    If they are that confident they’ll do it with a clear conscience but if they are hiding the real facts then obviously they wont.

    Inch’Allah i’ll be able to pick up dead chickens and show it to everybody.

    And Allah s.w.t is my witness as i have nothing against anyone neither Sacha or Freemans, i just hate when muslims are being abused and mislead.

    That’s my email if they want to take the challenge on:

    siwsi63@yahoo.co.uk

    Come on Mufti Sacha and Nigel Freemans,please do it.

    Dawood B.

  6. Thank you for this. I think Zubair has given us an insight into Freeman’s chicken. However my question would be, ‘When Muslims are exempted from using the stunning method, why are freeman’s using this method?’ ‘Is it not going against the sunnah method, which has to be the most humane? Also reading the 1st comment on here, can we be really sure every animal is alive at the time of slaughter? and finally anyone who has done research can tell you that the sample number is not large enough to make any type of claim or conclusion. I personally would stick with HMC.

    Thanks

    Abdul, London

    1. Because it is a requirement that a sharp knife be used and quickly so that the animal doesn’t know what is about to happen. Islam allows for consensus of the ulema in certain matters. In 2015 with the average DAILY poultry demand in the u.k purported to be in the hundreds of thousands is it any wonder that often non stunned animals suffered from excessive bruising ??? To keep up with the demand the animals are often slaughtered in large batches with animals in the que fretting and being frightened of the fate which awaits them. At least with the small voltage stunning the animals are in a comatosed state and hanging upside the vast majority of blood is draind out. My issue is that the brothers at HMC charge a huge fee, and then label all who don’t sign up to their inspection regime as of either being haram or at the very least dubious in terms of their Halal status. Hmc should follow through on their rigid standards to include seperate waiting areas prior to being slaughtered so that the animals are not made aware of what is about to happen.Unfortunately the huge demand on halal products means this is not feasable so this aspect of shariah is overlooked but the stunning has becom a major issue. Peace

  7. Asalamu alaikum

    Stumbled across this thread while looking for contact details for Masud (Masud please email me – have something I need to speak to you about).

    The whole stunning issue is a minefield and at the end of the day basically comes down to personal choice and what scholars you want to listen to. I had to face this issue due to my business. As a Shafi’i I wrote to scholars in Yemen and they wrote back to me to say stunning does not render meat haram > http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/fatwa-stunning-yemen.html

    I also got the green light from my own Sheikh and also from probably the top scholar of fiqh in the UK at the moment (those who know will know who he is!). There are also numerous fatwa about this > http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/fatwa-stunning.html

    You may also want to read > http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/stunning.html

    I went to a lot of trouble to carry out this research due to getting phone calls from brothers telling me I was selling haram meat! I was getting very upset but alhamdulillah the guidance of the scholars helped me realise that all I can do is my best according to the Sharia.

    Now when it comes to chickens I had my doubts, until this Monday. I went and slaughtered 50 organic chickens. I was extremely impressed by how civilised it all was. The chickens were very calm, were then suddenly stunned by the water, and then I was able to cut them appropriately. I slaughter my own chickens at home so I know how much blood should come out of these animals and they all bled very very nicely. I could also tell each and every one was alive through feeling the breast, seeing movement in their eyes, etc. I am now 100% confident that stunning of chickens is not an issue. For me what is more important is the life the chickens had and that the slaughterman is in a proper place mentally and is saying the tasmiyyah. I would rather eat an organic chicken that has been stunned rather than a barn reared chicken that is not.

    Just for the record – I had to stun these chickens as it is the law. Anything “organic” must be stunned so if you ever find someone selling “organic” and “non-stunned” they are either lying or breaking the law.

    Most people who wade into the stunning issue have not even killed an animal. I have slaughtered over 1000 sheep, 50 goats and around 500 chickens so I know what I am talking about. Electric stunning really is not as bad as it is made out to be.

    One point I constantly hear from people is that stunning hurts the animal. If we follow this logic then we should not slit their throats either as this probably hurts even more.

    Although it is not my personal preference, in the context of an abattoir I think it reduces the suffering of animals, allows for a more relaxed environment and reduces the pressure off slaughtermen (meaning less mistakes).

    People still come to me shocked that we stun animals. At the end of the day I am bound by the laws of the land and the law says if organic then I must stun. Traditional scholars have all said as long as it does not kill then it is halal.

    Allah knows best….

  8. As an employee of Nando’s, i personally believe selected Nando’s Stores sell Halal Chicken only. The reason for this is when Halal Store of Nando’s run out of chicken, they cannot borrow chicken from any other Nando’s unless they sell Halal Chicken.

