Rainbow Haraam Chickens?

25Feb09

A SUMMARY OF OUR REFUTATION OF MUFTI RADHAUL HAQ’S ‘FATWA’ Mufti Radhaul Haq of Madrasah Zakariyya had undertaken a pre-arranged mock inspection of Rainbow Chickens under the auspices of SANHA. Subsequently, the Mufti issued a ‘fatwa’ declaring Rainbow’s haraam killing system to be permissible.

Since the Mufti’s ‘fatwa’ was not a Shar’i Fatwa – rather it was a product of personal opinion unsubstantiated by evidence of the Shariah – we prepared a refutation which is in book form consisting of 140 pages. The book is currently under print. Whoever wishes, may write for a copy of the book. In this SUMMARY we have condensed the main arguments of the Mufti and our response.

Opinion expressed here is not necessarily that of  halaal.wodpress.com and those behind it.

(1) FACING THE QIBLAH A requirement of the Shariah’s system of Thabah (Slaughtering) is that both the slaughterer and the animal should be facing the Qiblah. The Mufti’s argument: According to the Hanafi Math-hab there are two views: Sunnatul Muakkadah and Mustahab. According to the other three Math-habs, facing the Qiblah is Mustahab. For the sake of facilitating the slaughtering process of Rainbow Chickens, it is best to adopt the second view, viz., Istihbaab (Mustahab) of the Hanafi Math-hab so that there is uniformity with the other three Math-habs. In view of the Qiblah being Mustahab, the implication is that its omission is a non-issue which has no effect. OUR RESPONSE: The argument of the Mufti is baseless. There are no two views in the Hanafi Math-hab. According to the Hanafi Math-hab, the Qiblah requisite is Sunnatul Muakkadah. There is no Istihbaab view. The Mufti has confused the literal meaning of the term with its technical meaning, hence his erroneous extrapolation of Istihbaab plunged him into extravagation – into error. His claim that according to the other three Math-habs, the Qiblah factor is Mustahab, is likewise baseless. According to all three Math-habs, it is Sunnatul Muakkadah, hence its omission is unanimously haraam (Makrooh Tahrimi). Read the elaboration in our Book of Refutation. Thus, the Qiblah requisite is not a non-issue. Its omission is haraam. The Mufti’s argument is his personal opinion based on conspicuous error in understanding the Kutub.

(2) SHACKLING THE CHICKENS UPSIDE DOWN According to the Shariah, it is incumbent to lay the animal down facing the Qiblah and to slaughter it WITHOUT infliction of any type of pre-slaughter injury, pain or cruelty. According to the Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), this prohibition includes even mental pain and anguish. Details in our Book of Refutation. The Mufti’s Argument: The only silly argument proffered by the Mufti to justify this cruel practice is the practice of the ignorant villagers in Pakistan and India where they walk long distances with chickens, legs tied and carried upside down. OUR RESPONSE: This is the only ‘daleel’ which the Mufti has managed to scrape from the dregs of the barrel. The presentation of a cruel practice of ignorant rustics as a ‘daleel’ to justify Rainbow’s cruel shackling upside down practice staggers credulity. The presentation of this silly argument, insulting to intelligence, only highlights the Mufti’s error.

(3) WATERBOARDING THE CHICKENS After the chickens are cruelly shackled upside down, they are dragged through a trough of electrified water with their heads fully submerged under the torturous water. This cruelty is palpably haraam. The Mufti’s Argument: According to the Mufti only the beaks of the chickens are immersed in the electrified water. OUR RESPONSE: This is false. Irrefutable evidence establishes that the whole heads of the chickens are submerged in the water. The ‘only beak’ scene was a fraudulent act displayed to dupe the Mufti who had participated in the pre-plotted pantomime inspection. Even Molvis who had participated in SANHA’s 14 team mock inspection during October 2008 have confirmed personally to us that the heads of the chickens are fully submerged in the electrified water. The evidence to debunk the Mufti’s claim is overwhelming. Besides this specific point, it remains haraam to drag the heads of the chickens through electrified water. The Mufti proferred no Shar’i response for this cruelty.

