University of Southampton
Faculty of Social, Human and Mathematical Sciences
Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology
Rejecting what’s halal: Perceptions of veganism within the Muslim community of Britain
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for
MSc (Social Sciences) in Social Research Methods by instructional programme
By
Ellen Atayee-Bennett
25576526
Date of submission: 20 September 2019
Word Count: 15,000
1
2 Table of Contents
Table of Figures …………………………………………………………………………..5
Abstract ...…………………...……………………………………………………………7
1. Introduction .…………………………………………………………………………8 1.1 Rationale …………………………………………………………………..8 1.2 Study Overview ……………………………………………………….…..9 2. Literature Review …………………………………………………………………..12 2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………12 2.2 Veganism in Academic Literature ………………………………………..12 2.3 Religion and Veganism …………………………………………………..15 2.4 Islam and Veganism ……………………………………………………...18 2.4.1 Animal Welfare ………………………………………………...18 2.4.2 Environmentalism ……………………………………………...20 2.4.3 Vegetarianism ………………………………………………….22 2.4.4 Resistance to Change …………………………………………..23 2.5 Research Objectives ……………………………………………………...24 2.6 The Subjective Turn in Religion …………………………………………25 3. Methodology ………………………………………………………………………...29 3.1 Research Design ………………………………………………………….29 3.2 Data Collection …………………………………………………………..30 3.2.1 Qualitative Interviews ………………………………………….30 3.2.2 Quantitative Surveys …………………………………………...33 3.3 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………….36 3.4 Reflections on the Methodology …………………………………………37 4. Results and Discussion …...………………………………………………………...40 4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………40 4.2 Experiences of Muslim Vegans in Britain ………………………………..40 4.3 Perceptions of Veganism amongst the Muslim Community of Britain …...45 4.3.1 Interview Findings ….………………………………………….46 4.3.2 Survey Results ….……………………………………………...50
3 4.3.3 Summary ……………………………………………………….60 5. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………..61 5.1 Research Conclusions ……………………………………………………61 5.2 Implications of the Study …………………………………………………63
Reference List ………………………………………………………………………...... 66
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………...86
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ………………………………………………..87
Appendix B: Ethics Form ………………………………………………………..88
Appendix C: ERGO Approval Email …………………………………………….96
Appendix D: Survey Questionnaire ……………………………………………...97
Appendix E: Selection of Survey Results ……………………………………….101
Appendix F: Interview Guide …………………………………………………...106
Appendix G: Coding Frame …………………………………………………….108
Appendix H: Coded Interview Transcript ……..………………………………..109
Appendix I: Summary of Interviews ……………………………………………126
4 Table of Figures
Table 1: Participant pseudonyms and key sampling information …………………………….31
Table 2: Survey respondent sampling information …………………….……….…………….35
Figure 1: Bar graph relating to the statement “It is acceptable in Islam to follow a vegan diet” ………………………………………………………………………………………………..51
Figure 2: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim can still practice Islam properly, despite being vegan” …………………………………………………………………………51
Figure 3: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan for health reasons. This is:” ………………………………………………………………………………………52
Figure 4: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan because they are concerned with animal welfare. This is:” …………………………………………………….52
Figure 5: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan in order to help the environment. This is:” …………………………………………………………………...53
Figure 6: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan because they feel it is the Islamic thing to do. This is:” …………………………………………………………53
Figure 7: Bar graph relating to the statement “It is acceptable for a Muslim to justify their veganism with ayahs from the Qur’an and ahadith” ………………………………………….54
Figure 8: Bar graph relating to the statement “It is acceptable for a Muslim to refuse to sacrifice an animal on Eid-al-Adha” …………………………………………………………………..55
Figure 9: Clustered bar graph depicting gendered views towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam ………………………………………………………………………………………56
Figure 10: Clustered bar graph depicting the views of different generations of migrants towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam …………………………………………….56
Table 3: Frequency Table of Islamic Practice ……………………………………………….57
5 Table 4: Frequency Table of Islamic Knowledge ……………………………………………57
Figure 11: Clustered bar graph depicting the variation of views according to the level of Islamic practice towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam …………………………...58
Figure 12: Clustered bar graph depicting the variation of views according to the level of Islamic knowledge towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam …………………………………58
Figure 13: Clustered bar graph depicting the variation of views according to accommodation type towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam …………………………………………59
6 Abstract
Veganism is a hugely significant topic in contemporary society, however it is a subject that remains massively under researched in the academic domain, especially within the religious context. A variety of publications do exist on the topic, however, most relate to secular themes, such as stigma and motivations, whilst other studies that explore the relationship between veganism and religion focus mainly on Western religions, such as Christianity, and
