Halal and xenophobia - Can you legislate morality?

As multiculturalism increases, so does controversy. New laws are made, old laws are revoked, and campaigns are waged to influence where that particular river should run. An example can be seen above, as two MPs (that's "Members of Parliament" for my non-British audience) discuss the merits of banning Halal meat in the UK.

The word "halal" (حلال) is Arabic, meaning "permissible". In the context of food in Islam, it means that which is allowed under Islamic law. Halal meat is controversial because of the way it is slaughtered. To be considered halal, the animal must be healthy at the time of slaughter, it must be killed by a Muslim reciting "Bismillah, Allahu Akbar" over it, and it must be killed swiftly by cutting the throat, windpipe, and blood vessels with a sharp knife.

This is controversial because stunning is debated heavily within Islam. Obviously, since stunning did not exist in Muhammad's time, classical Islamic scholars did not debate the issue. Furthermore, Islam is quite hostile to "bid'ah" (بدعة). That is, "innovation" in religious matters. In Islam, all innovators go to Hell (1). Stunning is a new concept, and so it is argued that it is an innovation. However, not all scholars are agreed on this. There is no universal standard on whether or not stunning is allowed pre-slaughter. However, it is regularly prohibited, particularly in Islamic countries (2).

Within Christianity, the debate is far easier to settle. First, unlike in Islam, all foods are permissible within Christianity. That includes animals considered "unclean" under Old Testament Law, which we are explicitly told we are no longer under, and even includes foods sacrificed to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8). In short, we don't need to worry too much about exactly how our food was slaughtered.

---

[Side note: The reason Scripture gives for letting Christians eat food sacrificed to idols is that we know idols are nothing. This suggests Paul was more confident in Yahweh than Muhammad was in Allah.]

---

With that being said, while we have no motive to forbid stunning, we have plenty of reason to support it. Scripture is very clear: "Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel." (Proverbs 12:10). More famously, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." (Matthew 10:29). The Bible is so clear that God Himself cares for animals that one can make a compelling case that animal go to Heaven. If God cares about animals, then by logical extension, so should we.

Now, notice the contrast. On the one hand, you have Islam, which tends to adhere strictly to a code which, generally speaking, opposes pre-slaughter stunning. This is because Islam is not grounded in animal welfare, but in the alleged teachings of Muhammad. On the other hand, you have Christianity, which tends to raise welfare standards wherever it goes, because it is grounded in the commands of the God of love.

Here's a question. How do we legislate in a country inhabited by both cultures (and more)? We often hear "you can't legislate morality", but we seem to forget what legislation actually is. Legislation is the imposition of morality. One does not need a law against that to which he is already opposed. Nor does one need a law to compel him to do that which he does by nature. There are obviously some outliers, such as which side of the road do we drive on, but these only serve to highlight the moral aspects.

If it's true that we cannot legislate morality (which, ironically, would be a moral claim, and therefore functionally useless for legislative purposes), then we can neither restrict, nor compel halal. By contrast, if morality even exists, we logically must legislate morality. This begs a further question: Which morality do we legislate by?

If you're a Muslim, your argument should never be that banning Islamic practice is "xenophobic", or "racist", for three reasons. The first is that it rarely actually is. In fact, as Islam is a religion, not a race. The second is that there isn't actually any Islamic prohibition on racism or xenophobia (and in fact, Muhammad himself was an avid racist and xenophobe). But most importantly, if you believe Islam is true, you believe Islamic morality is the standard by which we should judge, and formulate our laws, and should be arguing on that basis. Anything less betrays a lack of confidence.

The same is true for Christianity. As a Christian, I believe our laws should reflect Christian morality. This isn't because I'm some kind of bigot, but because I believe Christianity is true. Therefore, I am actually either right or wrong here. If Christianity is not true, I am wrong about Christianity being true, and by logical extension, about it being the standard by which laws are judged or formulated. By contrast, if I am right about Christianity being true, I am right about it being the standard.

And that is how it works with all religions (including those who identify as "none"). Am I off base here? Is it wrong of me to say that the laws we are required to follow in the reality we inhabit should be equally grounded in reality as it exists? If I'm wrong, then tell me, whose made up nonsense should take priority when Congress puts pen to paper? Where is the stone from which Britain's next prime minister should pull his sword? Which unicorn-riding guru should negotiate trade deals between France and Wakanda?

If morality isn't real, then no law matters. The one who is right is the one with the biggest gun. But if it is real, then we should be legislating based upon it, not because we're "xenophobes", but because we're sensible, and morally alert. This, inevitably, will upset those who fail to duly acknowledge the truth. But the law does not exist to please the lawless. Rather, it exists because we exist. And we, unfortunately, are sinners, prone to unrighteous behavior, and in need of regulation.

Of course, this includes Christians. Scripture tells us all very plainly that if we say we are without sin, we are self deceived, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). For this reason, it is actually impractical to legislate all morality. Even God's law, which is good, is "weak through the flesh" (Romans 8:3).

But the glory of God is that what is impossible with man is possible with Him. Because we have broken His laws, we deserve His wrath. But because He loves us, He is unwilling to give it. Therefore, He gave His Son. Scripture says "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21). In other words, substitution. Jesus never did anything wrong, and so deserves only reward. We do bad things, and so deserve wrath. Yet, He received wrath, so that we may receive His reward. The criteria for this is faith.

References

1. Sunan al-Nasā’ī 1578 (link)

2. Mufti Yousuf ‘Abdur-Razzaaq - "Unified Halaal Standard (Exploring the Possibilities)", Sanha, December 2nd 2016 (link)