Muslims in the US having problem with ‘halal meat’

The reliability of the establishments claiming to possess a ‘halal meat certificate’ is raising concerns among Muslims living in the United States since the owner of the biggest halal slaughter facility said 60 percent of “halal” certified meat was not actually halal.

The demand for “halal meat” from millions of Muslims in the US is met by many facilities.

The slaughter facilities are inspected by several certification bodies but there are also black sheep among them which send the certificate via internet.

Especially in New York’s smallest and most densely populated neighborhood, Manhattan, Muslims can buy “halal meat” certified food on every corner.

However, questions have been raised about the hygienic conditions and whether the meat was slaughtered according to Islamic law or not.

Süleyman Duman, an official for Islamic services in the Turkish Consulate General in New York said, “our people who live abroad must examine whether the meat they consume is halal slaughtered or not.”

The Islamic halal method of killing an animal requires its throat to be slit and the blood to be drained. Duman said that a Muslim had to say the words “Bismillahi Allahu Akbar” before slaughtering the animal, and added that he had to cut its throat and let it bleed before using electroshock.

However in Sweden, for example, this method is forbidden because the animals are not anaesthetized before slaughter.

Ali Küçükkarca, the owner of the biggest halal slaughter facility in the east of the US, also said many institutions which gave halal certificates were not reliable.

“Sixty percent of the meat which is being sold with halal certificate in New York and New Jersey is not halal,” Küçükkarca said. He added that some Turkish butchers also sold meat which was not halal, saying, “one of the most reliable and biggest institutions giving the ‘halal meat’ certificate is ‘Shari’ah Board of America’.”

Küçükkarca recalled that the Jewish butchers were also checked by inspectors who handed out certificates. “But the inspectors who check the Muslim facilities do not visit their stores or control anything because the Muslim community does not make such a demand.”

Dirty wars, Filthy hands: 5 unsavory ways America conducts its global war on terror

May 2013  | The recent revelation that the Central Intelligence Agency has handed tens of millions of dollars over to the offices of the president of Afghanistan should come as no surprise. The CIA has a long history of this sort of activity. And most importantly, it’s the latest reminder of how America’s global “war on terror” has been forged through backroom deals, cold hard cash and the fostering of corruption.

From Yemen to Afghanistan to Somalia, America has prosecuted its perpetual war the usual way U.S. foreign policy is conducted: partnerships with unsavory leaders who are corrupt and commit abuses. Here are five striking examples of how the U.S. global war has been characterized by unsavory activity since 2001.

1. Bounty Payments For Alleged Terrorists

Cash payments in Afghanistan aren’t limited to the CIA paying off corrupt Afghan government officials. The lure of money played a major role at the start of the war on Afghanistan when the U.S. was looking for suspected terrorists to arrest and eventually throw in Guantanamo detention camp. The U.S. offered thousands of dollars to people to turn in alleged terrorists; 86% of all Guantanamo prisoners were people who were captured by bounty hunters, according to a report published by Seton Hall University in 2005. Many of them ended up being innocent of any crime–another clear example of how money is a corrupting tool in America’s never-ending global war.

The U.S. paid off Afghan warlords to capture people they suspected of having a role in terrorism. The payments ranged from $3,000 to 25,000, according to theAssociated Press. The U.S. also gave money to Pakistani security forces to do the same. The AP article on bounties for people who ended up at Guantanamo reported that “a detainee who said he was a Saudi businessman claimed, ‘The Pakistani police sold me for money to the Americans.’ ‘This was part of a roundup of all foreigners and Arabs in that area,’ of Pakistan near the Afghan border.”

Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf admitted the bounty payments to security forces in his memoir, published in 2006. “We have captured 689 and handed over 369 to the United States. We have earned bounties totalling millions of dollars. Those who habitually accuse U.S. of not doing enough in the war on terror should simply ask the CIA how much prize money it has paid to the Government of Pakistan,” he wrote.

2. Secret Blood-Soaked Deal With Pakistan

Despite the on-again, off-again nature of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, the country has been a major partner in the U.S. “war on terror.” The country’s tribal areas have been pounded by American drones. While the Pakistani government has never outright admitted that it accepts all drone strikes, their former president said it signed off on at least some. And Pakistan has never shot down a U.S. drone, is told about strikes in advance and even clears its airspace so drones can fly unimpeded.

The American program of drone strikes in Pakistan–which has killed between 2,541-3,533 people, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism–started out with a secret, blood-soaked deal which wasn’t revealed until this year in a book by New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti. Here’s how the deal went down: in 2004, the Pakistani government wanted a tribal leader allied with the Pakistani Taliban dead. Nek Muhammad had been leading a fight against Pakistani troops in the largely ungoverned tribal areas of Pakistan. And for a few years, the government had balked at allowing the CIA to wage a campaign of drone strikes.

But all that changed with a secret deal: the CIA would kill Muhammad in exchange for the use of airspace for its drones. Despite the fact that Muhammad was thought to be more a Pakistani internal problem than a threat to U.S. security, a drone ripped through his compound, killing him and two young boys. That paved the way for a ferocious campaign of U.S. drone strikes in the country that continues today.

Mazzetti detailed the terms of the deal in an excerpt of his book in the New York Times: “Pakistani intelligence officials insisted that they be allowed to approve each drone strike, giving them tight control over the list of targets. And they insisted that drones fly only in narrow parts of the tribal areas…The ISI and the C.I.A. agreed that all drone flights in Pakistan would operate under the C.I.A.’s covert action authority — meaning that the United States would never acknowledge the missile strikes and that Pakistan would either take credit for the individual killings or remain silent.”

Indeed, the Pakistani government lied through its teeth about the killing of Muhammad. It told its people he was killed by troops who fired a rocket at him.

