Of halal eatery

Peeps,

I recently had a small debate with my sister about Sushi King and its halal status in a family WhatsApp group.

The story goes like this.

My sister announced in a family WhatsApp group that Sushi King is not halal and therefore should be avoided.

That immediately caught my attention as many Malaysia Muslims go there to eat.

Anyway, I did a quick Google search and it turned out that the restaurant -- Sushi King -- said in its website that they have not obtain a "halal" status.

But the company said that all of their meats are from halal sources and not mixed with wine or alcoholic liquid.

This is what Sushi King wrote in its website:-

"We are not Halal certified restaurant. No Mirin is used for food preparation in our restaurants. Our poultry products such as chicken and beef are Halal-certified".

So I told my sister to give Sushi King a benefit of doubt, as well as trust in their foods, for the company has clearly said that their meats are "halal" albeit not attaining a halal certification from a religious authority.

In Malaysia, the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) is the only authority to issue halal certification.

It is not immediately clear why the company (Sushi King) did not get a halal status.

The point that I am making here is that we should not jump to a straight conclusion to immediately stop going to this restaurant simply because it does not have a halal certification from a religious authority.

I wish to state that we should use the term "halal certification" as compared to "halal status" as it gives a much clearer meaning about the halal situation of a particular restaurant.

My sister, along with some other Malaysian Muslims that concur with her, may have forgotten that many hotels in Malaysia are also not certified halal.

This is simply because these hotels, although they do not serve pork, but they do serve acoholic drinks such as wine, beer etc.

Now the question here is, should we stop eating at these hotels? My answer is no.

According to Jakim's website, there are 414 hotels that has been certified as halal.

And quite a number of big, international and renowned hotels have not been accorded with a halal certification, and still many events are being held there.

I wonder what is Jakim's reaction on this since it involves many Muslim participants.

As for me, a halal certificate is a reassurance from religious authorities that the foods and drinks served there are safe to be consumed by Muslims.

And those hotels that serve alcoholic drinks are clearly unable to be accorded with a halal certification.

Now, before you jump into conclusion and accuse me of blasphemy, I want to reiterate that I am not criticising the halal certification.

But I am criticising those who practice double standard on this issue.

What I am trying to say here is that we should not be too quick to judge a particular place as "not for Muslims" if they do not have a halal certification.

The next question thay begs an answer is this: is it then haram (religiously illegal) to consume meals at a place that are not certified halal by the religious authority? This is certainly a broad question that would require long deliberations and explanations.

As for me, it is not haram to eat at places that are not certified halal by the religious authority, if you know the foods there are halal. You simply dont eat the non-halal foods lah.

Consider this: by standard definition, Malaysia Airlines flight is certainly not a halal place for Muslims as it serves alcoholic drinks, and yet many Muslims still travel on it. (How can it be halal when there is clearly a haram drinks inside a flight?)

Still, the Muslims buy its tickets on a purportedly non-halal airline for a "halal" purpose i.e. to visit relatives, study or even travelling

I know of many people and (religious) organisatons that travel on this so-called non-halal airline but no one makes a big fuss out of it.

I find it baffling why we point one mistake at a particular outlet for its non-halal certification but not at this instance. And we use "darurat" (emergency) excuse because this is apparently such a case that is unavoifable. This is far too many a time that we use such excuse to make things suit our needs, where convenient.

Another example is this: many conventional banks are not halal and provide haram services (interest [usury] products) but we still allow them to operate freely in Malaysia.

Worst, we allow them to co-exist with shariah-compliant banks that rides on strict Shariah-princple which prohibit usury and investments in non-halal business.

And many of these so-called Islamic banks are owned by conventional banks.

Talk about "halal mixing with haram."

And another classic example is this: the small restaurants and stalls that sell foods but with no halal certifications issued to them. And not a single soul make a brouhaha out of this issue.

And yet we trust them simply because they wear Islamic dress such as hijab or many of its patrons are Muslims. And they even display Islamic calligraphy and other displays to say that they are Muslimd and provide halal foods and drinks but with no 'proper' halal certification. These were all done exude confidence from the Malaysian Muslims.

But who is to say that their places are "truly halal" despite having no halal certification?

We tend not to question them, but we question others.

What is this madness?

Which brings me back to my argument: halal and haram are clearly stipulated in the Quran and prophetic traditions.

But the halal certification -- issued by religious departments -- is an extension of that in the holy scripture and structred in a more regulatory manner so as to assure the Muslims about the halal status of the foods.

But at the same time, we must look at a broader picture and be pragmatic with the halal issue.

When I say pragmatic, I mean a sensible, realistic and practical approach to a halal issue.

Being sensible is to have trust that the foods offered by the owners or operators are halal.

The onus is on the owner to provide such a trust and as the consumer, we must be convinced that such a trust is genuine.

If the consumer thinks that such a trust is not genuine, then there is definitely a doubt on the foods to be eaten and therefore the consumer need not eat it, on halal concerns.

But at the same time, the consumer has no right to badmouth and bitch about it unless they can establish a strong case against it, with hard and credible evidence.

Next is being realistic and practical, which means that we need to exercise critical judgment about such foods served.

If say, we are at a 5-star hotel in Kuala Lumpur, and we damn too well know that the hotel in the city provides a halal foods, then there is no reason why we cannot eat it.

Once trust is established, then it is only realistic and practical that we eat the foods offered, lest that we go and trouble ourself elsewhere to get a halal-certified one. Which certainly is not realistic and practical, at least to me.

I am mindful that the halal certification is good and no doubt an important one, but are we to abandon, dismiss and condemn those who sell foods that are halal but have no certification from the religious body?

The topic of halal and haram is a touchy and sensitive issue.

I am by no means condemning them, but I urge those to look at the issue from a much more broader perspectives.

As for me, it is all a matter of preference.

The religious authority has an obligation to issue halal certification to places that comply with their standard and regulations.

And the public has a choice to eat at those places that are assured and guaranteed as halal by the owner, but may not get a halal certification due to reasons best known to them.

In the end, my sister is still adamant about her view of Sushi King, but that is okay.

She is entitled to her own view but I told her to also give a benefit of doubt to the said restaurant chain.

Wallahu'alam (And Allah knows best).