Indic religions, such as Jainism. Islam meanwhile is absent from the debate. The purpose of this study therefore is to explore the experiences of Muslim vegans in Britain, as well as to examine the perceptions that exist within the wider Muslim community of Britain. In order to fulfil these research objectives, a mixed methods approach was employed, comprising 6 qualitative interviews with Muslim vegans and a quantitative survey which generated 100 responses. The interviews were transcribed and coded, whilst the survey results were descriptively analysed using SPSS. The findings revealed that on the whole it is easy to be a
Muslim vegan in Britain, due to the widespread availability of vegan products and information, as well as the subjective turn in religion which fosters processes such as reflexivity and individualisation. Furthermore, the study indicated that there are a diverse range of perceptions towards veganism amongst the Muslim community of Britain, both positive and negative. The positive perceptions are a likely result of reflexive and individualised attitudes in Western society, whilst the existence of negative perceptions demonstrated that culture and tradition are still hugely dominant within the Muslim community and as such many still follow a religious habitus. This study, despite having been conducted on a small scale, provides insightful information on the subject of veganism and
Islam, and is thus valuable for informing and shaping current debates.
Keywords: Veganism; Islam; Perception; Experience; Stigma; Subjective Turn in Religion;
Individualisation; Habitus; Reflexivity; Detraditionalization; Culture
7 1. Introduction
1.1 Rationale
This ground-breaking study presents a detailed focus on the relationship between veganism and Islam in Britain, a topic never before discussed within the academic domain. In my research I explore both the experiences of Muslim vegans in Britain, as well as the perceptions towards veganism that exist within the wider Muslim community of Britain.
Veganism has become extremely popular in contemporary society and as such is debated widely within the media. In academia however, it remains a hugely understudied topic; publications that do exist on the subject largely relate to the secular context and even those that do explore veganism in conjunction with religion are still very much in their infancy and consequently are limited to only a few specific belief systems, predominately Christianity,
Judaism and Jainism. Islam on the other hand is absent from the debate; even vegetarianism in Islam is still an extraordinarily under researched subject. My research therefore provides valuable insight into the relationship between Islam and veganism at a time when Muslims are beginning to debate and even adopt this lifestyle. As a result, my study constitutes a major first step in encouraging and shaping dialogue within this community. As discourse surrounding health, animal welfare and environmentalism continue to dominate contemporary debate, veganism will undoubtedly remain a widely discussed topic. Given the ongoing significance of religion in Western society, it is therefore essential that veganism is explored within this context so as to inform future research. Furthermore, since Islam is the world’s second largest religion and also the fastest growing religion (Sherwood, 2018), it is imperative that the topic is examined within this faith in particular. By understanding the experiences of Muslim vegans in Britain we can learn how to offer better support, in addition to ascertaining where activism is best targeted. Moreover, by recognising the range of perceptions that exist within the wider Muslim community, as well as the reasons behind
8 these perceptions, we can better direct discussion and foster improved dialogue between all communities, as well as overcome stigma and misconceptions, which commonly result in poor relationships between individuals.
1.2 Study Overview
In order to accurately understand this study and its objectives, it is imperative definitions are offered for a number of key terms used throughout this paper. Although commonly associated only with diet, veganism is in fact “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose” (The Vegan Society, 2019). By ‘experience’,
I refer to the way of life and daily events that leave an impression on the individual, whilst
‘perception’ refers to any opinion or attitude held, whether positive or negative that relates to the topic of veganism. It is also important to acknowledge the difference between the terms
“Islamic” and “Muslim”. “Islamic” refers to that which is derived from the canonical sources of the religion of Islam, whilst “Muslim” refers to the practices and beliefs of Muslims, followers of Islam. These practices and beliefs may or may not be a result of the canonical sources (Foltz, 2000:63); they could instead be a result of cultural influence. In this study, I am interested in the practices and perceptions of Muslims and as such, I make use of the term
“Muslim”. The phrase ‘Muslim community’ therefore includes any individual who identifies as Muslim and resides in Britain, regardless of whether they consider themselves an active member of the wider community or not.