  9. We need to remember that the Prophet (pbuh) always advocated respect and kindness to animals. Not stunning the animals causes great suffering, fear and pain and Allah is the most Merciful, He will not forgive those who cause this to his creation. Stunning is more humane if you must eat meat, good Muslims should only buy organic, stunned meat, for more information look at Viva website to read about halal and evidence why non stunned meat is considered haram by many scholars. Too many Muslims forget that the Prophet was concerned to stop cruelty towards animals and Allah has decreed that we must behave with kindness and respect towards animals. Good Muslims will reject the eating of meat, particularly that which has been created in evil suffering and pain which not stunning causes

    ——-
    Mas’ud: Whilst personally I don’t have an issue with stunned halal meat, the above comment is totally wrong. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Muslims of his time did not stun animals, how then can some scholars today declare unstunned meat as haram? I am sorry but your comment is way off the mark.

  10. The reason I claim this point to be true is because the Prophet, peace be upon him, was always merciful towards animals and he himself only ate meat five times in his life. We are meant to follow His example! The prophet (pbuh) also replied to the question of whether kindness towards animals would be rewarded in the hereafter, “Yes, there is a meritorious reward to kindness shown to every living creature”. By definition, non stunned animals will feel more pain and suffer more, therefore in causing any pain to His creation, we are not following the teachings correctly. Also, don’t forget that the Prophet (pbuh)also said, “It is a great sin for man to imprison those animals who are in his power”, which I think confirms the fact that we who follow the true path should not buy cheap, factory farmed meat from animals abused for profit. I would say that the scholars who advocate respect for Allah’s creation are following the true spirit of the teachings, and it is only because stunning was not yet invented in the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)that He did not stipulate it as a requirement. The stipulation to use a sharp knife was so as to “cause the animal as little pain as possible”. Surely it follows then that we are beholden to follow this advice. I would say that becoming vegetarian would actually be the most pious fulfillment of the Prophet’s (PBUH) teachings but at the very least stunning should be employed to minimise suffering?

    —–

    Mas’ud: You still can’t make what is halal, haram, if it was cruel then the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have been an absolute vegetarian. He (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not avoid meat because it was cruel. We are on dangerous ground when we start presuming what the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would have done hypothetically without a proper grounding in the science of fiqh. Dhabihah without stunning is NOT cruel if done properly.

  11. I truly believe that it is cruel; anybody with experience of animals knows that they feel pain and fear, and no right thinking person can deny that the abbatoir is a highly frightening place for animals-they are aware of what is happening around them and to have one’s throat cut whilst conscious and aware and then to take minutes to bleed to death is by implication cruel. I know of only one study supporting non stunning as preferable, all other scientific evidence points in the direction that to be unconscious at the moment of the cut is in the animal’s best interests. My argument is not based on speculation, there are numerous examples in both the holy Qu’ran and Hadiths to support the claim that the Prophet (pbuh) was opposed to causing suffering to living creatures, and did not advocate the eating of meat as a duty. Interested parties should check out the numerous papers available online regarding animal abuse and Islam- it is a topic sadly neglected in our faith but the Qu’ran has specifically stated that whosoever harms an animal will be answerable to Allah. I just feel we should respect the Almighty’s creation a lot more than many of us presently do, and that we have firm, factual evidence in the Holy Book which is not subject to interpretation!

  12. i dont care what you all say, i am still going to Nando’s.

    May Allah give us all the intellect to distinguish between right and wrong.

    Wassalam

    Hasan

  13. Asalam alikum

    The fact is stunning is not permissable as stated in Islam therefore the process cannot be halal, it is only halal when the no stunning takes place before Dhabh.

    The stunning is a new invention and not prescribed in Islam. So why are we doing it?

    ============

    Mas’ud says: This is not true, stunning in and of itself is not haraam. The ulama in Malaysia accept stunning as permissible. All meat that is produced on a large scale in Malaysia is stunned and approved by the Malaysian Ulama.

    The preference is that it should be unstunned and perhaps that would be more scrupulous, but with the demand in meat in this day and age it would be impossible to maintain the supply using conventional means, which would then lead to animal welfare issues.

    ============

    The effect of haram is not only in slaughter but in the person also I belive eating and living halal effects ones life, children InshAllah. allah swt know best ..

    Walikum Asalam

    ============

    Mas’ud says: I agree, however, the halal of dhabh is not just the running of the knife on the animal, it includes animal welfare and many integrals that have to be fulfilled prior to slaughtering as well as during slaughterng. I would urge everyone to learn these integrals and then go and visit slaughterhouses and you will see regular violations of the integrals of meat you would consider halal.

  14. I have read the article and the posts that follow. All I can say is that the simple fact that there is doubt as to whether this is Halal or Haram, surely we should try not to eat meat that we have the slightest bit of doubt.

    And Allah (swt) knows best.

  15. Brothers that do the research for the halal killing may Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts i only eat unstunned chickern can anyone tell me were i can slaugheter
    chickern for my shop if anyone knows please this is my e-mail cheekymoo@fsmail.net

  16. THE MORE I READ THE MORE I BECOME DOUBTFUL OF OUR HALAL BUTCHERS AND NOW I DONT KNOW WHERE TO FIND PROPER HALAL MEAT/CHICKEN…

  17. brothers where are these two farms located and are they open to the public to go and slaughter them with their own hands.

    please get back to me with the addresses.

    jazakallah

  18. Salaams All,

    May Allah (swt) bless and reward everyone who are seeking the truth and are striving towards pleasing the Almighty – Ameen

    Guys I think we’re totally losing the plot here, the reason why stunning takes place is nothing to do with being humane and kind to animals, it is totally and equivocally for financial reasons and no other. Is it Sunnah to stun animals??? No!! Did the prophet (pbuh) stun animals before sacrificing them? No !!
    Is there an alternative available?? Yes.

    Lets face facts, the reason why stunning takes place is purely financial and there’s only one group of people that are to be blamed for all this, it certainly not the slaughter houses it’s us the general muslim population, why are we not prepared to pay a measley 5p extra for unstunned meat??? I’m sure if Freemans or any other poultry supplier was asked not to stun meat and we’ll pay the extra then who in the right mind would say ‘No’. This is a business to them and us as consumers also need to take some responsibility. Food for thought (excuse the pun) an average unstunned Kosher chicken costs £6, is the UK muslim society prepared to pay that price??

  19. Salaams All,
    It’s very nice to see that people are concerned enough about their Deen to go to the lengths apparent from the above to please Allah. May Allah give us all similar zeal to please him. Aameen.
    A few points I wanted to make:
    1. Although it’s very good to add to the debate by carrying out research, but shouldn’t we leave the decisions to the Ulama. If a person wants to make his own decision based on his own research, that’s another issue, but should we, as the general public generally be doing taqleed of the scholars. They are responsible to look at all the angles and consult the relevant people (slaughterers, farmer, etc.) and I would assume that they do. Their final decision is going to be based on all of this thought but they’re not going to go around writing PHD dissertations on each fatwa they give. When raising many of the concerns mentioned above in front of such scholars, one often learns that their experience, knowledge, and foresight is way above ours and our narrow perspectives. It’s just that they don’t go around talking about the lengths that they go to. In brief, it’s safer for the general public to do taqleed of whichever sheikh they deem most reliable and mention any doubts they have to them. For those who feel their knowledge is broader and superior, maybe they should not call others towards following their opinion until they have the authority as it causes much confusion and chaos for the general public.
    2. I’m not sure of Cllr. Salim’s background, but if he’s a scholar, he should write his fatawa under the title of Mufti etc. (The prophet (SAW) used to write in his letters, “From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah”, and similarly the Khulafa after him). A Islamic legal ruling coming from a councillor, or even a criticism of one really does not do justice to the concept of Isnaad and Ijaazah and can be very dangerous.
    3. The issue of stunning etc. is obviously a new and contemporary one which was not discussed by the early scholars. Just how they had differences of opinion in matters they faced (even regarding the severing of veins in the slaughter process), it’s almost inevitable that the scholars of today will also have similar Ikhtilaaf. We should be prepared to accommodate this and have the breadth that our predecessors and adopt the etiquettes of divergence they taught us. As time goes further away from the time of the Prophet (saaw), we’re more likely to have Ikhtilaaf in matters of Fiqh, but we seem more allergic to it than our predecessors.
    4. On a smaller note, Mufti Sacha’s not eating stunned chicken himself says nothing. Many pious Ulama have always maintained a policy of “apne liye taqwa awr dosre ke liye fatwa”, that they chose the harshest and most prudent opinion for themselves, but allow people to follow a more lenient, yet credible, opinion. I feel it’s a sign of a true Mufti.
    5. It’s very dangerous to get over emotional about, start politicising, start name bashing, and laying down challenges regarding particulars, Furoo’aat. They are Mujtahad fih and the context shouldn’t be forgotten.

    Key points:
    Adab al-Ikhtilaaf
    Importance of Taqleed
    The requisites of authority.

    These are just a few thoughts that came to mind after reading the above posts. I sincerely apologise if I have caused anyone offence. It is not directed to any individual (accept the councillor as he is a political figure).
    Criticisms welcome,
    Muhammad

  20. AOA all

    Can someone tell me how stunning makes the meat cheaper for us to buy? as in, in what way is purely for financial gains? does’nt equipment used to stun cost money to the slaughterhouses? I don’t get it so pardon my ignorance.

    And yes I would pay that extra 5p more if it was not stunned.

    I am no scholar, just a commoner but from what I think, there is no room for stunning an animal, it is an added step to the journey of suffering for the animal don’t you think? I am talking of the actual moment of being stunned? then the moment of the blade running across the throat. The wings still flap of the stunned chicken but can this not be likened to the situation where someone is in a coma? who is fully aware of his surroundings but unable to open the eyes and scream if a blade is run across its flesh? I think that is awful.

    Science as well as doing well in advancements, also has its limitations

  21. Salam. JKK for this – this is 2014 now and the 4th time I’m having to look into this. I wonder if you’ve had any further experience on this topic given the recent ‘regulations’ from the EU and whether Freemans are going to review their stunning methods in that light?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *