loader image
What is ‘Halal’? Any foods that can be eaten according to Islamic Sharia law

What is ‘Halal’? Any foods that can be eaten according to Islamic Sharia law

Seal - Halal Australia

So, when we are talking about halal foods it means any foods that can be eaten according to Islamic Sharia law.  This means that for any food to be considered halal it must comply with the religious ritual and observance of Sharia law.

What is ‘halal certification’?

This means that food has been subjected to certification systems which guarantee to consumers that nothing in the food has any forbidden components. Halal certificates are issued, for a fee, by a certifying body. The opposite of halal is haram (forbidden).

Food can be forbidden in Islam if it includes:

  • Blood
  • Alcohol
  • Meat or any products from a forbidden animal, including pigs and any carnivorous animals or birds of prey
  • Meat or any products of an animal which has not been slaughtered in the correct manner in the name of Allah

Under Islamic law (Sharia) it is permissible (halal) to consume items that would otherwise be termed haram so long as it is a matter of survival and not just an act of disobedience.

Many big food manufacturers pay halal certification fees on their products and pass this cost on to us!   Many non-Muslim Australians do not want to pay ‘halal taxes’ however most ‘halal certified’ products are not marked- meaning the consumer cannot easily identify products with the tax applied.

In Australia, the first halal certificate was issued in 1983.

The Australian Government did not regulate this business believing it should be ‘self-regulated’ rather than in government control. As a result, the ‘halal industry’ has spiralled out of control and has become a major revenue earner at our expense. Prior to 1983, and for over 1,300 years, Muslims have eaten foods not ‘halal certified’. Today, however, they demand halal certification, and we pay for something we don’t want and don’t need.

Halal Certification was initially applied to food but now applies to personal care products, utensils, fashion, medicines, clothing, shoes, pet foods, and packaging materials such as cans, drums and plastic bottles.  The ‘halal industry’ now makes $ billions each year in revenue. These funds are used by the Muslim community to build mosques, Islamic schools and support Islamic ‘charities’.

The enquiry in 2016 failed to search for links between halal funds and Islamic terrorism, so the question remains whether halal revenue funds illegal or criminal activities.

There are many major companies whose products are ‘halal certified’. Some of these are well-established names such as Cadburys, Kraft, Sanitarium, Kellogg’s, Nestle and King Island Dairy.

The Australian and New Zealand Governments have been remiss in not regulating this ‘third-party’, religious honey-pot of gold!  Many halal certifiers are ‘Not-For-Profit’ organizations, meaning no tax is paid on revenue. Being ‘un-regulated’ has allowed the industry to set its own certification fees, in many instances relevant to the businesses ability to pay, and not relevant to the cost of certification.

In contrast, in most predominantly Islamic countries, the government regulates both the fees and revenue from halal certification. This provides certainty in business, fairness in trade, removes price gouging, reduces turf wars and provides the government with an income stream.  That fact our government has not seem fit to do likewise is a failure to act in the interests of the majority.

A Senate Enquiry into ‘Third Party certification of food’ was held in 2015. The panel consisted of politicians from both major political parties. At the end of the enquiry seven (7) recommendations were made to the government.

    • The Committee recommends that food manufacturers clearly label products which have received third-party certification.
    • The Committee recommends that the government, through the Department of Agriculture, consider the monitoring and compliance of halal certification of meat for export; and becoming the sole signatory on the government halal certificate.
    • The Committee recommends that the government, through bilateral and multilateral forums, promote greater acceptance of a ‘whole–of-country’, government-led halal certification system.
    • The Committee recommends that the government consider requiring certification bodies to register their operations under certification trademarks.
    • The Committee recommends that the government consider requiring that halal certification of goods in the domestic market comply with the standard agreed for export.
    • The Committee recommends that the halal certification industry consider establishing a single halal certification authority and a single national registered certified trademark.
    • The Committee recommends that meat processors clearly label products sourced from animals subject to religious slaughter.

    Now several years later, the halal certification industry in Australia has grown. It is estimated that Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of halal food products. In 2015, this was reported to be $13billion.  Such is the lure of ‘easy halal certification money’ and no-regulation, Australia has become the ‘halal-honey-pot’ , hosting the worldwide Halal Expo each year.





    In conclusion:

  • Halal Certification is an excellent ‘religious-based- business- model’ especially lucrative in unregulated countries, where politicians and governments are afraid of being labelled ‘racist’
  • In Australia, Halal Certification revenue has not yet been found to fund terrorism, however, the concern remains
  • If Australian’s wish to ensure their money is not used for criminal related activities, they should start by avoiding halal certified goods, services and products.
  • Voters should contact their local federal MP and ask when the seven recommendations handed down by the Senate committee on 1st December 2015 will be adopted to deliver certainty, transparency and fairness for all
Violence as a Disqualifier?

Violence as a Disqualifier?


A common trend that I have observed in discussions about religious terrorism and religious violence is that the premise that any violent act is said to be a disqualifier for the said act being religious. This is completely untrue and unfounded. This hypothesis is not matched by the observable nature of modern-day religious terrorism and the core scripture within monotheistic faiths and traditions.

Violence as a Disqualifier?

The key question is: does violence disqualify an act from being religious in nature? The answer is no by some scriptural and historic standards, and yes by other non-violent interpretations. Unfortunately, this divide is an intrapersonal position and often from the position of a personal relationship with scriptural understanding and authority. Ultimately, from the early historic periods of religion, violence does not disqualify a religious tradition.

Above: Twitter apologia about violence and religion.

In the above example, the claim is that one violates core Islamic teachings by killing another human-being intentionally. This would mean that Khaled, Hamza, Ali, and even the Prophet Muhammad himself, were in violation of their own teachings, being the first-generation of Muslims. This would also mean that any commands for intentional murder or violence would not be recognised in the Qur’an or any other monotheistic religion, and this is simply not true. And verifiably so.

This position clearly ignores core scripture, differing interpretations, scholarly opinions, and the central figures to the said religion who did engage in violence, sometimes as a religious duty. Obfuscation, denialism, and ignorance do not heed the way to understanding religious violence and terrorism.

Above: Qurtubi tafsir of Holy Qur’an 2:193.

Continuing the example above, in Islamic theology there are multiple theological precedents that place violence as a qualifier for religious worth and duty:

  • The Qur’an itself calls for violencetowards a general, and always existent, group of people: the disbelievers. Further, this bracket spills over into categories of paganism, polytheism and idol worships, and hypocritical-munafiq believers. This identifies a religious backing and justification to violent behaviour as a forever-problem, directed towards both Muslims and non-Muslims.
  • The Prophet Muhammad lead by example inraids, battles, and violence against those who did not believe, or otherwise rejected, the monotheistic message of Islam, attacked Islam or the Muslims, or other precedents. As did the Prophet’s Companions such as AliAbu BakrKhaled, and Hamza. To disconnect these examples from the religion of Islam is to ignore the foundational and early Islamic figures that many interpretations deeply held onto.
  • In these early Islamic expeditions, which were Prophet-lead and authorised by Allah, violence was seen asa just way of defending as well as spreading the religion. Many battles featured martyrs and “lions of Allah” who fought toe-to-toe with the “enemy.” This violence has religious worth and gained martyrs – those who died in the fighting – direct access to the highest tier of Jannah for a divine Reward, houris or virgins, further incentivizing divine violence.

Islamic terrorist groups revive scriptural understandings of these commandments and examples to justify and continue their terror campaigns. They revive these commands as universal revelation, for all times, to the duty of all Muslims. To use scriptural authority to revive religious violence does not disqualify a violent and otherwise terroristic act from not being religious, religion-based, or spiritual in nature. You cannot rule-out violence as a religious component. This does not only include the aforementioned theological premises in classical Islamic texts but also eschatological precedents such as the genocide of Jews during the Ends of Days.

Violence is clearly a component of the Islamic religion. Arguments in regards to violence usually form around towards what, why, directed by whom, where, and when. To deny the violent components to core scripture, the history of the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions, or Allah’s commands, is obfuscation of the highest order. Being a “murderer” does not disqualify one from being Islamic.


In conclusion, I would like you to adopt the position that religious violence is indeed religious, and can be set upon by spiritual and theological claims. Violence in the form of religious understanding or scripture is not a disqualifier for the said violence being religious in nature.

Originally Published on my Blog @

Subscribe Now!

Get all National SCA Inc News and the latest Action information direct to your email inbox as it's published

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest