Let’s talk about meat. Not the kind sizzling on your backyard grill—but the kind that sparks debate, ignites headlines, and quietly exposes the fault lines of modern Western morality.
“Ban halal,” they cry. “It’s cruel,” they say.
Really? Suddenly now we care about how animals die?
Let’s not kid ourselves. Western factory farming—your average chicken nugget origin story—is a horror show of its own. Mass confinement. Beak trimming. Slaughterhouses humming with conveyor belts of suffering. And that’s all perfectly legal. Institutionalized, even. Sanitized by marketing departments. Wrapped in plastic and labeled “organic” if you pay extra.
But somehow halal—and let’s be honest, the Muslim part of halal—is where the outrage flares. Not just concern. Outrage. Op-eds. Parliamentary debates. Protesters waving signs outside halal butchers in places where most people couldn’t even point to Mecca on a map.
So let’s unpack this.
Yes, halal slaughter involves cutting the animal’s throat while invoking God’s name. It requires the animal to be alive and healthy at the moment of death. Critics say it’s inhumane because it’s not always pre-stunned—though in many halal-certified facilities pre-stunning is allowed and practiced.
And what about kosher, which uses a nearly identical method? Funny how that’s left out of the headlines. Selective empathy?
Here’s a theory: it’s not really about the animals. If it were, we’d be banning factory farming before Friday prayer slaughter. We’d be up in arms over battery cages, gestation crates, and the carbon footprint of every Big Mac. But we’re not.
Because the halal debate—especially in Europe and the UK—is less about ethics and more about identity. About who belongs. About “our values” versus “their practices.” It’s the same anxiety that fuels hijab bans, mosque surveillance, and moral panics over kebab shops “changing the neighborhood.”
Cruelty? Maybe. But be consistent. Don’t pretend it’s about animal welfare when it’s really about cultural discomfort.
Also, let’s be real—if you’re eating meat, you’re complicit in some level of animal pain. Choosing one method of death to rail against while ignoring the systemic brutality of the meat industry? That’s moral cherry-picking.
Now, should halal practices be held to high standards? Absolutely. Transparency matters. So does regulation. But so should the rest of the meat industry. This shouldn’t be a religious exception singled out for scrutiny—it should be part of a broader reckoning.
But that broader reckoning is harder. It means giving up convenience. Questioning your own habits. Turning the lens inward instead of outward.
And that, apparently, is too much to ask.
So here we are. Debating halal while billions of animals suffer behind industrial walls. Convenient outrage. Selective compassion. And a very old fear of the “other” dressed up in the language of animal rights.
If you’re going to critique how meat is made—good. Do it. But do it all the way. Otherwise, let’s not pretend it’s about the cow.
What do you think: Is the halal ban debate about ethics—or just an old prejudice in new packaging?