A Muslim MP compares animal welfare to Nazi laws
The UK Parliament debated a ban on halal slaughter. The final outcome is that religion continues to take precedence over animal welfare.
Illustrative image
Generated by AI
[social-share align=»right» style=»button» mobile_app=»desktop»]
[social-share align=»center» style=»icon» mobile_app=»mobile»]
Despite a public petition with more than 109,000 signatures and scientific evidence accumulated over decades, eThe UK government has decided to protect religious slaughter without stunning.. With this decision, the United Kingdom will continue to slaughter millions of animals while they are still conscious. According to Jewish News (12/06/2025) and 5Pillars (10/06/2025), This decision was made public after an intense parliamentary debate.. During the debate, several Muslim MPs openly defended this practice, justifying it on grounds of faith despite its serious ethical implications.
The session was marked by an extremely controversial statement: Muslim MP Adnan Hussain compared the defence of animal welfare to the antisemitic laws of Nazi Germany. with the following words:«Once we saw Nazi Germany introduce similar policies by law. At the time, the justification was animal welfare, but in context it was merely a pretext for antisemitism..”
This statement, collected by the media Five Pillars, It has generated a wave of perplexity and indignation. But it is not the only one. During the parliamentary debate, other Muslim MPs actively defended the retention of religious slaughter without stunning. The central argument? That banning it would be a form of religious discrimination.
Halal slaughter is more «humane»
The Muslim MP Iqbal Mohamed defended the halal ritual as a “humane” practice. He stated that its aim is to minimise suffering. He explained that, According to tradition, the animal must be alive and healthy, must not see the knife or witness the slaughter of other animals. And he concluded emphatically: “If this isn't human, I don't know what is..”
Iqbal opened the debate with a direct criticism of the initiative: «Yes, I'm concerned about animal welfare — that's the supposed topic here — but I'm equally concerned about the underlying tone. A title disguised as concern for well-being that sounds like a whistle for xenophobia, attacking religious practices, especially those of the Jewish and Muslim communities..”
Pain is «relative.»
MP Adam Shockat adopted an apparently moderate, yet equally problematic, tone. Although acknowledging that scientific studies indicate that slaughter without stunning can cause greater suffering, he sought to downplay the gravity of the facts by appealing to methodological uncertainty with the following phrase: «Even scientists recognise that pain can only be inferred, not measured..”
With this statement, Adam questioned the ability of science to assess animal pain, as if the absence of an absolute measure justified allowing a procedure that the very research describes as highly painful. This idea is not far removed from Catalonia, where The leader of the Catalan Muslims said that «only the animal knows if it suffers.». With these ideas, pain becomes a matter of opinion.
Furthermore, he sought to equate religious slaughter with the imperfections of conventional stunning methods, citing data from EFSA: “The 41 per cent of cattle do not become unconscious after the first attempt with the electric prod. And the non-penetrating method may have a failure rate of up to 30 per cent..But what he didn't mention is that these figures They are considered exceptions and not the norm..
Business is more important than well-being.
The fourth Muslim MP to speak was Ayoub Khan MP. He defended religious sacrifice. appealing to the economic and commercial interests of the United Kingdom. Far from focusing on the issue of animal suffering, he warned that a ban would put a key economic sector at risk. According to him, if this practice were banned, British livestock farmers would lose domestic and export markets, and imports would increase from countries that do not guarantee the same sanitary standards..
That is to say, their position was not so much a defence of the ritual as a strategy to protect the meat trade and industry under confessional criteria.
A clear petition: to put an end to a painful practice
The citizens“ petition entitled ”Ban non-stun slaughter in the UK" asked for something simple: that the law be aligned with what some European countries, such as Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, already apply., where the slaughter of animals without prior stunning is not permitted, even for religious reasons. The reason? The unnecessary suffering of animals.
According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Slaughter without stunning can cause intense and prolonged suffering, because the animals remain conscious while they slowly bleed to death. Massey University in New Zealand corroborates these conclusions, and even scientists who support religious practices acknowledge that pain can only be inferred, not denied.
The government's response: religion is above pain
The British government has chosen to prioritise religious beliefs over animal welfareThe legal exemption allowing halal and kosher slaughter without any form of stunning remains in place. This decision not only ignores scientific recommendations but also consumers' right to know what they are eating, since there is currently no requirement to label meat obtained by this method.
Similar
France now has a halal meat supply without the need to sacrifice animals facing Mecca.
A student residence in Scotland imposes Islamic law in common areas
Halal logistics arrives: separate lorries and warehouses for Muslim food
The Barxiluna project turned 80 years of al-Andalus into Barcelona's eternal debt to Islam
A Muslim father denounces a Swedish judo club for not adapting the greeting to Islam
Muslims ban pork cooking at public barbecues in Austria
Human rights report claims Ireland served pork sausages to deportees to Pakistan
German police investigate kindergarten cook for serving pork to Muslims
A public water park in Texas advertises itself as a “Muslim-only” space”
More Perceptions of
ERC, PSC and Comuns oppose combating political Islam in the European Parliament.
Azerbaijan expels students who wear Islamic headscarves from school
Sharia law in the US is supported by 75% of Muslims, 41% of atheists and up to 20% of Christians.
France now has a halal meat supply without the need to sacrifice animals facing Mecca.
The United Kingdom gives away a thousand hijabs in six months to immigrants arriving via the Channel
US Muslim politicians train Canadian Muslims under the slogan "From the mosque to the city hall"«
Teacher fired in Austria for denying a Muslim woman a prayer room
Canadian government normalizes Islamic prayer during workday
Lleida bans the burqa except if worn for religious reasons
Italy bans burqa and niqab but only in schools
The Generalitat pays tribute to the racist Abu Bakr al-Turtuxí as an anti-racist icon
A student residence in Scotland imposes Islamic law in common areas
Kazakhstan threatens to close private schools that allow hijab
A Catholic university in Belgium incorporates Islamic chants into the opening mass of the course
A Muslim family in Granada chooses a Catholic school and demands that the courts teach Islam there
Phrase of the Week
Image of the Week
-Don't you have cousins?