Halal - Principle to Preserve or Permission to Relish?
Even if you are unaware of what the term 'Halal' means - being a non-Muslim, most certainly you encounter this word often as you walk through the aisles of a grocery store, or as you explore the text printed on food packaging. Indeed you see this word striking even more prominently once you enter the meat section, or pass by an eatery zone saturated with meat servings.
And if you are a Muslim, you may be well-versed with all the rules that comprise the principle 'halal', but chances are - you don't know what the rules imply. If you don't agree – read on.
Don't torture, don't kill carelessly, don't disrespect life and don’t kill without acknowledging the sacredness of life - these indeed are the founding sanctified principles for all other rules that shape the concept of 'Halal'. The precise rules require the animal to be healthy, the knife to be extremely sharp, the throat to be cut in a single swift motion, blood to be drained, and a blessing to be spoken, alongside two others - that the animal undergoing slaughter should not be stunned and must not see another animal undergoing slaughter.
The intention behind these rules is unquestionably noble, and that is, not to stress the animal should we must take its life. This intention, however, becomes automatically woven with the unsaid underlying instruction that the diligent followers of this doctrine miss to read - which is, spare the life if you must not take it.
Such rules - whether Islamic or Jewish or as part of any other religion, originated in the times when humans had fewer options for food to survive themselves. Killing animals to feed oneself was then a necessity. Today, the dynamics of human survival are completely different. What to eat is a choice that one can consciously make out of the several options available at any time. Even for those who can't afford to choose but accept what is given, it is far less expensive to live on non-animal foods. Then why in this day and age, while the rules of halal are still being followed religiously, the intention behind the literal instructions seems to have entirely obliterated from the intellect of its interpreters.
Not only the rules on how to prepare meat if one must to feed oneself, many of the rules or instructions laid out in many of the religious doctrines are being interpreted too literally, which more often than not, completely leaves out the idea and intention behind.
No religion advocates violence and killing. And while Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism strictly prohibit meat eating preaching non-violence as dharma (the highest duty), other religions don't encourage it either but only allow it conditionally if one must go that route in the absence of other non-destructive options. Yet the specifics of these conditional rules are perceived as permission and are taken pride in performing the forbidden.
The distortion that follows a series of successive translations is a known phenomenon that annihilates the original intent and meaning entirely. The bigger question however is, why in the history of humanity came a need that the prophets felt the call to define specific instructions for humans on the very basics of how to live life - about what to eat, how to prepare what to eat, what to wear, how to wear it, who not to marry, and so on? Did they not trust the highly evolved human instinctive intelligence to make the right decisions for basic everyday life?
The very dictation of otherwise instinctive basics of life in religious doctrines and scriptures as a set of rules that one must swear by, makes their interpretation far more literal than it actually meant to be. And so, not surprisingly, the rules are simply followed, and are not thought about, or understood by masses.
Animals certainly don't live by the rules of any scripture, nor do we see them enrolled in any school to learn the basics of life. Yet we never see pigeons picking anything other than grains and seeds. Some wilds happen to be carnivorous only - either as predators or picking carcass as per the natural build of their digestive needs and as nature intended it for balance on the food chain. While some other wilds happen to be omnivorous - ingesting whatever they can find to survive.
Early humans too, lived on wild vegetation alone and evolved to hunt for survival much later, only after the options of their natural inclination got scarce. Today, there's no scarcity of plant foods. In fact, growing more of the plant foods, and doing so organically, is the need of the hour to restore nature's equilibrium that's been lost to a great extent due to incessant, unthoughtful and inhumane activities of humans, which to a great degree, among others, include industrial livestock farming.
So today, while we do have plenty of healthier, more worthwhile and more humanitarian options to serve our bodies, still choosing to consume "halal" meat is religious or betrayal?