I begin this study with a literature review, which explores the existing literature pertaining to veganism in general, religion and veganism and Islamic discussions on animal welfare, environmentalism and vegetarianism. After formulating my research objectives, I explore the theory relating to the subjective turn in religion, as well as other relevant
9 sociological concepts, namely habitus, detraditionalization, individualisation and reflexivity.
I then outline my methodological approach, which comprises of mixed methods, specifically qualitative interviews with 6 Muslim vegans and a quantitative survey which generated 100 responses from members of the wider Muslim community aged between 18-30. In this chapter I discuss my research design, my data collection methods and the forms of analysis I employed. The qualitative interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, before being coded and thematically analysed, whilst the survey results were uploaded to SPSS and then descriptively analysed to produce both univariate and bivariate statistics. The next chapter is dedicated to my results and discussion. Here I examine both my interview findings and survey results in order to explore both experience and perceptions. In addition to summarising my findings, I also refer back to the theory from my literature review, in order to provide thorough answers to my research questions. Finally, I conclude this study with a concise description of my research conclusions, as well as a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a mixed methods approach, areas for improvement and suggestions for future research.
It is important to highlight that my research is not generalisable to the entire Muslim community in Britain due to the sampling strategy I adopted, however my findings are transferable and replicable. Consequently, I am neither able to state that the perceptions discussed in my study are the only perceptions in existence, nor can I suggest that they are entirely representative of the Muslim population in Britain. Nevertheless, the perceptions described are indeed held by individuals and are thus worthy of investigation and analysis.
By exploring the experiences of my interview participants, as well as the perceptions reported both in the interviews and the survey, I can begin to examine what attitudes exist relating to veganism in the Muslim community of Britain. This can inform future research, as it provides a foundation upon which other theorists can build. Moreover, the more insight we have into
10 this topic, the more effective dialogue will be between activists and the Muslim community, serving to further the vegan cause and encourage greater action within Muslim groups, where health, animal welfare and environmentalism are concerned.
11 2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Whilst veganism is extremely significant in contemporary society, belated scholarly engagement has rendered it an understudied topic, even as we approach ten years of academic interest in the subject. In this literature review, I will explore the existing publications relating to veganism before focusing specifically on stigma. I will then review literature relating to religions and veganism, before turning my attention to Islam in particular. At present, no publications exist linking Islam with veganism, so I will instead explore related topics, namely animal welfare, environmentalism, vegetarianism and resistance to change.
Having identified gaps in the literature, I will then outline my research questions, before discussing the subjective turn in religion alongside associated sociological themes, namely habitus, detraditionalization, ontological security and individualisation, since they explain the processes involved in social change and thus prove insightful for this topic.
2.2 Veganism in Academic Literature
Veganism only entered academic debate in the last decade, due to its rapidly increasing popularity, especially in the West (Petter, 2018), so studies on the subject are still quite limited. Nevertheless, many scholars seek to define veganism. Some have likened it to a religion (Rhodes, 2014:175), since it meets the legal definition under US law (Johnson,
2019:307), however many are against veganism being treated as such, both due to the lack of spiritual beliefs (Rhodes, 2014:185) and the fear that it could set a precedent for illegal or immoral practices to become protected (Johnson, 2019:310). Others instead take an economic view, labelling it a consumer movement (Greenebaum, 2018:680), whilst others take a political stance, describing it as collective individualised action in the form of a protest
(Bertuzzi, 2017:139). Veganism is most commonly referred to as a social movement that
12 requires lifestyle changes however (Cherry, 2006:156). Adams (2017:45) adds that veganism is also a form of boycott and feminist action, seeking to dismantle patriarchal power hierarchies (p.48), whereby women are visually consumed and animals literally consumed
(p.47).
Motivations are also widely discussed. Animal welfare is perhaps the most common and longest lasting motivation (Janssen et al, 2016:649), whilst environmental concern is becoming a more prevalent motivation (Meier and Christen, 2013:886). For others, health is a key motivator, since plant-based diets are said to have multiple health advantages (Cramer et al, 2017:561). Greater awareness and education surrounding these issues have helped with the surge in veganism (Radnitz et al, 2015:35), for example, Thornes (2019:251) concluded that veganism could improve both longevity and environmental problems considerably
(p.250), whilst Kemmerer (2012:292-300) detailed the atrocious treatment of animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. Moreover, increased scientific evidence is associated with the uptake of plant-based diets (Vainio, 2019:75).
Numerous studies have also examined reasons for rejecting veganism. For some people, their love of meat is too strong to allow them to abandon it (Graça et al, 2015:122), so they display moral disengagement, whereby strategies are adopted, such as convincing themselves that their behaviour is not unethical (Buttlar and Walther, 2019:73), becoming argumentative and angry or even choosing ignorance so as to avoid moral dilemmas (Adams,
2017:54). Furthermore, when individuals realise the inconsistencies in their actions, many resort to defensiveness as a form of self-protection (Adams, 1996:190).
The behaviour of vegans is also explored. Heiss et al (2017:129) found that eating behaviours did not differ very much between vegans and omnivores, however vegans did tend to be healthier. There is also a huge social element to veganism with many vegans
13 creating social events such as food festivals and potlucks (Twine, 2018:170), whilst others turn to social media to share their food creativity (p.174).
Within the literature on veganism, stigma is arguably the most discussed topic, however. Goffman (1963:9) remarks that stigma results when an individual is not accepted by society due to “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” (p.13). In recent studies, Link and
Phelan (2001:367-375) produce a stigma model, comprising of five behaviours: labelling, negative attribution, separation, marginalisation and discrimination. These are all discussed in relation to veganism.
Labelling is most prominent where gender is concerned, with meat-eating associated with masculinity and dominance and veganism associated with femininity and emotional weakness (Greenebaum and Dexter, 2018:637). Adams (2000:199) agrees, suggesting that meat has symbolic power; men who refrain from animal foods are deemed effeminate (p.44).
Thomas (2016:85) suggests that these perceptions are changing, however. Whilst vegan men are still regarded as less masculine than omnivorous men, vegetarian men are no longer regarded as unmanly. Negative attribution is common within the media. Newspapers in particular, often discredit veganism through ridicule and derogatory discourses, thus strengthening speciesist attitudes in society (Cole and Morgan, 2011:134). Veganism is also presented as deviant (p.136), a fad, an ascetic practice, impossible to sustain and an oversensitive and hostile lifestyle (p.139). Many vegans also experience separation, with many non-vegans admitting to keeping their distance from them (Markowski and Roxburgh,
2019:7). Furthermore, non-vegans fear that if they were to become vegan, they too would be stigmatised and separated from social gatherings (p.1). Marginalisation is particularly evident where race is concerned, since veganism is commonly associated with whiteness and privilege (Greenebaum, 2018:680). Within coloured communities, veganism is often deemed incompatible with ethnicity (p.682), with accusations including rejecting culture and family,
14 as well as acting white (p.690). To counteract this, many coloured vegans are creating their own discourse, arguing that veganism decolonises the body from a harmful colonial diet
(Harper, 2010:48). Discrimination is also common. Where veganism challenges the dominant meat-eating culture (Twine, 2014:628), many vegans are portrayed as judgemental activists
(Greenebaum, 2012:317-318). Moreover, many non-vegans report feeling uncomfortable and guilty around vegans (Bresnahan et al, 2015:12), with many becoming defensive, even if the vegan is silent (Twine, 2014:629).