3. Keeping U.S. Strikes in Yemen Secret

The first American strike on Yemen occurred in 2002, but it wasn’t until the Obama administration took office that a ramped-up military campaign commenced that has so far killed between an estimated 232-333 people. But the Yemeni government wanted to keep that campaign secret because the assassination by drone program is deeply unpopular among the civilian population. The Obama administration, which has been far from transparent about its drone program and other activities in Yemen, happily obliged.

The evidence for this comes via WikiLeaks. In January 2010, General David Petraeus, then the head of US Central Command, met with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of Yemen at the time. Their discussion centered around U.S. assistance for Yemen’s fight against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. By that time, the U.S. had conducted a few cruise missile and drone strikes on Yemeni territory to beat back the militant group which has been accused of plotting attacks on the U.S.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh told Petraeus. That telling line was prompted by a discussion about a controversial cruise missile strike that occurred in December 2009 that killed 41 civilians, including women and children. The Yemeni government insisted it carried out the attack in al-Ma’jalah, Abyan.

Yemen’s Deputy Prime Minister Alimi joked that “he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG.” The reference to Arhab and Shebwa was a nod to other American attacks on Yemen in those areas.

It was Amnesty International that exposed the fact of U.S. involvement in the strike. The human rights group published photos of U.S. cluster munitions and Tomahawk cruise missiles that were used in the deadly strike in al-Ma’jalah.

Despite the fact that the drone program is deeply unpopular in Yemen and has helped fuel Al Qaeda recruitment, the campaign continues, though it has become untenable to pretend that the Yemeni military was carrying out the attacks. In September 2012, the new Yemeni president, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, praised U.S. drone strikes in his country. “They pinpoint the target and have zero margin of error, if you know what target you’re aiming at,” he said. The U.S., though, continues to maintain a policy of silence on specific drone strikes in the country.

4. Working With Somali Warlords

Somalia is yet another front in the U.S. war on terror. Since 2011, the U.S. has carried out drone strikes on the country targeting al-Shabaab, an Islamist militant group in the country that is also an affiliate of Al Qaeda. The U.S. has also snatched and rendered alleged terrorists in the country and has operated a secret prison there run by the CIA.

To do all this, U.S. intelligence and military officials have worked with unsavory Somali warlords and intelligence agents. Nation investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill exposed details of the CIA’s backing of Mohamed Afrah Qanyare, a notorious Somali warlord. Since Qanyare owned a secretive airport the CIA wanted to use, they began paying him $100,000 to $150,000 a month. Although the U.S. did not begin carrying out direct strikes in the country until 2007, Qanyare thought he had U.S. backing to carry out his own attacks. So he and other warlords began hunting down people they thought Washington would want taken care of, according to Scahill’s reporting. But these activities ended up producing blowback and empowered Al Qaeda-affiliated forces, much as other U.S. policies, like supporting Ethiopia’s war in the country, ended up spreading militant influence.

“These people were already heinous warlords; they were widely reviled in Mogadishu. And then they start assassinating imams and local prayer leaders who had nothing to do with terror,” one expert on Somalia, Abdirahman “Aynte” Ali, told theNation. “They were either capturing them and then renditioning them to Djibouti, where there is a major American base, or in many cases they were chopping their head off and taking the head to the Americans or whoever. And telling them, ‘We killed this guy.’”

Another example of misguided policy is the secret sites the U.S. operates in Somalia, which Scahill also exposed. One of the sites is a prison used by the CIA and run by Somali intelligence agents, who get paid $200 a month. The prisoners held at the site in Mogadishu are alleged members of al-Shabaab. But some of them have been held for over a year, and haven’t been charged with a crime.

And in 2003, a Somali militia sold an alleged Al Qaeda member named Suleiman Abdallah to the CIA after capturing him from a hospital. Abdallah was then spirited off to Kenya, and eventually to Afghanistan. He was reportedly beaten and tortured by CIA agents. No charges were ever brought against him, and he was released in 2008.

5. Cash for the Karzais

The New York Times revealed April 29 that “wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan’s president — courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency.” The literal bags of cash to Karzai’s office were made in an effort to influence the Afghan president and maintain access to his inner circle, thus ensuring that the CIA continued to play a role in prosecuting the Afghanistan war.

What the cash ended up doing, though, was fueling corruption–an inevitable outcome considering the fact that Karzai and his family are known to be corrupt, as WikiLeaks cables revealed.

The money went to paying off warlords and politicians, “many of whom have ties to the drug trade and, in some cases, the Taliban,” the New York Times reported. The CIA pays these unsavory figures to ensure that they continue serving as proxies in the fight against the Taliban. In turn, the money ended up bolstering the corrupt patronage networks the U.S. insists it wants dismantled. Some of the money also went directly into the pockets of aides to the Afghan president.

This isn’t the first time the CIA was caught paying off corrupt Afghan officials. In October 2009, the New York Times exposed cash payments to Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president’s brother and a powerful figure in southern Afghanistan. The intelligence agency made the payments because Karzai helps operate an Afghan paramilitary force that is a partner in the CIA’s effort against militants battling the U.S. occupation of the country. There was a big problem with these payments: Ahmed Karzai is suspected of being a major player in the drug trade in Afghanistan, the same drug trade the U.S. has been fighting against.

“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” one U.S. military intelligence official told the New York Times.

So despite high-minded rhetoric from U.S. leaders about how American wars are conducted, cash payments, backroom deals and the fostering of corruption are the norm. The CIA’s payments to corrupt Afghan leaders are the latest in a long line of counter-productive U.S. actions taken in the name of the war on terror. And if history is any guide, more of these activities will be revealed in the future.

The conversion of the Mongols: The power of Da’wah

Islam was about to be submerged in the whirlpool of the Mongol ardor of slaughter and destruction, as several Muslim writers had then expressed the fear, wiping it out of existence, but Islam suddenly began to capture the hearts of the savage Tartars. The preachers of Islam thus accomplished a task which the swordarm of the faith had failed to perform, by carrying the message of Islam to the barbaric hordes of heathen Mongols.

Conversion of the Mongols to Islam was indeed one of the few unpredictable events of history. The Tartaric wave of conquest which had swept away the entire Islamic east within a short period of one year was, in truth, not so astounding as the Mongol’s acceptance of Islam during the zenith of their glory; for the Muslims had, by the beginning of the seventh century of Muslim era, imbibed all those vices which are a natural outcome of opulence, luxury, and fast living. The Mongols were, on the other hand, a wild and ferocious, yet vigorous and sturdy, race who could have hardly been expected to submit to the spiritual and cultural superiority of a people who were so completely subdued by them, a people whom they despised and looked down upon. T. W. Arnold expressed his amazement over the achievement of this unbelievable feat in his The Preaching of Islam:

“But Islam was to rise again from the ashes of its former grandeur and through its preachers win over these savage conquerors to the acceptance of the faith. This was a task for the missionary energies of Islam that was rendered more difficult from the fact that there were two powerful competitors in the field. The spectacle of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam emulously striving to win the allegiance of the fierce conquerors that had set their feet on the necks of adherents of these great missionary religions, is one that is without parallel in the history of the world.

“For Islam to enter into competition with such powerful rivals as Buddhism and Christianity were at the outset of the period of Mongol rule, must have appeared a well nigh hopeless undertaking. For the Muslims had suffered more from the storm of the Mongol invasions than the others. Those cities that had hitherto been the rallying points of spiritual organization and learning for Islam in Asia, had been for the most part laid in ashes: the theologians and pious doctors of the faith, either slain or carried away into captivity. Among the Mongol rulers — usually so tolerant towards all religions — there were some who exhibited varying degrees of hatred towards the Muslim faith. Chingiz Khan ordered all those who killed animals in the Muhammadan fashion to be put to death, and this ordinance was revived by Qubilay, who by offering rewards to informers set on foot a sharp persecution that lasted for seven years, as many poor persons took advantage of this ready means of gaining wealth, and slaves accused their masters in order to gain their freedom. During the reign of Kuyuk (1246-1248) who left the conduct of affairs entirely to his two Christian ministers and whose court was filled with Christian monks, the Muhammadans were made to suffer great severities.

“Arghun (1284-1291) the fourth Ilkhan persecuted the Musalmans and took away from them all posts in the departments of justice and finance, and forbade them to appear at his court.

“In spite of all difficulties, however, the Mongols and the savage tribes that followed in their wake were at length brought to submit to the faith of those Muslim peoples whom they had crushed beneath their feet.”

Unbelievable and of far-reaching significance, although the conversion of the Mongols to Islam had been, it is also not less surprising that extremely few and scanty records of this glorious achievement are to be found in the annals of time. The names of only a few dedicated saviours of Islam who won proselytes from the savage hordes are known to the world, but their venture was no less daring nor their achievement less significant than the accomplishment of the warriors of the faith. Their memory shall always be enriched by the gratitude of Muslims, for they had, in reality, performed a great service to humanity in general and to the Muslims in particular, by diffusing the knowledge of faith among those barbarians, winning them over to the service of One God and making them the standard-bearers of the Apostle of Peace.

After the death of Chenghiz Khan, the great heritage of that Mongol conqueror was divided into four dominions headed by the offspring of his sons. The message of Islam had begun to spread among all these four sections of the Mongols who were rapidly converted to the faith. In regard to the conversion of the ruling princes in the lineage of Batu, the son of Chenghiz Khan’s first born Juji, who ruled the western portion as Khan of the Golden Horde, writes Arnold:

“The first Mongol ruling prince who professed Islam was Baraka Khan, who was chief of the Golden Horde from 1256 to 1267. According to Abu’l-Ghazi he was converted after he had come to the throne. He is said one day to have fallen in with a caravan coming from Bukhara, and taking two of the merchants aside, to have questioned them on the doctrines of Islam, and they expounded to him their faith so persuasively that he became converted in all sincerity. He first revealed his change of faith to his youngest brother, whom he induced to follow his example, and then made open profession of his new belief … Baraka Khan entered into a close alliance with the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, Rukn al-Din Baybars.

The initiative came from the latter, who had given a hospitable reception to a body of troops, two hundred in number, belonging to the Golden Horde; these men, observing the growing enmity between their Khan and Hulagu, the conqueror of Baghdad, in whose army they were serving, took flight into Syria, whence they were honourably conducted to Cairo to the court of Baybars, who persuaded them to embrace Islam. Baybars himself was at war with Hulagu, whom he had recently defeated and driven out of Syria. He sent two of the Mongol fugitives, with some other envoys, to bear a letter to Baraka Khan.

On their return these envoys reported that each princess and amir at the court of Baraka Khan had an imam and a mu’adhdhin, and the children were taught the Qur’an in the schools. These friendly relations between Baybars and Baraka Khan brought many of the Mongols of the Golden Horde into Egypt, where they were prevailed upon to become Musalmans.”

When Halal becomes Haram, more Taqwa is needed

MuslimVillage.com has spent the past week investigating the Halal chicken controversy that has left many from Sydney’s Muslim community in a state of confusion, some even no longer eating chicken.

After numerous meetings and interviews with representatives from Fresh Poultry, Taqwa Halal Certification(Taqwa), Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) Halal Certification and Red Lea Chickens, we present what we have discovered to be the facts.

We pray that our findings will end the confusion and restore some certaintity for the entire community. We believe that Taqwa, Fresh Poultry and AFIC Halal are all sincere in their endeavours. However, due to a lack of foresight, some errors of judgment, issues of trust and a lack of professional expertise, unnecessary doubt has been cast upon the status of Halal chicken produced both by Fresh Poultry and Red Lea.

As MuslimVillage.com reported last week in the article “Claims of supplying non Halal chicken denied“, the current controversy was started when Taqwa Halal Certification made a public announcement on May 4 2013 via social media, sms and email asking the community to avoid eating any products from Fresh Poultry, the only Muslim owned Halal hand slaughtered chicken slaughterhouse and wholesaler/retailer in Australia.

Taqwa’s announcement, which was authorized by Sheikh Omar El Banna and Sheikh Abo Adnan, was that Fresh Poultry management had broken a commitment to stop buying in machine slaughtered chicken by April 7 2013:

“We advise our brothers and sisters to completely avoid eating fresh poultry chicken and warn others from eating their products. Our families and children deserve to be eating 100% halal food. This will never be achieved unless Australian Muslims become strict about their food and refuse to be disadvantaged and deceived”.

The announcement and a follow up one on May 6 2013 were both very clear in portraying that Fresh Poultry was not Halal and that their management was acting dishonestly. This spread like wildfire in the community resulting in Fresh Poultry and many of the businesses they supply finding themselves subject to a boycott by Muslim customers.

From our investigation, it would appear that Fresh Poultry and Taqwa were in the process of having Taqwa Halal certify Fresh Poultry, although it is unclear whether Fresh Poultry actually ever invited Taqwa to perform this service for them. Fresh Poultry never received any proposal letters or contracts from Taqwa, which is a surprising oversight given the consensus of Muslim scholars to always put in writing commercial contracts.

Furthermore, Fresh Poultry never received any written Halal standard, guides, manuals, or audit results from Taqwa during their certification process. It is also reported that in the numerous random visits to Fresh Poultry, none of Taqwa’s staff ever carried clipboards or worked through a written checklist when assessing the hand slaughtering process at the Padstow factory.

One of the key verbal requirements for Halal certification by Taqwa was for Fresh Poultry to cease re-selling any Red Lea products. Despite the fact that Red Lea chickens are Halal certified, and that Fresh Poultry only use Red Lea chickens to supply their non-Muslim clients, Fresh Poultry representatives accepted this condition and agreed to stop supplying Red Lea products by April 7 2013.

Fresh Poultry initially agreed to this verbal demand on the basis of good intentions but could not deliver on its promise because of the unrealistic time frame imposed on it by Taqwa. In order to be able to stop using Red Lea chickens, Fresh Poultry continues to need more time and money to expand its hand slaughtering processes and to buy more refrigerated storage facilities for its Padstow factory.

Furthermore, if Fresh Poultry stops using Red Lea chickens to help fill orders to its’ non-Muslim clients then this would lead them to loose more than half of their existing business. This in turn would force Fresh Poultry to lay off more than half of its’ 70 workers. Given that Taqwa representatives were made aware by Fresh Poultry that Red Lea chickens were only supplied to non-Muslim clients, and that it was critical to Fresh Poultry’s business survival, it appears Taqwas demands were both unrealistic and unsympathetic to the time necessary to increase its’ supply of hand slaughtered chickens to all their non-muslim clients.

The error that Fresh Poultry made, and have acknowledged to MuslimVillage, was to fail to inform Taqwa that they would no longer be able to meet the agreed requirements. This resulted in Taqwa believing that Fresh Poultry management was acing dishonestly and lead to them publicly declaring them to be untrustworthy and in effect not Halal.

What was however not mentioned by Taqwa in any of their public statements – and which MuslimVillage believe that they had full knowledge of for some time – was that the Red Lea machine slaughtered chickens being supplied by Fresh Poultry are in fact Halal certified by AFIC.

For whatever reason, Taqwa does not accept the Halal certification of AFIC, despite the fact that the Head of AFIC’s Halal certification is the reputable and trusted Dr Mohammad Anas who is globally respected and recognized as a Halal certifier. According to Dr Anas, nobody from Taqwa has ever approached them to discuss their Halal certification standards and specifically the Halal certification of Red Lea. This was also confirmed in our discussion with a senior representative from Taqwa, Mohamed ElBishbeshy.

With regards to the Halal certification of Red Lea, Dr Anas informed us that Red Lea maintains a strict compliance with the rules of Halal machine slaughter permissible in the Shafi school of Islamic jurisprudence. Red Lea complies by having at least six Muslim slaughter men on the production line at any one time. The first slaughter man physically touches each chicken and recites the Tasmiyah [“Bismillah AllahuAkbar”] just as the mechanical blade slaughters each chicken. Another two slaughter men are positioned after the mechanical blade to hand slaughter any chicken missed by the mechanical process. Another Muslim is on standby in the slaughter room to fill in for any man that may leave the line during the kill. Of the two remaining Muslims, one is on a rotating break whilst the other manages the sleeping gas [CO2] given to the chickens before they are slaughtered.

AFIC have the right to inspect unannounced at Red Lea and conduct audits every 2-3 months to ensure Halal compliance is being maintained. This was confirmed to us in interviews with Red Lea management and the Halal slaughter men working for Red Lea. A document supplied by AFIC outlining their Halal machine slaughter standards can be found here.

Besides the AFIC Halal certification, in May 2011 AFIC took four auditors from JAKIM, the Malaysian government agency that oversees Halal certification, who inspected the Red Lea facility and gave it their approval. A copy of the audit report can be read here.

JAKIM is considered a global world leader in Halal certification. They certify tens of thousands of products annually via a department of specialists and experts in Islamic jurisprudence and modern day production and veterinary science. They have an internationally recognised Halal Certification system “Halal Food: Production, Preparation, Handling and Storage – General Guide” (MS 1500:2009), that covers the Halal process from the farm to the fork.

As part of our investigation, MuslimVillage.com was last week granted exclusive access to tour the Red Lea processing facility and hold interviews with management and staff. Under the supervision of the Quality Assurance Manager, we were personally escorted around the Red Lea plant. We were given the opportunity to inspect the entire production process from beginning to end, one that sees 90,000 chickens Halal machine slaughtered a day, five times a week. We can testify via what we personally witnessed that the Halal slaughtering was conducted exactly as stipulated by the AFIC Halal requirements.

Our interviews with Red Lea management revealed, that there is no official record of any representative from Taqwq Halal Certification having ever formally inspected the Red Lea site. Of significance, Red Lea management informed MuslimVillage that a representative from Taqwa had made contact with them via a third party on May 9 2013 to try and get access to their processing site to ascertain if it was Halal compliant or not. This was a full 5 days after Taqwa had made their first public announcement accusing Fresh Poultry of using non-Halal machine slaughtered chickens from Red Lea.

Giglio’s Fresh Chickens

As an alternative to Fresh Poultry, representatives from Masjid Al Noor and in fact Taqwa’s Head certifier Mohamed Elbishbeshy have been advising the community that the only alternative to Halal hand slaughtered chicken from Fresh Poultry is a company called Giglio’s Fresh Chickens – see a screen shot from Masjid Al Noor’s Facebook page below:

There is some confusion however as Taqwa released a statement on May 6 2013 on behalf of Sheikh Omar El Banna and Sheikh Abo Adnan are advising that they have not Halal certified Giglios (see below).

When MuslimVillage contacted Giglio’s last week to enquire about their Halal status, they informed us that they Halal hand slaughter two days a week and were approved by Green Valley Mosque for over 10 years. When we enquired if they were Halal certified by Taqwa, they said that they had been “approved by Taqwa for about 4 months, after some Sheikhs came and visited us”. They also confirmed that they sell pork products in their factory outlet that adjoins their processing plant. When asked where we could buy their Halal chicken, we were advised that we could buy directly from them or from Kassem Butchery in Granville.

Pork products for sale at Giglio’s. Source: MuslimVillage.com

Kassem Butchery is now 50% owned by Masjid Al Noor. Importantly one of the directors of Taqwa Halal Certification is also the Imam of Masjid Al Noor . A statement on the Masjid Al Noor Facebook page from March 31 2013 confirms this:

Inspite of this, MuslimVillage completely rejects any slanderous allegations that Masjid Al Noor, Taqwa or either of Sheikh Omar El Banna or Sheikh Abo Adnan are acting in any way for personal financial gain. However, it is clear that a serious conflict of interest arises when you control an organization that is a Halal certifying authority and then that body publicly calls for a boycott of a direct competitor of a company you have a 50% share in.

When this was put to a representative of Taqwa, they responded that Kassem Butchery is not a direct competitor of Fresh Poultry as it is only a wholesaler and not a processor of Halal chicken. It is very difficult to accept such an argument because Fresh Poultry is not just a processor, but also a wholesale and retail supplier and thus is a direct competitor to Kassem Butchery. The evidence of this is the fact that Giglio’s recommends Kassem Butchery and that Kassem Butchery does not supply Fresh Poultry chicken.

Of growing concern are reports that the issue is now moving beyond chicken with questions now being raised regarding red meat. This raises the question of who will be targeted next. Companies like Abu Ahmad Butchery/Fettayleh, who are currently approved by Taqwa as a red meat supplier, must be having sleepless nights. In the interests of full transparency, it should be noted that Abu Ahmed Butchery/Fettalyleh only currently supply Halal machine slaughtered chicken.

The other major unanswered question is why would Taqwa want to see the collapse of the only Muslim owned and controlled Halal hand slaughterhouse in Australia that employs over 70 people, mostly Muslims, and has the capacity to supply the whole Muslim community? This may not have been their intention, but it is a potential consequence from a public call to boycott Fresh Poultry.

Taqwa should have taken this into account before making such an announcement. This is not only for Islamic reasons, but the enormous potential legal liability that the Directors of Taqwa could personally face from Fresh Poultry, Red Lea and all effected businesses, if their call to boycott due to products being not 100% Halal could not be legally substantiated.

If Fresh Poultry were to collapse due to a boycott, the only party to benefit from such a move is Giglio’s, a non Muslim owned competitor that openly sells pork products. To take away such an asset from the control of the Muslim community would be an enormous loss to us all.

When this was put to a representative from Taqwa the response was that they would rather trust and deal with a non Muslim company than a dishonest Muslim owned one. Leaving aside all the factual evidence shown thus far that raises serious questions about the competence of Taqwa as Halal certifiers, the complete lack of foresight in such thinking is as disappointing as it is destructive.

This is further compounded by the fact that if Fresh Poultry where to shut down, Giglios can only currently supply about 5000 chickens a week or about 16% of the current production of Fresh Poultry (30,000 a week) – with no guarantee that it can increase production. The response from Taqwa to this was that people should simply stop eating chicken.

Despite the obvious impracticality of such advice, this provides no commercial solution to the dozens of restaurant owners and butchers who rely on and have full confidence in Fresh Poultry. Companies such as Ahmad Chami Butchery, Darwiche Butchery, Dougies Grill and many more. In some instances, such as is the case with Dougies and their purchase of chicken burger patties, there is no alternative Halal hand slaughtered supplier to Fresh Poultry for certain products. This will prove an interesting dilemma for the soon to open Dougies Flame Grill Auburn store which is reportedly going to be part owned by parties alleged to be closely associated with Masjid Al Noor.

For the record all the above-mentioned businesses have indicated that they had full confidence in Fresh Poultry and would continue to be supplied by them. This is sadly not the case with many other businesses. MuslimVillage have received numerous reports of take away food outlets and restaurants being threatened with boycott unless they change over supply to Giglio’s/Kassem Butchery. Many of these business owners have reported that they did not want to leave Fresh Poultry, but are in fear of losing business if they don’t.

This at the end of the day is the central issue at the heart of this Halal controversy.

This is not just about Halal standards, which is an issue – among a host of many – that requires strong leadership from a reputable body like the Australian National Imams Council to give guidance on and resolve. This is about the forceful imposition of the personal interpretation of Islam by a small number of vocal and intimidating people upon the majority of Muslims in our community.

This “my group is the only one on the Haq” mentality needs to be brought to an end. Whether it is about moon sighting for Ramadan or what food is Halal or how long your beard should be, what ever happened to the notion of Islamically valid differences of opinion being accepted.

It is also a sad reflection that so many people have warned MuslimVillage.com to be careful with what we write for our own personal safety. What sort of a community have we become when people are too frightened to express an opinion for fear of physical violence, let alone Muslim businesses who are now being bullied and intimidated into buying meat from only one or two sources on the threat that they will be boycotted and sent broke. This is not only completely unacceptable but it also haram.

The other important issue is that even if you believed that a person – Muslim or Non-Muslim – was in complete error, be it an individual or a company, the correct way to remedy this is via helping them overcome their errors. The Prophetic method is to correct, improve and build with patience and wisdom. It is not to abandon, condemn and to seek to harm.

On a positive note, MuslimVillage.com believes that much good will come from this incident. We are already aware that Fresh Poultry has started the process of obtaining independent Halal Certification from a reputable, respected, professional and Australian Government export approved (AQIS) certification body. Hopefully other companies that have been self-certifying will take heed and also obtain independent Halal certification.

Fresh Poultry is also exploring commercial offers put forward by reputable third parties to enable them to completely phase out the use of Halal machine slaughtered chicken. MuslimVillage also believes that repackaging Halal machine slaughtered chicken as being from Fresh Poultry, and as such presumed to be hand slaughtered, whilst still completely Halal and only for a small percentage of their Non-Muslim clients, is a practice that Fresh Poultry should look at changing in the interests of full transparency with consumers.

For these initiatives to be successful they will need greater support from the community to realise the benefits of buying hand slaughtered Halal chicken from a Muslim owned business. With a potential capacity in excess of 100,000 chickens a week, they are ready and willing to meet the community demand.

This controversy has also provided an opportunity to examine the Halal certification standards of AFIC. This has been of benefit and gives greater confidence and transparency to Halal standards in Australia. Despite the well documented governance issues that AFIC has, it would appear that their Halal Certification service under the leadership of Dr Mohammad Anas can be trusted.

MuslimVillage.com has also been informed that the Australian National Imams Council will be making the establishment of a national Halal standard a priority and will begin to pursue this with a meeting planned for this weekend. InshAllah this is the beginning of the establishment of other policy positions to provide guidance to the Australian Muslim community on a whole host of day to day issues they face in areas such as car and health insurance, credit cards, Islamic home finance, medical issues, foster care, HECS fees, the start of Ramadan, etc. Unfortunately to date there has been no leadership or guidance on the issues that Australian Muslims face on a daily basis.

Despite the turmoil and confusion that has ensued, the fact that many positive changes appear to be transpiring from this controversy is an indication of Sheikh Omar’s, Sheikh Abo Adnan’s and Fresh Poultry’s sincere and good intentions in trying to improve the status of Halal in Australia. It is hoped that all parties concerned will have learnt some important lessons from a professional and Islamic perspective that will see them all be a future source of benefit to the entire Muslim community in Australia and beyond InshAllah.

Background Notes

Who is Fresh Poultry?

Fresh Poultry is a Muslim owned Hand slaughtered Halal chicken slaughterhouse located in Sydney, Australia. It was purchased by the late Hassan Elkout at the age of 20 in 1986 and is currently still being run by his family after Hassan passed away in 2009.

Hassan Elkout started working at Fresh Poultry at that age of 14 in 1980, doing odd jobs for the Jewish owner Mr Grosman.The owner was impressed by Hassan’s honesty and hard work and at the age of 18 appointed him as a foreman. At the age of 19 he gave 10% of the company to Hassan, and shortly after gave him a further 20% of the ownership.

In 1986, Mr Grosman decided to retire and asked Hassan Elkout to buy out his 80% share. Hassan at the age of 20, could not afford to raise the funds to buy a multi million dollar business. Mr Grosman then agreed to act as guarantor to Hassan and borrowed the funds to enable him to purchase the company outright. Up to then Fresh Poultry was only producing machine slaughtered chicken.

In 1990 Hassan married Douha Sattout. It was shortly afterwards that Douha’s brother Abdel Hamid suggested that they introduce Halal hand slaughtered chicken and to trial it two days a week. What started as Halal hand slaughtered chicken on Monday’s and Thursdays, reached a peak of over 70,000 birds being slaughtered a week. Hassan Elkout was famous in the community for his enormous generosity and support of many community organisations.

Today Fresh Poultry slaughters 30,000 chickens a week and relies on 60% of its business coming from non-Muslim clients. They buy in 10% of products they cannot produce internally from Red Lea, a AFIC Halal certified (Halal machine slaughtered) processor. Although these products are repackaged as being from Fresh Poultry for commercial reasons, they are strictly controlled and only supplied to their non-Muslim clients.

With greater community support, Fresh Poultry can eliminate the need to buy in products from Red Lea and can grow the business to be able to supply the entire Muslim community with Halal hand slaughtered chicken products.

European Islamophobia finds a home in the U.S.

Anti-Muslim sentiment seems to have gone mainstream. Fringe groups like Stop Islamization of America, which is behind many of the protests in lower Manhattan, are suddenly receiving attention from media outlets.

You may have heard the ad put out by the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee: “On Sept. 11, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans, they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at ground zero.”

Did you catch that? They attacked us on 9/11, and now they want to build a mosque at ground zero.

This is what has become of the debate over the construction of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan. You know, the so-called mosque at ground zero that’s neither a mosque nor at ground zero.

No matter what your feelings are about the proposed community center, there can be little doubt that Islamophobia is on the rise in America.

A Washington Post poll released last year found that nearly half of Americans — 48 percent — have an unfavorable view of Islam. That’s nine points higher than in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. A new national survey by the Pew Research Center found that 30 percent of those who disapprove of President Obama’s job performance believe he is Muslim.

What’s more disturbing is that anti-Muslim sentiment seems to have gone mainstream, with fringe groups like Stop Islamization of America — which is behind many of the protests in lower Manhattan and has been participating in similar anti-Muslim rallies across the country — suddenly receiving regular air time on mainstream media outlets.

Stop Islamization of America is actually an affiliate of a European organization called Stop Islamization of Europe, an anti-Muslim hate group whose motto is “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.”

The connection between the two organizations is telling.

In Europe, the passage of laws curtailing the rights and freedoms of Muslims and the success of avowedly anti-Islam political parties have led to a sense of marginalization and disenfranchisement among Europe’s Muslim communities. That in turn has led to what I believe is a sharp increase in radicalization among Europe’s young Muslims.

For years, scholars like myself who’ve studied these radicalization trends have confidently argued that the kind of institutionalized Islamophobia one sees in large parts of Europe could never take hold in the U.S. That America’s unbreakable dedication to religious liberties would never allow anti-Muslim sentiment to become mainstream. That, in fact, America’s Muslim community — educated, prosperous, moderate and integrated into every level of American society — may be our nation’s greatest weapon in fighting the ideology of radical extremism.

It seems we were wrong. The same kind of Islamophobia that has made much of Europe inhospitable to its Muslim citizens is now threatening to seize the U.S.

The fear is that this may lead to the same kind of radicalization among Muslim youth in the U.S. that we’ve seen in Europe. It has already played into the hands of al-Qaida, which has for years been trying to convince American Muslims that the unfettered religious freedoms they enjoy is a mirage — that the U.S. will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens.

Are we in danger of proving al-Qaida right?

I am a liberal, progressive, secularized American Muslim. But when I see that bigotry against my faith — my very identity — has become so commonplace in America that it is shaping into a wedge issue for the midterm elections, I can barely control my anger.

I can’t imagine how the next generation of American Muslim youth will react to such provocations. I pray that we never find out.

The Struggle Of Islamophobia

I’ve had a lot of interviews over the last few days by different media outlets doing stories on being Muslim in America. One question that seemingly keeps coming up is “How do you feel about the Islamophobic attitudes that have seemingly increased in the United States over the last few years?”

I feel it almost every day – it’s presence and manifestation in my own life and the lives of many around me. It’s there and it needs to be stopped. For those who don’t believe that Islamophobia exists, you’re wrong. There’s really no other way of saying it.

The Center for American Progress, based out of Washington D.C., released a report  entitled Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America. This report offers a great analysis of the Islamophobic movement, key players in it, and how it is supported and funded. I would encourage everyone to read it objectively and share it with your networks and friends.

Wahajat Ali, one of the authors of the report, writes

“Last July, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned a conservative audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Islamic practice of Sharia was ‘a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.’ Gingrich went on to claim that ‘Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world.’”

Numerous politicians have been very irresponsible with their words when it comes to Islam. It’s as if Muslims have a different set of rights that other citizens of the country for no reason other than we choose to practice Islam. The rhetoric, whether we choose to acknowledge or not, enables hate to exist. I regularly meet Muslims from all walks of life who have been harassed, bullied, robbed, beaten, because they practice Islam. Even people who aren’t Muslim are victims of hate crimes because their ethnicity or cultural background isn’t distinguishable by the one carrying out the crime. Islam is a religion – it’s not a race. Muslims are from every country of the world including the United States.

I once did an interview that never aired, much to the dismay of the interviewer, in which my co-panelist told me that Muslims deserve the way they are being treated. That was probably the most foolish thing I’ve ever heard in my life. How is that a cab driver who is trying to make a decent living deserves to be stabbed because of his faith? How is that a young girl deserves to be abused for wearing a headscarf and it’s justifiable for people to yank it off her head and tell her to go back home while everyone around her watches? How is okay for our children to grow up with limited sense of aspiration? Am I not entitled to the same comforts and securities you are because of my religion? Do I deserve to be scrutinized, singled out, profiled, and stereotyped because of my faith? No, I do not. It’s not ok. It’s wrong.

I travel a lot for speaking engagements and work and over the last year every time I have come into my country, the United States of America, from an international trip, I am detained. These days when it happens, an announcement is made after we land that passports are being randomly checked on the way out so have them ready. Two customs officers stand at the door and when my passport is found, the one who has it tells the other “I found him.” Essentially I am the random check. I am then escorted to a small room that is filled mostly with minorities and immigrants and kept there from two to six hours. This happens regardless of my reason for traveling or where I am traveling to and in the last year or so has taken place about a dozen separate times. It happens even when I travel on behalf of the State Department in an official capacity. When my NYPD credentials are seen or letters from ambassadors from the State Department, the frustration by the Customs officers is apparent. First they ask who I am and then they ask, “Why are we stopping you?” I wonder the same thing. I asked one officer once what he thought after he had gone through the process with me multiple times and began to recognize me when I came in. He said “You are young, male, and Muslim. And right now those three things don’t go well together.” At the end of it though, I have to go through the process. Really what else can I do? My civil rights somehow become secondary because I practice Islam.

Islamophobia exists in much of the world today. It is an unfortunate reality, but a reality nonetheless. Do your part in ensuring that is not empowered any further by understanding where it comes from and helping those around you understand it as well.

Tempest in a Teapot: Islamophobia Meets Homophobia

A group of the extremists among the Imamis consider the legal obligation [to believe] in the inviolability of their leaders. They consider that to even be consistent with their treatment of animals and their servants. They have gone to an extreme in such matters that they have removed the veil of modesty from their faces and become objects of ridicule, amusement, and mockery of religion.

They even believe that this inviolability extends to every aspect of their lives such that they could not even theoretically make a mistake in their reports or testimonies in courts of law. But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this is that they permit those same leaders, and even in some instances consider it their obligation, to practice taqiyyah [dissimulation]. They claim this is part of our religion. In other words, they permit bold-faced lies. If such is the case, how then is it possible by any stretch of the imagination to depend upon the inviolability of their words? If you permit them to say what they don’t believe, if you can’t trust them with what they say [as it may be taqiyyah], then how can you consider their actions inviolable? If it is permissible to dissimulate in their words, then certainly the same applies to their actions.

– Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH/1085 CE), al-Ghiyathiy

The English love their tea, and some also seem to relish tempests in their teapots. In America, we love our mountains, and we tend to make them out of molehills. Making a big hullabaloo over small matters is a common human affliction.

Recently, a storm has been brewing in one of the tearooms of Cambridge, and it involves someone I have known and respected for more than three decades. Dr. Tim Winter, who teaches theology at Cambridge University’s Wolfson College, has been accused of homophobia for making remarks about homosexuals that, according to some, warrant his expulsion from Cambridge’s prestigious faculty.

The offending remarks are from a Rihla (Muslim teaching program) in 1995 when Dr. Winter was answering questions from a group of Muslim students, and they surfaced now through a video clip that was posted online. Dr. Winter answered a student’s question regarding homosexuality with what would pass as a normal response in almost any mosque throughout the Muslim world, and is the belief held by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide. In essence, he said that homosexuality is an aberration and not consistent with the natural functions of the body.

The root of the problem here lies in not distinguishing between the same-sex attraction that many people, including obviously some Muslims, feel, and the actual act of sexual relations between two people of the same sex. As Dr. Winter explained in his answer, some people appear to be born with the tendency towards homosexuality, but “if they do not act upon this tendency, they are not sinning.” Unfortunately, that distinction is not commonly drawn, and this troublesome conflation—and the rarely understood nuanced difference in our religious tradition—is increasingly causing problems for Muslims. Too many of us alienate many good Muslims when we fail to make this distinction and simply demonize them.

Our scholars clearly made these distinctions in the books of Islamic jurisprudence and use the term ma’bun to refer to someone with same-sex tendencies. Imam Dasuqi says that if such a person leads the prayer, his prayer is valid. In fact, the actual text he was commenting on addresses who can or cannot lead the prayer. Quoting Mukhtasir Khalil, Dasuqi writes, “It is discouraged [but not prohibited] for a eunuch (khasi) or homosexual (ma’bun) to be a regular prayer leader.” In his commentary on this, Dasuqi, who died in 1815, explains:

It is disliked [but still valid] for a ma’bun to be an assigned leader of the obligatory prayers as well as for communal supererogatory prayers, but not tarawih, or travelers’ prayers, or as someone who leads them on occasion. And the intended meaning of ma’bun is a male who is effeminate in his speech, similar to a woman’s speech, or someone who desires rectal intercourse but doesn’t practice it, or someone who has practiced it but since repented yet, nonetheless, has set tongues wagging.

In the wake of the storm that engulfed Dr. Winter, he has apologized, and his retraction and clarification should be taken at face value as genuine maturity and growth in understanding.

Unfortunately, some critics and many troll commentators have suggested that Dr. Winter is practicing “taqiyyah,” a word now entering the Western vocabulary as Islamophobes increasingly promote it to insinuate that Muslims represent a “fifth column” of subversive quislings hell-bent on putting every pig farmer in the West out of business and forever banishing pork rinds from convenience stores. But, as the above-mentioned quote of Imam al-Juwayni shows, while taqiyyah is practiced by a small minority of sectarian Muslims, it is not in any way part of the Sunni tradition that Dr. Winter adheres to, and it is not permissible for a Sunni Muslim unless that person is under immediate threat of death. It is certainly not morally acceptable to practice taqiyyah simply to save face with a verbally hostile public or to preserve one’s job. Islamophobes will naturally argue that I am practicing taqiyyah here, so you can’t really win with them. But if that was the case, morality would lose all meaning, and a man’s word would be of no significance, something incomprehensible to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the Prophet Muhammad’s character—he was called “al-Amin” (the trustworthy) because he was known never to break his word, ever.

Fascists demand always that there be only one way of thinking, living, or believing. But ours is a pluralistic world, and our grandmothers and grandfathers fought a great war to prevent fascists from having their way in it. In a free society, Dr. Winter is entitled to believe in his faith, and his faith prohibits and deems sinful the act of sexual relations between unmarried couples whether gay or straight (since some states have now legalized same-sex marriage). What he has retracted and apologized for is the manner in which he said what he did at the time. “I believe—and Allah is my witness—that I was right, in Sharia, and considering the maslaha [commonweal] of the Muslims, to dissociate myself from the lecture and to apologize,” he wrote recently.

And then he added: “The key point is this: mercy and understanding are better than recrimination.”

One critic argued that Dr. Winter’s characterization of his comments as “youthful enthusiasms” is unacceptable given he was in his mid-30s at the time. However, in the Arabic language, the word “youth” (shab) indicates a period of one’s life that lasts until the age of 40, and, while perhaps not in the case of that critic, most of us are full of folly before the age of 40 and too many of us well after that. As someone who has known Dr. Winter over the years, I can say that while he, like all of us, is capable of mistakes and, like the rest of us, carries the baggage of “youthful enthusiasms,” he has always been one of the youngest wise men I have ever known.

Whatever his opinions on any subject, he is never fanatical and never imperious in his approach. Moreover, the guidance that he would impart to fellow Muslims who share the same beliefs as he does would naturally differ from his lectures whereby he would be sensitive as a professional and acknowledge the diverse sensibilities of a post-modern student body with all the varieties that that entails. I am sure that those who have been fortunate to study with him at Cambridge, whether gay or straight, would concur.

Meanwhile, let us be aware that much more formidable storms are raging in the world. We should be far more occupied with putting out the fires of war and tending to the needs of the refugees of real tempests than trying to get someone fired for “youthful enthusiasms.”