Animals 09 00530 v2

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 13

animals

Review
Halal Criteria Versus Conventional
Slaughter Technology
Fouad Ali Abdullah Abdullah, Gabriela Borilova * and Iva Steinhauserova
Department of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Hygiene and Ecology, University of
Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno, Palackeho tr. 1946/1, 612 42 Brno, Czech Republic
* Correspondence: gborilova@vfu.cz

Received: 30 May 2019; Accepted: 3 August 2019; Published: 5 August 2019 

Simple Summary: While legislation can be implemented, amended or revoked according to the
requirements of a given time period, this is very difficult or even impossible with religious laws
due to their sanctity. Faithful Muslims believe in the sanctity of the main Islamic laws (Quran and
Hadiths) because, according to them, they originated from heavenly and divine sources (God and
his prophet Muhammad). The technological means of the meat industry are constantly evolving to
meet the requirements of the present day and may sometimes be inconsistent with ancient religious
norms. Recently, greater attention has been paid to the halal meat industry due to the increased size
of the Muslim community in Europe; the opportunity of producing and exporting meat and meat
products to the Islamic world; and the ease of delivery, trade and transport. The purpose of this study
is to highlight some of the controversial aspects of modern technological means and the principles of
the halal meat industry. The controversial aspects that this study deals with include the practices of
modern slaughter (animal fasting prior to slaughter, the animal’s body position during slaughter,
the location of the incision during bleeding, stunning and mechanical slaughtering). This review may
contribute to raising awareness among producers and consumers and to finding means of technology
compatible with halal criteria.

Abstract: The halal meat industry is today a reality in many regions of the world, including the
European Union. The main religious laws in the area of halal meat production were legislated
in ancient times and may be unchangeable due to their sanctity perceived by faithful Muslims,
while the modern technology used in the meat industry is constantly evolving and being updated.
The objective of this study is to highlight the points of controversy between the principles of halal
and the technological means currently used in the meat industry. Modern slaughter practices,
including animal fasting prior to slaughter, animal body position, the location of the incision during
slaughter, stunning and mechanical slaughter, are reviewed. The purpose of preslaughter feed
availability according to halal criteria could be to ensure greater welfare for animals, though feed
withdrawal is necessary today. Although there is no clear unified opinion among the Islamic sects,
reversible stunning of animals is generally accepted. A neck cut at a higher position than the
conventional low cut in cattle may reduce the compromise in welfare (the onset of unconsciousness),
minimise false aneurysm and be compatible with halal criteria. This study may contribute towards
consideration being given to technology that is not in conflict with the religious legislation, while at
the same time meeting the requirements of the modern meat industry.

Keywords: stunning; slaughter; halal criteria; animal welfare

Animals 2019, 9, 530; doi:10.3390/ani9080530 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals


Animals 2019, 9, 530 2 of 13

1. Introduction
The global population of Muslims reached to 1.8 billion in 2017, and their population is increasing
annually [1]. The markets for halal food are growing at an extraordinary rate in line with the growth
in the Muslim population. The amount of money Muslims spent on food and beverage in 2017 was
valued at US$1.3 trillion, which represents total halal food market spending [1]. Currently, the halal
food market accounts for a share of around 16% of the global food industry and may constitute around
20% of global trade in food production in the future [2]. The food industry in Europe has begun to
invest in halal food production. Fresh halal meat has been added to the ranges offered by certain
European retailers, and some European manufacturers are exporting their products to the Islamic
world. The Netherlands serves as a channel of halal food to the European market, the Middle East and
Africa, as it ranks first globally in the field of halal food storage and warehousing [3]. According to the
DinarStandard synthesis and analysis report of 2015, Brazil, India, Argentina, Russia and France are
the leading halal meat exporters to Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries, representing
28.5% of the total halal meat market. Saudi Arabia, followed by Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates,
Indonesia and Egypt are the top five halal meat importers, representing 42% of the global halal meat
market [4]. Halal criteria should be observed for all products produced to meet the needs of Islamic
consumers. These criteria are associated with the origin, nature and processing methods of food
production [5]. Halal food products are defined as food that is produced according to halal tradition [6].
Islamic dietary criteria divide food into permitted (halal) and prohibited (haram) to Muslim consumers.
These criteria are mentioned in the Quran and the Hadith (the sayings of the prophet Mohammed) and
are explained and interpreted by Islamic scholars [7]. Islamic dietary criteria are binding on Muslims
and should be observed at all times [5]. It is, therefore, necessary to perform checks on the halal
status of food products provided for Muslim consumers. Basically, according to the Quran (Chapter V,
Verse 3), Sunnah (the actions of the prophet Mohammed) and doctrines (scholars), the following kinds
of animals are not halal [4]:
- dead animals
- pigs
- all animals slaughtered without the name of Allah being pronounced on them
- animals with long pointed teeth or tusks
- primates, reptiles (except spiny-tailed lizards) and amphibians
- donkeys, mules (horses are not forbidden) and Lycaonpictus (African wild dog)
- most insects
- only aquatic animals that are harmful to human health
- blood (from any animal) and products made or sourced from blood.
The Arabic word “Zabiha” refers to the bleeding of animals intended for meat production
following the Islamic criteria of Islamic ritual slaughter, also known as halal slaughter [7]. In the
Western world, several unregulated halal certification bodies have been created in an attempt to
assure Muslim consumers that products with halal certification meet the requirements of Islamic
dietary law [8]. The standard certificates should comply with halal requirements to be acceptable for
customers. The World Halal Council (WHC) is currently the largest certification organisation and
oversees around 41 halal certification agencies from different countries. The OIC, which includes
57 member states, has developed general guidelines on halal food for its members worldwide [2].
Although these halal certification bodies are unregulated and often operate according to different halal
standards, they are considered enforcers of halal dietary laws by many Muslims, especially in minority
Muslim population countries where there is a possible risk of cross contamination with non-halal
raw materials (such as pork) [9]. Recently, the halal meat industry has been the focus of research
of many authors from different viewpoints, examining the principles of halal meat [4], halal control
points (HCPs) in meat processing [5,7], the aggregate of Islamic dietary and Hazard analysis and
critical control points (HACCP) principles [10] and religious versus legal understandings of halal
Animals 2019, 9, 530 3 of 13

slaughter [11]. New technological practices and processes in the meat industry are constantly being
developed in order to be more economical and hygienic, to comply with increasing consumer demand
and, at the same time, to be in compliance with animal welfare [11]. Nevertheless, these technological
means may conflict with halal criteria in some respects. The aim of this review is to highlight the
compatibility of modern technological procedures with halal principles regarding slaughter practices.

2. Fasting of Animals Prior to Slaughter


It is recorded that the Prophet Muhammad said, “When one of you slaughters, let him complete
it”, meaning that one should sharpen the knife well and feed, water and soothe the animal before
killing it (as mentioned in Sahih Muslim, Book 21, Chapter 11, Number 4810) [12]. The principles of
Sharia (Islamic) law therefore prefer the animals to be well fed by providing free access to feed and
drinking water while waiting prior to slaughter [13]. In the present day, the fasting of ruminants during
periods of transportation and lairage at slaughterhouses is recommended to reduce the volume of the
gut contents and, therefore, the quantity of bacteria, thereby reducing the risk of carcass contamination
during dressing [14]. However, maximum periods of fasting/feeding and journey times for different
animal species are given in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 [15]. Council Regulation (EC) No.
1099/2009 states, “Animals which have not been slaughtered within 12 h of their arrival shall be fed,
and subsequently given moderate amounts of food at appropriate intervals” [16]. This means that
the feed withdrawal period preslaughter is up to 12 h. The issue of preslaughter feeding and fasting
is closely associated with the duration of transport. Energy and fluid balance must be taken into
account when animals are prepared for transportation [17]. Heat stress is an important factor related to
fasting and pre-transport feeding. In cattle, the rumen is the greatest source of heat production due to
exothermic fermentation processes through feed digestion, which take about 4–6 h from feeding [18].
It is, therefore, recommended to fast animals and then transport them to the slaughterhouse particularly
in hot climate areas, and this may also prevent transport sickness.
Currently, there is agreement about the necessity of preslaughter fasting of animals in the European
Union [15]. In the rest of the world, the number of hours of preslaughter fasting for animal species
is variable according to the legislation of the individual countries. A preslaughter fasting period of
12 h is stipulated as the minimum time for cattle and as a maximum for broilers by the regulations
of the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture [19,20]. Prolonged feed deprivation has a negative influence
on certain characteristics of meat quality and increases physiological stress parameters in lambs;
for this reason, fasting for more than 24 h is not recommended [21]. O’Neill et al. [22] found that
meat tenderness was not affected negatively when feed was available to cattle up to 3 h preslaughter.
However, providing feed for animals preslaughter was intended to ensure animal welfare by Islamic
(Sharia) criteria, while feed withdrawal is necessary today. It is important to explain to Islamic jurists
that the preslaughter fasting of animals for a restricted period (a few hours, according to the animal
species) is not related to animal welfare but has great technological advantages [15–17], which could
convince them to issue a fatwa (Islamic nonbinding legal opinion) to permit it.

3. Stunning
Stunning is one of the most controversial technological operations in the halal meat industry.
Stunning is not mentioned in the Quran or the Hadith literature. Stunning raises concerns regarding
the fulfilment of the requirements and principles of halal slaughtering that are mentioned in the
primary sources of Islam. Such concerns relate to the fact that the animal is not alive at the time of
slaughter and is only partially exsanguinated due to stunning [11]. According to Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1099/2009, the stunning of animals prior to slaughter is a statutory requirement in Europe
and applied in order to render animals unconscious [16]. The definition of “stunning” provided by
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 means any intentionally induced process which causes loss of
consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death [16].
The objective of stunning is to prevent anxiety, pain, suffering and distress in animals before and during
Animals 2019, 9, 530 4 of 13

the slaughter process [23]. Many complications result from slaughtering cattle and small ruminants
without stunning, including pain and stress related to restrained movement [23], pain resulting
from the incision and stimulation of nociceptors in the wound [24,25], delay in the time to loss of
consciousness and related distress [26] and blood aspiration into the respiratory tract and associated
distress [27]. False aneurysms can develop in halal-slaughtered cattle (without stunning) due to delays
in the loss of consciousness leading to obstruction of the flow of blood [28]. Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1099/2009 indicates, “Slaughter without stunning requires an accurate cut of the throat
with a sharp knife to minimise suffering”. In addition, animals that are not mechanically restrained
after the cut are likely to endure a slower bleeding process and, thereby, prolonged unnecessary
suffering. Animals of bovine, ovine and caprine species are the most common species slaughtered
under this procedure. Therefore, ruminants slaughtered without stunning should be individually and
mechanically restrained. Beside the religious reason, stunning is often not practiced worldwide due to
other reasons, such as lack of available stunning tools and equipment, cost of the equipment, lack of
technical training on the usage of stunning tools and resources [29]. Slaughter of animals without
stunning requires a highly skilled staff to handle the animals and perform the bleeding. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency [30] demands that employees who work with animals must be trained in

- monitoring of the indicators for loss of consciousness


- the ability to detect (in compliance with established performance criteria in animal welfare) that
loss of consciousness was not achieved during bleeding
- implementation of corrective actions if any deviations occur in order to prevent the suffering of
the individual animal (e.g., postcut stunning)
- understanding that introducing multiple or additional cuts or sawing actions (nonfluid motions)
is not allowed as a corrective action
- making sure that the animal is unconscious (by monitoring multiple indicators) prior to hanging it up
- assessment of animals after bleeding to ensure that the animal is dead prior to further procedures,
such as dressing or manipulation of the incision area for religious purposes.

If the staff performing bleeding is poorly trained or incompetent, the interval between restraint
and cutting can unacceptably increase suffering and negatively influence animal welfare [23].
Although European legislation (Council Regulation No. 1099/2009) permits religious slaughter,
which is usually conducted without stunning, several countries (e.g., Sweden, Denmark, Norway and
Switzerland) have already prohibited the slaughter of animals without prior stunning [31]. In fact,
all advocates of preslaughter stunning, as well as advocates of religious slaughter methods, insist that
stunning is the most humane method [32].
There are differences among Muslims regarding the acceptability of preslaughter stunning practices.
While it is accepted in certain countries such as Malaysia (that follow the Shāfı̄ school of thought), it is
not accepted in Pakistan (which follows the Hanafı̄ school of thought) [33]. Currently, the attitude
of Muslims to stunning before slaughter can be divided into three main opinions: acceptance with
specific requirements (reversible stunning); rejection due to the incompatibility with religious rules
and insufficient bleeding (as blood is not considered halal material); and not sure yet or require certain
assurances [32]. A survey carried out in England by EBLEX [34] found that 76% of Muslims (out
of 1000 respondents) refused the stunning of animals before slaughter and preferred to buy meat
from suppliers selling only meat from nonstunned animals. Despite its limited representativeness,
this study shows that even Muslims living in Western Europe prefer to consume meat from animals
that have been slaughtered by traditional methods and refuse meat from animals rendered unconscious
before killing. Although some Muslim authorities have issued a favourable opinion on some stunning
methods, so far, there is no general approval of stunning methods used for cattle in the European
Union, which may cause economic losses for producers of halal beef, as consumers may turn to other
foreign sources [8]. Australian national standards require the stunning of animals prior to slaughter for
welfare reasons. However, halal slaughter using reversible stunning is permitted [35]. A small number
Animals 2019, 9, 530 5 of 13

of slaughterhouses in Australia have even obtained permission from the local authority to perform
halal slaughter without the stunning of animals (only for cattle and sheep) but under the condition of
immediate stunning after cutting the throat (only for cattle). This means that sheep are slaughtered
without stunning, even after throat incision, except in cases of distress (e.g., vocalising, butting or
attempting to flee) or when loss of consciousness takes too long, requiring immediate stunning after
the neck incision [36,37]. Stunning of animals prior to slaughter is usual and logical due to animal
welfare. If it is conducted immediately after throat cutting, it could be performed in order both to
reduce animal suffering until loss of consciousness and to meet halal requirements, being therefore
humane and religiously correct at the same time.
Farouk et al. [38] noted that reversible preslaughter stunning technology is constantly evolving
in the meat industry sector in order to improve animal welfare during slaughter as well as meet the
requirements of halal slaughter. The authors confirmed that new systems that are still in development
could be applied in the halal meat industry, where they will be able to fulfil the requirements of
both halal slaughter and the legislation. For example, single-pulse ultrahigh current (SPUC) [39] and
microwave energy [40,41], which are in experimental trials, could be further developed to be used
as commercial stunning systems that may meet the requirements of halal slaughter. Some of these
technological developments have been well summarised in previous reviews [42,43]. According to
Fuseini et al. [44], a survey study in the United Kingdom reported that most Islamic scholars and
consumers agreed that reversible stunning complies with the principles of halal. The Department of
Islamic Development Malaysia [45] has provided specific guidelines for reversible halal preslaughter
stunning. For example, in the case of broilers with a body weight of 2.40–2.70 kg, the use of 2.50–10.50 V
for 3.00–5.00 s is recommended. In this regard, the US mode of immobilisation (electrical stunning, ES)
of poultry is more suitable for halal requirements than the European one. Low-voltage ES (10–25 V)
and high-frequency (500 Hz) systems are used for bird immobilisation in the United States. Such a low
voltage means that the birds may regain consciousness within 2 min after stunning if not bled. In the
European Union, irreversible stunning (120–150 mA per bird; 50–400 Hz) is used and represents fatal
stunning, thus not meeting halal meat criteria [16,46,47]. Although the voltage of electrical stunning
and the size of the birds have been standardised, some birds die due to the stunning process prior
to slaughter or a delay in the time of the slaughter process, leading to poor blood drainage [33,48].
The ability of poultry to withstand the same voltage current and remain alive after electrical stunning
differs even within a particular weight parameter. This is the reason for the unacceptability of stunning
with an electric current in the halal poultry industry [48]. Potentially painful pre-stun shocks can
occur during water bath stunning if a bird’s wing or any other part of the bird makes contact with
the live water before the head [49]. European legislation states that electrical shocks before stunning
must be prevented [16], which can be ensured by properly designing the water bath to include an
entry ramp. Mis-stuns can occur particularly when the flock is unequal in size and smaller birds arch
their neck or lift up due to a pre-stun shock and fly the full length of the water bath stunner [49].
The advantages of properly applied high-frequency preslaughter electrical stunning in ruminants and
poultry were reported by Sabow et al. [50] and include efficient bleeding and improved meat and
carcass quality; as it is reversible, it also complies with the minimum requirement of halal slaughter.
Nonpenetrative percussive reversible stunning (if it does not lead to neuropathological changes) could
be an acceptable method for halal slaughter in some Muslim countries. However, a relatively large
incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage was observed in cattle, which makes this method questionable
for the halal meat industry [51]. Gibson et al. [52] found that the ratio of mis-stuns in adult cattle
(bulls) when using a nonpenetrating captive bolt stunner was 18%, which is a serious welfare problem.
European legislation allows use of this method only for poultry, lagomorphs and ruminants up to
10 kg of live weight in order to ensure that the blow is sufficient to render the animal unconscious and
avoid mis-stuns. Fracture of the skull must be avoided [16]. Chandia and Soon [11] confirmed that
stunning prior to slaughter can be adopted if it fulfils the three following prerequisites:

- The stunning must be reversible; it must not kill the animal or cause permanent injury.
Animals 2019, 9, 530 6 of 13

- Stunning should be performed by a trained Muslim slaughter-man or supervisor under regular


monitoring by a competent Islamic authority or halal certification body.
- Halal slaughter animals should never be stunned with stunning equipment used on pigs.