(4) ELECTRIC SHOCKING OF THE CHICKENS After shackling the chickens upside down, they are dragged through electrified water. They are horrifically shocked. While their muscles are immobilized, they remain conscious, but unable to move. Details in our Book of Refutation. This horrendous cruelty is haraam. The Mufti’s Argument: Electrically shocking the chickens is permissible because it is similar to the application of anaesethics to a patient undergoing an operation. Just as the patient drifts of into a peaceful slumber, so too is the effect of electrical shocking. Administration of electric current through the body is tantamount to anesethics. Thus, it is permissible to electrically shock the chickens prior to slaughtering them. Electrical shocking is an ‘instrument of raahat (comfort, tranquillity and serenity). OUR RESPONSE: The Mufti has insulted his own intelligence by presenting this absurd explanation which even rustics will scoff and mock at. The Mufti should allow himself to be electrically shocked to discover the ’soothing’ effect and the ‘drift into a peaceful slumber’ which he believes are the consequences of electrical shocking. The U.S.A. is about to close down its torture facility in Guantanamo Bay. The Mufti should make it a point to interview some of the released Brothers to discover from them the effects of waterboarding and electrical shocking. He may then gain a better understanding and desist from immolation of his intelligence by presenting ludicrous arguments. He may ask a doctor if it is viable to substitute anaesethics with electrical shocking to send the patient off into the realm of serene oblivion. Again he has been unable to present a single Shar’i reference or argument to justify this horrific pre-slaughter act of brutality which is palpably haraam in terms of the Shariah.

(5) THE HORRRIFIC CAPTIVE BOLT STUNNING OF CATTLE Digressing from the chicken issue, the Mufti introduced the captive bolt stunning system which is perpetrated on cattle prior to slaughtering them. In this system, a 10 cm metal bolt is shot into the skull of the animal. It smashes the brains of the cattle. Sometimes two and even three shots become necessary. Any Muslim who observes this savage, barbaric, horrific haraam act of brutality by which the cow’s brains are smashed, will, we are sure, abstain from eating beef forever. The Mufti’s Argument: The shooting of the metal bolt into the brains of the animal produces peaceful unconsciousness which facilitates the slaughtering process. Hence, there is no fundamental corruption in this method. OUR RESPONSE: Firstly, the Mufti has provided no Shar’i evidence to support his view of permissibility for this brutal act of torture. Commonsense and personal observation adequately confirm the horror of this brutal pre-slaughter method. The research of expert scientists provide irrefutable evidence to prove that the animals suffer horrible pain when the metal bolt is shot into their brains. The immobilization of the animal should not be misconstrued. It is not unconsciousness. This is a horrific pre-slaughter infliction of brutality which Islam prohibits. The Mufti has abortively attempted to abrogate with his personal opinion Islam’s prohibition of pre-slaughter injury, pain and cruelty. He has miserably failed to produce even a semblance of textual Shar’i proof to bolster his corrupt opinion.

(6) PLUNGING THE CHICKENS ALIVE INTO SCALDING WATER At Rainbow and all commercial killing plants, almost immediately after the neck-slitting, the chickens enter into the scalder, i.e. the tank of scalding water. The chickens are plunged into the scalding water while there is still life in them. They kick, flutter and struggle pitifully inside the scalding water where they are scalded to death. Mufti Afzal Elias, SANHA’s handpicked inspector at the October 2008 pantomime inspection was horrified to observe this torture of the chickens. He roundly condemned this brutality in the harshest terms. The Mufti’s Argument: It is permissible to begin skinning and defeathering animals and chickens even while they are still alive. From an obscure kitaab he has inferred that skinning animals alive, i.e. before all life has terminated, is permissible according to the majority of the Fuqaha. OUR RESPONSE: His inference is a massive error due to gross misinterpretation of the ibaarat (text) which he extracted from the obscure kitaab. His inference is incorrect. It is haraam to begin skinning and defeathering while there are still signs of life in the animal/chicken. This savagery is repugnant and revolting to every Muslim who is unrelated to the broiler-chicken industry. The stark brutality of this savage act can never be accepted as permissible by any Muslim. This inference is in diametric conflict and rejection of Rasulullah’s categoric prohibition on this cruel practice. Skinning, defeathering and any kind of mutilation while there is life in the animal is haraam according to all four Math-habs. The Mufti’s personal opinion, namely, skinning the animal while there is still life in it, exhibits his total imperviousness with regard to the suffering inflicted on the Makhlooq of Allah Ta’ala. There is not the slightest corroboration for this haraam act in any Math-hab. Details in our Book of Refutation.

(7) THE TASMIYAH Recitation of Tasmiyah is fardh on every chicken which is slaughtered. At Rainbow, each slaughterer has to slaughter approximately 19,000 chickens in an 8 hour shift. Slaughterers have stated under oath in signed Affidavits that they hardly recite Tasmiyah since it is impossible to recite this huge amount of Tasmiyah. They practice mass neglect and abandonment of Tasmiyah. The Mufti’s Argument: The slaughterers are able to comfortably recite Tasmiyah. He claims that he stood reciting Tasmiyah while the men were slaughtering. He was able to recite Tasmiyah, hence this confirms that the slaughterers do recite Tasmiyah on every chicken. Furthermore, he said that since the slaughterers are Muslims, it should be taken for granted that they do recite Tasmiyah. OUR RESPONSE: The Mufti stood in comfort with his hands behind his back for a few moments, without the physical hardship of cutting 19,000 chickens on a swift moving conveyor belt with chickens whizzing past, with blood splattering. Standing divorced from the appalling circumstances in which the slaughterers are mired, and mumbling Tasmiyah without exerting the slightest effort of physical labour and without standing and working in and with blood for 8 hours is an entirely different matter. The comparison of his recitation with the slaughterers is laughable. Secondly, the slaughterers themselves have testified that they do NOT recite Tasmiyah. Hence, it cannot be taken for granted that they recite Tasmiyah. Thirdly, the practical circumstances on the ground in the killing facility negate the contention that Tasmiyah is recited on every bird. Fourthly the slaughterers do not perform Salaat, not even Jumuah nor Eid. Many of them are on drugs. Some consume liquor. The reality of deliberate neglect of Tasmiyah cannot be denied.

(8) THE TWO INSPECTORS There are two floor inspectors at Rainbow whose function is to ensure that the slaughtering takes place in compliance with the Shariah. The Mufti’s Argument: There is a Muslim inspector appointed by Rainbow and a Muslim inspector appointed by SANHA. They supervise the slaughtering, hence the Mufti says: “In my opinion the slaughtered fowls are halaal and Muslims can eat them.” OUR RESPONSE: The one inspector is on Rainbow’s payroll while the other is on Sanha’s payroll. Both these enteritis (Rainbow and SANHA) are persona non grata. Both are indicted for wholesale violation of the Shariah. The entire system of killing chickens is haraam. SANHA has for years practised massive fraud by covering up the evidence which confirms that the chickens are haraam carrion. Rainbow is a non-Muslim entity. Its inspector is no better than SANHA’S. They are all in collaboration to sustain the halaalized carrion and the haraam slaughtering system. They had at no stage in the years of employment exposed the haraam cover-ups. They are complicit with SANHA in feeding the Ummah haraam, diseased carrion. The word of these fussaaq inspectors stands condemned and rejected. The indicted criminals cannot be cited as evidence for their own exoneration from the crimes they are guilty of.

(9) SLAUGHTERING DEAD CHICKENS Our contention is that numerous chickens – a large percentage – die in consequence of the violent handling, drowning and electrical shocking. These chickens are also slaughtered and marketed as halaal. The Mufti’s Argument: Countering this charge, the Mufti says that care is exercised at three different points to ensure that dead chickens are not slaughtered. One: The menial labourers who shackle the chickens first thoroughly examine the birds to ensure that dead chickens are not shackled. Two: The slaughterer examines the birds prior to slaughter. Three: A man stands or sits at a distance from the slaughterers. He examines the birds. If any chicken’s colour has changed, he separates it. OUR RESPONSE: This argument is baseless and puerile. The menial labourers yank the chickens violently from the crates and shackle them swiftly on shackles moving on a line with a speed of up to 180 birds per minute. The contention of these irresponsible cheap labourers submitting each chicken to an examination is palpably erroneous. There is no time for scrutiny nor are these labourers concerned. They yank and shackle. This is their job -to yank and to shackle at high speed because the line is moving at a tremendous speed. The slaughterers testify that the labourers do not examine the birds. There is no time for any examination. The contention that the slaughterers examine the birds to detect dead chickens is false. The slaughterers themselves claim that with the fast speeding line, with their blood-splattered masks which cover their faces and with the appalling conditions of the job, it is not possible for them to always distinguish between stunned and dead birds. Further, it is not possible to make an examination when only a second or a second and a half is available for the slaughtering and the examination. How is it possible to examine the chickens on the fast-moving line, and in the circumstances explained? Consequently, they slaughter even dead birds. Three: The worker whose function it is to remove ‘pink’ birds, at times falls asleep on the chair according to the slaughterers. This worker is a non-Muslim who cannot be expected to religiously observe the requirements of Thabah when even the Muslim ‘halaalizers’ condone all the haraam irregularities. Further, not all dead birds turn pink. Birds which die as a result of the electrical shocking, reach the slaughter in a matter of seconds. When these dead birds are slaughtered, the blood drains, hence they do not become ‘pink’. They pass with all the other killed chickens and are cut up and packed into the halaal-stamped packets. All three measures are imaginary, devoid of reality. The dead birds remain largely undetectable.

(10) SUPERVISION When meat products are sold to Muslims by non-Muslims, the Shariah imposes the strict condition of supervision. From the point of slaughter to the time the meat reaches the Muslim consumer, it has to be compulsorily under Muslim supervision. In this regard, the Mufti has adopted silence. He made no comment on this issue. From the moment the slaughtered chickens leave the slaughterers until the time the diseased chickens reach the Muslim consumer, there is a conspicuous and total absence of Muslim supervision. After the chickens leave the slaughterers, every step is in the control and supervision of non-Muslims. The chickens are cut up and packed into packets by non-Muslims. There is no Muslim supervising the process. The packed chickens remain under the control of non-Muslims until they are delivered to Muslims by non-Muslims. CONCLUSION The report which the Mufti wrote about his inspection is not a Shar’i Fatwa. Not a single of his arguments is based on Shar’i evidence, hence he was constrained to say: “In my opinion the fowls are halaal.” His opinion is faasid. The Mufti attempts in his ‘fatwa’ to override the fourteen century Islamic system of Thabah. He negated every Sunnatul Muakkadah act of the Masnoon system of Thabah, and condoned every Haraam (Makrooh Tahrimi) malpractice. He accorded permissibility to horrific acts of kuffaar brutality. He has resorted to Baatil Ta’weel (baseless and false interpretation) to bolster his personal opinion. Read our Book of Refutation to better understand the blunders committed by the Mufti. THE AIM AND OBJECT OF A FATWA A fatwa is an edict or ruling which is structured on the basis of the principles and subsidiary particulars of the Shariah, hence it carries the weight and command of the Shariah. A fatwa is not the personal opinion of the mufti. It is dangerous and not permissible for a mufti to present his personal opinion in the guise of a Shar’i fatwa when he lacks firm Shar’i basis for its substantiation. The purpose of the fatwa is to guide the community of Muslims towards Allah Ta’ala. It has to create awareness of accountability in the Divine Court. It may not be designed to weaken the bond with the Deen. It is essential for the mufti to be far-sighted and imbued with Taqwa to enable him to comprehend the effects of the fatwa he issues. While a fatwa is not designed to impose undue hardship on the masses, at the same time it should not make Muslims oblivious of the Maqsad (Purpose) for which they have been created and despatched to earth for this extremely short earthly sojourn. Mufti Radhaul Haq’s ‘fatwa’ is most certainly not a Ruling of the Shariah. It lacks a Shar’i basis. In short, it is the product of his personal opinion for which he has no Shar’i corroboration. His ‘fatwa’ is a conspicuous defense for SANHA and Rainbow Chickens. It miserably fails to take cognizance of the safety of the Imaan and Akhlaaq of the Muslim community. Despite the raging controversy and severity of the dispute surrounding the carrion-chicken saga, the Mufti had no qualms about encouraging Muslims to consume chickens which even non-Muslim experts and researchers claim cause cancer, heart disease and other serious diseases. If he had made a thorough research of the broiler-chicken industry, he, as a senior Mufti, would have branded the whole industry haraam on the basis of the factors of Dharar (Harm) and Zulm (Cruelty). There would be no need for the technicality of Tasmiyah and other related issues such as the Qiblah to extrapolate the verdict of Hurmat. If the Mufti honestly and sincerely believes that the rotten, diseased carrion produced commercially is ‘halaal’, his Office demanded that he took cognizance of the vehemence of the proponents of the Haraam view, and advise the community to abstain, since such abstention is the command of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regarding Mushtabah (Doubtful) issues. But the Mufti violated this Command of the Nabi by encouraging Muslims to devour with gluttony the chickens which we and other Ulama too believe are haraam and diseased carrion. It is not too late for the Mufti to retract his ‘fatwa’. The spiritual welfare and fear of Allah should be uppermost in the mind.

May Allah Ta’ala bestow to us all the necessary Taufeeq of the Haqq.

By: Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa
PO Box 3393
Port Elizabeth, 6056
South Africa

Filed under: International, Local, South Africa, health   |  Leave a Comment