4. The Position of the Animal’s Body During Slaughter


The appropriate restraint of animals prior to slaughter is extremely important in order to conduct
the slaughtering process properly, especially for halal slaughter without stunning. The accuracy of
the incision could be negatively affected during halal slaughter if animals panic or are agitated by the
restraint [53]. The use of less-stressing restraint techniques leads to improved animal welfare and
slaughter operative safety, as well as the improved quality of the product [54]. The position of animals
during halal slaughtering should be that they are laid on their left flank and preferably facing the Qibla
(in the direction of Makkah in Saudi Arabia). This means that at the onset of the performance of the
incision, the slaughterer should face towards the Qibla and the animal’s neck (location of incision)
should be turned to face the Qibla (Figure 1). During slaughter, according to the Islamic rules of
slaughter as indicated by the Hadiths, animals should be shackled and elevated only after bleeding and
when the animal has lost consciousness [12]. These are the historical practices of animal slaughtering
in Islam. The purpose of this slaughter position (lying on the left flank) is, according to its supporters,
to increase the probability of maximum blood drainage by the pressure of the body on the heart [13],
as consumption of blood is forbidden for Muslims (Quran 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, 16:115). The idea of
greater blood loss from sheep slaughtered in the horizontal position than from those hung vertically is
supported by some studies [55,56]. Several methods of restraint (particularly for ruminants) have been
used in modern halal slaughterhouses over the years, such as the hoisting of conscious cattle by the hind
leg, restraining in the upright or standing position, restraining cattle by inverting them on their backs
and lateral recumbency [8,57]. The hoisting of cattle by the hind leg when fully conscious, which is still
used in some countries such as Turkey, causes significant pain and unnecessary suffering for animals
resulting from their heavy weight and the anatomy of the digestive system [58,59]. Such inhumane
animal restraint is against the teaching of Islam, EU legislation and animal welfare. Upright restraint
performed in pens known as American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
boxes is designed with a chin lift that stretches the neck to provide easy accesses for halal incision
performance [8]. The disadvantages of the upright restraint method during the halal slaughter (without
stunning) of cattle are the possibility of blood aspiration into the lungs, poor bleeding (clamping of the
blood vessels of the neck against the head restraint) and delayed loss of consciousness. The upright
restraint method is currently widely used by European halal authorities, although it is not preferred by
certain groups of Muslims [27]. Dialrel [59] reported that the restraint of cattle on their backs provides
poor animal welfare, confirming postmortem contamination of the trachea and larynx with blood and
gut content depending on the position and depth of the ritual incision. The restraining of cattle in
the lateral recumbency position (at a 90◦ angle, lying on their sides) is the most preferable restraint
method for most halal slaughterhouses because it is the most suitable method regarding compliance
with halal criteria [8]. Although the cattle do not suffer from problems associated with pressure on
the diaphragm, aorta or major veins if the lateral recumbency restraint method is used, pressure on
other internal organs may occur [59,60]. Restraint in a V-shaped or straddled conveyor with full or
half inversion in a rotary pen and an upright restraint system are useable methods in red-meat animal
slaughterhouses [57]. The common position of poultry at slaughter is vertical hanging on shackles [61].
Velarde et al. [23] assessed and compared different restraint systems for animals during halal slaughter,
including turning the animals by 45◦ , turning them on their side (i.e., by 90◦ ), turning them on their
back (a 180◦ turn) and restraining animals in an upright position. The study found that struggling and
vocalisation were observed in cattle with all restraint systems, though the highest levels were reported
when the cattle were turned on their sides. The study also found that the percentage of adequately bled
animals was highest when animals were turned on their sides, while it was lowest when slaughtering
processes were conducted with the animals in an upright position. According to the same research,
Animals 2019, 9, 530 7 of 13

the sufficient bleeding of animals turned on their sides at slaughter was attributed to the fact that the
time to loss of posture (recumbent and hypotonic animals) is shortest in such a position. Significant
variation in the number of cuts was reported between restraint systems, with more cuts performed on
cattle restrained in the upright position (nine cuts) in comparison with inversion at 180◦ (five cuts)
and 90◦ (three cuts). This study indicated that the interval between restraining and cutting the neck
in sheep slaughtered without stunning was lowest in animals manually restrained on their side [23].
Warriss and Leach [62] indicated that the slaughter position affects bleeding. Khalid et al. [63] found
that blood loss after the slaughter of lambs increased significantly when carcasses were hung vertically
rather than kept upright in a V-restrainer. This greater bleeding of animals is most likely due to the
change in animal orientation and gravity [64]. More effective bleeding in animals hung vertically by
shackling the hind legs in comparison with animals bled in a horizontal position was also reported in
cattle [65]. The possibility of blood aspiration in the respiratory tract during the slaughter of cattle has
been reported. Blood aspiration in the respiratory tract during the slaughter of cattle was shown in
the upright (standing) position by Gregory et al. [27] and the inverted position by the European Food
Safety Authority [46]. It is known that the method of halal slaughter was conducted manually in the
past by people without the help of machinery, for which reason the position of the animals during halal
slaughter (lying on the left flank) and facing the Qibla could be suitable in such a case. However, it is
difficult to fulfil the conditions for the animal’s position during halal slaughter in the case of poultry,
when the birds are restrained and hanging vertically and mechanical slaughter plays a major role.
Although the Islamic law states “all the animals except camel” [13], according to a fatwa, lying on the
left flank is preferable but not mandatory for halal slaughter of poultry.

Figure 1. Location of incision during the halal slaughter of cattle (ruminants). 1: trachea; 2: oesophagus;
3: vena jugularis externa dextra; 4: arteria carotis communis; 5: arteria carotis externa dextra; 6: arteria carotis
interna dextra; 7: arteria maxillaris; 8: vena maxillaris; 9: vena linguofacialis; 10: truncus linguofacialis.

5. The Location of Cutting (Incision) During Slaughter


Hadith states that “the cut must be made on the neck, just below the gullet and the core of the
neck”. The Hadith moreover mentions that “the jugular veins” and “the carotid arteries must be
cut, in addition to the oesophagus and the trachea” [66]. The slaughter act must be performed by
prompt incision with one uniform continuous movement and without any interruption, uncertainty
or unnecessary delay. Furthermore, the incision must be performed at the ventral aspect of the
Animals 2019, 9, 530 8 of 13

neck near the lower jaw and must not reach the spine. This means that the head should not be
completely separated from the body during slaughter [67], which can delay loss of consciousness due
to blood continuing to flow to the brain through the vertebral arteries [28,68]. The preamble of Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 indicates that slaughtering bovine, ovine and caprine species without
stunning requires accurate cutting of the throat using a sharp knife to minimise suffering, adding
that animals under this procedure that are not restrained mechanically after the incision are likely to
endure a slower bleeding process and consequently prolonged unnecessary suffering [16]. Minimally
painful and complete bleeding is required during halal slaughter, which is difficult to perform in large
animals [69]. Previous researchers have indicated an association between the location of the cut and
the onset of unconsciousness during slaughter without stunning, such as in halal slaughter. It has been
found that cutting the neck at a position parallel to the first cervical vertebra (C1) almost eliminates the
development of false aneurysm compared with the conventional C2+, thereby minimising the risk of
restricted exsanguination [28,70]. Gibson et al. [70] found that the performance of the neck cut at a
higher position than the conventional low cut on the neck reduced the time to loss of posture (onset of
unconsciousness) in halal-slaughtered cattle, thereby minimising subsequent distress such as false
aneurysm. The development of false aneurysm occurs due to the contraction of the severed carotid
artery within its surrounding connective tissue sheath, which can subsequently block the flow of blood
from the artery [26,68]. The recommended position of incision is depicted in Figure 1. Gibson et al. [70]
suggested that adoption of a high neck-cut tactic in halal slaughter (without stunning) may reduce the
compromise in welfare associated with the delayed time to loss of consciousness. It may be appropriate
to find and apply such means in the meat industry that take into consideration both animal welfare
and religious aspects.

6. Mechanical Slaughter (Poultry)


In general, and according to Islamic principles, only Muslims or “People of the Book” (Christians and
Jews) that are familiar with the Islamic procedure of animal slaughtering (ritual slaughter) can perform it.
A sharp knife free of scratches and nicks of a suitable length (two to four times the size of the
neck of the animal) should be used to perform slaughter properly [71,72]. There are no special types
of knifes determined for halal slaughtering as there are for the kosher slaughtering of animals [4].
During slaughtering itself, the specific phrase in the Arabic language “Bismillah, Allahu Akbar”,
which means “In the name of Allah, Allah is the greatest”, should be pronounced by the slaughter-man
aloud, and the animal should be alive. This is in accordance with commands given in the Quran: “So eat
of that over which the Name of God was pronounced” (al-An, am, 118). The slaughter-man repeating
this pronouncement aloud when slaughtering each bird in large-scale poultry processing plants, where
4000–12,000 birds are processed each hour on a single line, is extremely difficult in practice [47,73].
For this purpose, the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing Fatwas (Islamic rulings)
issued a fatwa to the effect that it suffices to pronounce this phrase once when running a mechanical
slaughter machine in poultry slaughterhouses [74]. It has been reported that at some slaughterhouses,
a recording of the phrase is played during machine slaughter instead of being pronounced, but this does
not adhere to the fundamental principles of halal slaughtering [75]. It is thought that the mechanical
slaughters performed in halal abattoirs do not adhere to Islamic principles [76,77]. This belief is also
confirmed on the basis of the evaluation of the DIALRE project [59] for halal slaughter practices for
poultry in European abattoirs. Many practices which could be in conflict with halal slaughtering rules
have been recorded in such abattoirs. An automatic horizontal rotary knife for neck cutting performed
the procedure in three out of the five poultry abattoirs that practiced halal slaughter with stunning.
This slaughtering procedure contradicted halal conditions stating that hand slaughter and performance
of the act by the slaughter-man (preferably a Muslim, though the person may be a Christian or Jew),
accompanied by the invocation of the blessing before incision, is required [23]. Besides, improper neck
cutting of chickens by a rotating blade is possible, which negatively influences blood loss and animal
welfare. In general, continuous monitoring of such mechanical practices in all poultry slaughterhouses
Animals 2019, 9, 530 9 of 13

by person or the use of a closed-circuit television is necessary to ensure the correct neck position of
birds [75].
Currently, halal slaughter (hand slaughter without stunning) practices are unable to compete with
the standard operating procedures of high-speed, high-throughput abattoirs in meeting the enormous
demand for meat [11]. Halal slaughter, which requires workers instead of machines, has economic
consequences that increase the price of the meat, which means that consumers pay a premium for
halal meat.

7. Conclusions
The trend of all-encompassing modernity does not exclude any area of life. Practices that were
adopted in the past are not used today and what we consider satisfactory today may not be suitable
in the future. The main religious laws and regulations in the halal meat industry were promulgated
more than 1400 years ago. There is a segment of Muslims who believe that religious laws are valid
for all times and places and call for their application today without any change or modification
because they believe that these principles are heavenly. The sources of the provisions and legislations
concerning halal meat are the Quran, Sunnah and Islamic scholars. Ijmā (consensus of legal opinion)
and Qiyās (reasoning by analogy) are also sources of jurisprudence which play an important role in
the interpretation and application of slaughter practices, such as acceptability of several stunning
methods. Ijmā and Qiyās have secondary importance in comparison with the main and very important
sources of Islamic legislation, including the Quran and the Sunnah. Furthermore, these two sources
of Islamic legislation do not have the same importance and effectiveness in all of the Islamic legal
schools (Madhhab), where the Sunni interpretations are different than Shi’a interpretations. For this
reason, there are differences among Muslim countries about the acceptability of stunning methods.
The strict adherence of Muslims to these religious instructions depends on the importance of the
source of their legislation, including the Quran and Sunnah or Islamic scholars. Our purpose is not to
praise or condemn the laws of the halal meat industry or to demonstrate the efficiency of modern meat
technology but to highlight the intersections and the areas of consonance and dissonance between the
two aspects. The meat industry can take these observations into consideration and provide technology
that is appropriate for religious laws. Suitable modern technological means and practices in accordance
with halal criteria in the meat industry are the reversible stunning of animals, restraint of animals in
a lateral recumbency position (for ruminants) and performance of neck incision at a position higher
than the conventional low incision in cattle in order to reduce the possibility of the occurrence of
false aneurysm. Hand-cutting (manual slaughter of poultry) nonstunned slaughter, which is more
dependent on employees than technological means, is more expensive and time consuming; for this
reason, it faces serious difficulties in competing with current slaughtering practices. This research
does not deal with the technological processes that are conducted after slaughter, such as skinning,
evisceration, splitting, washing and dressing of carcasses, meat cutting and utilisation of meat cuts,
due to a lack of religious (Islamic) texts in this regard and finds no conflict with the usual technological
practices. The application of all the principles of halal is extremely difficult and complex in practice
due to the lack of a unified vision between various sects of Islam. Globalisation and new technologies
have both negative and positive effects on the practical application of the rules and laws of halal meat
production. It is necessary to create technology that is not in conflict with religious principles while
keeping pace with modernisation at the same time.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation F.A.A.A. and G.B.; methodology F.A.A.A. and G.B.; writing—original draft
preparation F.A.A.A.; writing—review and editing G.B. and I.S.; supervision G.B. and I.S.; funding acquisition, G.B.
Funding: This work was carried out under the project FoodFeedPass—Methods for identification, traceability
and authenticity verification of feed mixtures and food containing components of animal origin (QJ1530107),
financially supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Animals 2019, 9, 530 10 of 13

References
1. Thomson Reuters. State of the Global Islamic Economy 2018–2019 Report. Available online: https:
//haladinar.io/hdn/doc/report2018.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2019).
2. Van der Spiegel, M.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Sterrenburg, P.; van Ruth, S.M.; Scholtens-Toma, I.M.J.; Kok, E.J.
Halal assurance in food supply chains: Verification of halal certificates using audits and laboratory analysis.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 27, 109–119. [CrossRef]
3. WHF. Halal Market Potential, a Regional Focus; World Halal Forum: The Hague, The Netherlands,
17–18 November 2009.
4. Benzertiha, A.; Kierończyk, B.; Rawski, M.; Józefiak, A.; Mazurkiewicz, J.; Józefiak, D.; Messikh, M.S.;
Światkiewicz,
˛ S. Cultural and practical aspects of halal slaughtering in food production. Med. Weter.
2018, 74, 371–376. [CrossRef]
5. Bonne, K.; Verbeke, W. Religious values informing halal meat production and the control and delivery of
halal credence quality. Agric. Hum. Values 2008, 25, 35–47. [CrossRef]
6. Ceranic, S.; Bozinovic, N. Possibilities and significance of HAS implementation (halal assurance system) in
existing quality system in food industry. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2009, 25, 261–266. [CrossRef]
7. Riaz, M.N.; Chaudry, M.M. Halal Food Production; CRC Press LCC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; p. 400.
8. Fuseini, A.; Knowles, T.G.; Lines, J.A.; Hadley, P.J.; Wotton, S.B. The stunning and slaughter of cattle within
the EU: A review of the current situation with regard to the halal market. Anim. Welf. 2016, 25, 365–376.
[CrossRef]
9. Masri, B.A. Animal Welfare in Islam, Revised ed.; The Islamic Foundation: Leicester, UK, 2007.
10. Kohilavani, E.; Zzaman, W.; Febrianto, N.A.; Zakariya, N.S.; Abdullah, W.N.W.; Yang, T.A. Embedding
Islamic dietary requirements into HACCP approach. Food Control 2013, 34, 607–612. [CrossRef]
11. Chandia, M.; Soon, J.M. The variations in religious and legal understandings on halal slaughter. Br. Food J.
2018, 120, 714–730. [CrossRef]
12. Rahman, S.A. Religion and Animal Welfare—An Islamic Perspective. Animals 2017, 7, 11. [CrossRef]
13. Awan, J.A.; Sohaib, M. Halal and humane slaughter: Comparison between Islamic teachings and modern
methods. Pak. J. Food Sci. 2016, 26, 234–240.
14. FAO. Techniques and Hygiene Practices in Slaughtering and Meat Handling. In Guidelines for Slaughtering,
Meat Cutting and Further Processing. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 91; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1991;
ISBN 92-5-102921-0.
15. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, of 22 December 2004. on the Protection of Animals During Transport and
Related Operations and Amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97.
OJ L.3, 1–44. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/1/oj (accessed on 20 March 2019).
16. Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing.
OJ L. 303, 1–30. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1099/oj (accessed on 20 March 2019).
17. Marahrens, M.; von Richtofen, I.; Schmeidduch, S.; Hartung, J. Special problems of long-distance road
transport of cattle. Dtsch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr. 2003, 110, 120–125.
18. Dewell, G. Heat Stress in Beef Cattle. Iowa State University, Ames. Available online: https://vetmed.iastate.
edu/vdpam/about/production-animal-medicine/beef/bovine-disease-topics/heat-stress-beef-cattle (accessed on 21
March 2019).
19. Pereira, R.E.P.; Martins, M.R.F.B.; Mendes, A.A.; Almeida, P.A.Z.I.C.L.; Komiyama, C.M.; Milbradt, E.L.;
Fernandes, B.C.S. Effects of pre-slaughter fasting on broiler welfare, meat quality, and intestinal integrity.
Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2013, 15, 119–122. [CrossRef]
20. Mendonça, F.S.; ZambardaVaz, R.; Leal1, W.S.; Restle, J.; Pascoal, L.L.; Marcia Vaz, M.; Farias, G.D. Genetic group
and horns presence in bruises and economic losses in cattle carcasses. Semin. Ciênc. Agrár. 2016, 37, 4265–4274.
[CrossRef]
21. Karaca, S.; Erdoğan, S.; Kor, D.; Kor, A. Effects of pre-slaughter diet/management system and fasting period
on physiological indicators and meat quality traits of lambs. Meat Sci. 2016, 116, 67–77. [CrossRef]
22. O’Neill, H.; Webb, E.; Frylinck, L.; Strydom, P. Effects of short and extended fasting periods and cattle breed
on glycogenolysis, sarcomere shortening and Warner-Bratzler shear force. South. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 48, 71.
[CrossRef]
Animals 2019, 9, 530 11 of 13

23. Velarde, A.; Rodriguez, P.; Dalmau, A.; Fuentes, C.; Llonch, P.; von Holleben, K.V.; Anil, M.H.; Lambooij, J.B.;
Pleiter, H.; Yesildere, T.; et al. Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices in selected countries.
Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 278–287. [CrossRef]
24. Gibson, T.J.; Johnson, C.B.; Murrell, J.C.; Chambers, J.P.; Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. Components of
electroencephalographic responses to slaughter in halothane anaesthetised calves: Effects of cutting neck
tissues compared with major blood vessels. N. Zeal. Vet. J. 2009, 57, 84–89. [CrossRef]
25. Zulkifli, I.; Goh, Y.M.; Norbaiyah, B.; Sazili, A.Q.; Lotfi, M.; Soleimani, A.F.; Small, A.H. Changes in blood
parameters and electroencephalogram of cattle as affected by different stunning and slaughter methods in
cattle. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014, 54, 187–193. [CrossRef]
26. Gregory, N.G.; Fielding, H.R.; Von Wenzlawowicz, M.; Von Holleben, K. Time to collapse following slaughter
without stunning in cattle. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 66–69. [CrossRef]
27. Gregory, N.G.; von Wenzlawowicz, M.; von Holleben, K. Blood in the respiratory tract during slaughter with
and without stunning in cattle. Meat Sci. 2009, 82, 13–16. [CrossRef]
28. Gregory, N.; Von Wenzlawowicz, M.; Von Holleben, K.; Fielding, H.; Gibson, T.; Mirabito, L.; Kolesar, R.
Complications during shechita and halal slaughter without stunning in cattle. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 81–86.
[CrossRef]
29. Sinclair, M.; Idrus, Z.; Burns, G.L.; Phillips, C.J.C. Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter
Stunning in Key Asian Countries. Animals 2019, 9, 224. [CrossRef]
30. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Guidelines for Ritual Slaughter of Food Animals without Pre-Slaughter
Stunning. Available online: https://inspection.gc.ca/food/food-specific-requirements-and-guidance/
meat-products-and-food-animals/guidelines-for-ritual-slaughter-of-food-animals-wi/eng/1542387114106/
1542388400893 (accessed on 1 July 2019).
31. Anil, M.H. Religious slaughter: A current controversial animal welfare issue. Anim. Front. 2012, 2, 64–67.
[CrossRef]
32. Anil, M.H.; Gregory, N.G. Slaughter, Ethics and the Law. In Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences; Dikeman, D.,
Devine, C., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 280–283.
33. Lever, J.; Miele, M. The growth of halal meat markets in Europe: An exploration of the supply side theory of
religion. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 528–537. [CrossRef]
34. EBLEX The halal meat market: Specialist Supply Chain Structures and Consumer Purchase and Consumption
Profiles in England. Available online: http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/p_cp_
EBLEX_Halal_Meat_FINAL_111110.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2019).
35. Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC). FRSC Technical Report No. 3: Australian Standard for the
Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption. Available
online: http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=5553 (accessed on 7 May 2019).
36. RSPCA. What is Halal Slaughter in Australia? Available online: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/
what-is-halal-slaughter-in-australia/ (accessed on 7 May 2019).
37. Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM) Livestock at Slaughtering
Establishments: Report 79. Available online: https://www.publish.csiro.au/ebook/download/pdf/2975
(accessed on 7 May 2019).
38. Farouk, M.M.; Pufpaff, K.M.; Amir, M. Industrial halal meat production and animal welfare: A review.
Meat Sci. 2016, 120, 60–70. [CrossRef]
39. Robins, A.; Pleiter, H.; Latter, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. The efficacy of pulsed ultrahigh current for the stunning of
cattle prior to slaughter. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 1201–1209. [CrossRef]
40. Small, A.; McLean, D.; Keates, H.; Owen, J.; Ralph, J. Preliminary investigations into the use of microwave
energy for reversible stunning of sheep. Anim. Welf. 2013, 22, 291–296. [CrossRef]
41. Rault, J.L.; Hemsworth, P.; Cakebread, P.; Mellor, D.; Johnson, C. Evaluation of microwave energy as a
humane stunning technique based on electroencephalography (EEG) of anaesthetised cattle. Anim. Welf.
2014, 23, 391–400. [CrossRef]
42. Farouk, M.M. Advances in the industrial production of halal and kosher red meat. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 805–820.
[CrossRef]
43. Farouk, M.M.; Al-Mazeedi, H.M.; Sabow, A.B.; Bekhit, A.E.D.; Adeyemi, K.D.; Sazili, A.Q.; Ghani, A. Halal
and kosher slaughter methods and meat quality: A review. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 505–519. [CrossRef]
Animals 2019, 9, 530 12 of 13

44. Fuseini, A.; Wotton, S.B.; Hadley, P.J.; Knowles, T.G. The perception and acceptability of pre-slaughter
and post-slaughter stunning for halal production: The views of UK Islamic scholars and halal consumers.
Meat Sci. 2017, 123, 143–150. [CrossRef]
45. Department of Islamic Development Malaysia. Malaysian Protocol for the Halal Meat and Poultry Productions.
Available online: http://www.hdcglobal.com/upload-web/cms-editor-files/.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2019).
46. European Food Safety Authority. Welfare Aspects of animal Stunning and Killing Methods. European Food
Safety Authority–AHAW 04-027. Scientific Report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a
request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. EFSA J.
2004, 45, 1–29. [CrossRef]
47. Schilling, M.W.; Vizzier-Thaxton, Y.; Alvarado, C.Z. Slaughter-Line Operation: Poultry. In Encyclopedia of
Meat Sciences; Dikeman, M., Devine, C., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; p. 303.
48. Halal Monitoring Committee. Issues of Mechanical Slaughter and Stunning. Available online: https:
//halalhmc.org/resources/issues-of-mechanical-slaughter-and-stunning/ (accessed on 20 March 2019).
49. Rao, M.A.; Knowles, T.G.; Wotton, S.B. The effect of pre-stun shocks in electrical water-bath stunners on
carcase and meat quality in broilers. Anim. Welf. 2013, 22, 79–84. [CrossRef]
50. Sabow, A.; Nakyinsige, K.; Adeyemi, K.; Sazili, A.; Johnson, C.; Webster, J.; Farouk, M. High frequency
pre-slaughter electrical stunning in ruminants and poultry for halal meat production: A review. Livest. Sci.
2017, 202, 124–134. [CrossRef]
51. Oliveira, S.E.O.; Dalla Costa, F.A.; Gibson, T.J.; Dalla Costa, O.A.; Coldebella, A.; Gregory, N.G. Evaluation of
brain damage resulting from penetrating and non-penetrating stunning in Nelore Cattle using pneumatically
powered captive bolt guns. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 347–351. [CrossRef]
52. Gibson, T.J.; Oliveira, S.E.O.; Dalla Costa, F.A.; Gregory, N.G. Electroencephalographic assessment of pneumatically
powered penetrating and non-penetrating captive-bolt stunning of bulls. Meat Sci. 2019, 151, 54–59. [CrossRef]
53. Hollenben, K.V. Handling and restraining issues for the most important species. EU Commission DG Sanco.
Training workshop on animal welfare concerning the stunning and killing of animals at slaughterhouses and in
disease control situation, Zagreb, Croatia, 15–19 October 2007. Available online: http://www.sancotraining.izs.it/
news_corso03/training%20aid/16%20October%202007/von%20Holleben.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2018).
54. Lambooij, E.; van der Werf, J.T.N.; Reimert, H.G.M.; Hindle, V.A. Restraining and neck cutting or stunning
and neck cutting of veal calves. Meat Sci. 2012, 91, 22–28. [CrossRef]
55. Blackmore, D.K.; Newhook, J.C. Effects of different slaughter methods on bleeding sheep. Vet. Rec. 1976, 16, 312–316.
[CrossRef]
56. Johnson, C.B.; Mellor, D.J.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Fisher, A.D. A scientific comment on the welfare of domesticated
ruminants slaughtered without stunning. New Zealand Vet. J. 2015, 1, 58–65. [CrossRef]
57. Gregory, N.G. Recent concerns about stunning and slaughter. Meat Sci. 2005, 70, 481–491. [CrossRef]
58. Grandin, T. Evaluation of Methods of Restraint for Holding (Fixation) of Cattle, Calves and Sheep for Kosher
and Halal Slaughter. Available online: http://www.grandin.com/ritual/evaluation.restraint.methods.kosher.
halal.html (accessed on 7 May 2019).
59. DIALREL Report on Good and Adverse Practices: Animal Welfare Concerns in Relation to Slaughter
Practices from the Viewpoint of Veterinary Sciences. Available online: http://www.dialrel.eu/images/
veterinary-concerns.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2019).
60. Tagawa, M.; Okano, S.; Sako, T.; Orima, H.; Steffey, E.P. Effects of change in body position on cardiopulmonary
function and plasma cortisol in cattle. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 1994, 56, 131–134. [CrossRef]
61. Lambooij, E.; Pieterse, C.; Hillebrand, S.; Dijksterhuis, G. The effects of captive bolt and electrical stunning,
and restraining methods on broiler meat quality. Poult. Sci. 1999, 78, 600–607. [CrossRef]
62. Warriss, P.D.; Leach, T.M. The influence of slaughter method on the residual blood content of meat. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 1978, 29, 608–610. [CrossRef]
63. Khalid, R.; Knowles, T.G.; Wotton, S.B. A comparison of blood loss during the Halal slaughter of lambs
following Traditional Religious Slaughter without stunning, Electric Head-Only Stunning and Post-Cut
Electric Head-Only Stunning. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 15–23. [CrossRef]
64. Velarde, A.; Gispert, M.; Diestre, A.; Manteca, X. Effect of electrical stunning on meat and carcass quality in
lambs. Meat Sci. 2003, 63, 35–38. [CrossRef]
65. Gracey, J.F. Thornton’s Meat Hygiene; Balliere Tindall: London, UK, 1981; p. 436.
66. Sahih Bukhari. Available online: www.sahih-bukhari.com (accessed on 20 March 2018).
Animals 2019, 9, 530 13 of 13

67. Helmut, P. Review of Stunning and Halal Slaughter; Meat & Livestock Australia: North Sydney, Australia, 2010;
pp. 1–26.
68. Gregory, N.G.; Schuster, P.; Mirabito, L.; Kolesar, R.; Mc Manus, T. Arrested blood flow during false aneurysm
formation in the carotid arteries of cattle slaughtered with and without stunning. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 368–372.
[CrossRef]
69. Fuseini, A.; Knowles, T.G.; Hadley, P.J.; Wotton, S.B. Halal stunning and slaughter: Criteria for the assessment
of dead animals. Meat Sci. 2016, 119, 132–137. [CrossRef]
70. Gibson, T.J.; Dadios, N.; Gregory, N.G. Effect of neck cut position on time to collapse in halal slaughtered
cattle without stunning. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 310–314. [CrossRef]
71. Aghwan, Z.A.; Bello, A.U.; Abubakar, A.A.; Imlan, J.C.; Sazili, A.Q. Efficient halal bleeding, animal handling,
and welfare: A holistic approach for meat quality. Meat Sci. 2016, 121, 420–428. [CrossRef]
72. Grandin, T.; Regenstein, J. Religious slaughter and animal welfare: A discussion for meat scientists.
Meat Focus Int. 1994, 3, 115–123.
73. Raj, A.B.M. Stunning. In Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences; Dikeman, M., Devine, C., Eds.; Academic Press:
San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 401–406.
74. Al-Darwish, A. The Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing Fatwas; Dar Al Moayyed: Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, 2003; pp. 461–464.
75. Shahdan, I.A.; Regenstein, J.M.; Shahabuddin, A.S.M.; Rahman, M.T. Developing control points for halal
slaughtering of poultry. Poult Sci. 2016, 95, 1680–1692. [CrossRef]
76. Muftı̄ Shafı̄. Jawāhir al-Fiqh. Deoband, India, 1968. pp. 363–416. (in Urdu). Available online:
https://ia800603.us.archive.org/2/items/Jawahir-ul-Fiqh-Volumes1-2-3-4-6-7-ByShaykhMuftiMuhammad/
Jawahir-ul-Fiqh-Volume6-ByShaykhMuftiMuhammadShafir.a.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2019).
77. Nakyinsige, K.; Man, Y.B.C.; Aghwan, Z.A.; Zulkifli, I.; Goh, Y.M.; Abu Bakar, F.; Al-Kahtani, H.A.; Sazli, A.Q.
Stunning and animal welfare from Islamic and scientific perspectives. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 352–361. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like