2.3 Religion and Veganism
Most literature on veganism focuses on the secular context, however recent statistics suggest that 84% of the global population follow a religion (Sherwood, 2018). It is therefore essential to also consider the religious context. Whilst the debate surrounding animal rights is thousands of years old (Dombrowski, 2004:22), most modern views link back to the
Enlightenment, when the emphasis on human rationality cemented an anthropocentric worldview and the idea that humans had dominion over animals (p.23). These views can and often do influence attitudes within religious communities, for example anthropocentric worldviews continue to shape Christian beliefs today (Szücs et al, 2012:1500). Many
Christians emphasise power and dominion and neglect teachings on compassion and love
(Adams, 2017:52), whilst others become defensive, referring to Genesis 9:3 to argue that God permitted meat-eating after the flood. Christian vegans meanwhile often draw upon Genesis
1:29 to argue that God wanted people to be plant-based (Linzey, 2004:189) and that even after banishment from Eden, God commanded Adam to grow food, again implying a vegan world (Rooke, 2019:218). Moreover, Isaiah 11:6-9 states this ideal will return (Frayne,
2019:207). Christian vegans also argue that since animals belong to God, to destroy them needlessly is sinful (Linzey, 2004: p.193); factory farming therefore cannot be justified on
15 Christian grounds (Frayne, 2019:209). Adams (2017:45) therefore considers veganism a fulfilment of Christian engagement.
Attitudes often differ amongst the individual denominations too; in some cases, perceptions towards animals have deteriorated throughout history. For example, Evangelical
Christians traditionally considered animal advocacy a Christian duty, whereas nowadays animals are seen as having been created for human use (Sampson, 2019:66). Similarly,
Mormonism has many pro-animal teachings, however followers are rarely aware of them and consequently eat meat and profit from animal exploitation (Foster, 2019:110). Other denominations present more favourable perceptions. Some Orthodox Christians, especially monks, refrain from eating meat year-round, however in Lent all Orthodox Christians are expected to adopt a vegan diet (Ware, 2019:133). Additionally, they are required, in principle, to adopt a vegan diet on Wednesdays and Fridays, however in reality most only adopt a pescatarian diet every Friday (Remele, 2019:117). Catholics traditionally regarded abstinence from meat a virtuous act (Berkman, 2004:201), however after centuries of neglect this practice was recently re-established on Fridays (Remele, 2019:123). Furthermore, minority denominations, such as the Quakers and Order of the Cross also advocate plant- based diets (Calvert, 2019:224).
Veganism is also evident in Jewish debate. Recent estimates suggest that around 5% of the Israeli population are now vegan, whilst globally, numerous Jewish vegan organisations, forums and communities now exist advocating the diet (Labendz and
Yanklowitz, 2019:ix). Scholars suggest that veganism ties in well with Jewish values
(Kalechofsky, 2004:173) and allows Jews to better follow prophetic teachings (p.176).
Additionally, the portrayal of both the Edenic world and the Messianic world as vegan has resulted in many Jewish vegetarians throughout history (p.169).
16 Veganism has also gained popularity within Jainism. Non-violence is regarded the highest religious duty (Tuminello, 2019:93) and consequently, diet is strictly regulated
(Babb, 2011:203). In India, all Jains are vegetarian (Tuminello, 2019:93), eating a diet exempt from meat, fish, eggs, honey and root vegetables (Donaldson, 2016:53), however, in the West, many young Jains are adopting veganism (Tuminello, 2019:94), upon learning about the harms of the dairy industry (Shah, 2011:114). This decision is often criticised by
Jains in India since milk is permissible; Jains in the West therefore appear more open-minded
(p.116). Buddhism shares similar beliefs and practices with Jainism, such as an emphasis on compassion and non-violence (Sciberras, 2011:229). Consequently, vegetarianism has always been common, especially amongst monks and higher castes (Gaffney, 2004:232), however recently, veganism has also entered Buddhist debate. Tuttle (2018:16) argues that the practice of veganism complements Buddhist teachings, whilst Blatte (2018:30) suggests that some
Buddhist teachings even recommend veganism. In Indic religions, plant-based diets are rarely adopted out of compassion for the animal however, but rather a concern for one’s own spiritual positioning and karma accrual (Gaffney, 2004:226). Whilst vegetarianism is common amongst Hindus (Long, 2011:196), it is not as widespread as the West believes and was most likely influenced by the growing popularity of Jainism and Buddhism (Donaldson,
2016:40). Veganism therefore is yet to be explored.
Within Sikhism vegetarianism and veganism are also gaining interest. Many Sikhs believe that the Gurus advocated plant-based diets due to associations with spirituality and saintliness (Jhutti-Johal, 2019:152), with many non-vegetarian Sikhs choosing to avoid animal-based foods on the days they visit the gurdwara (p.153). Veganism is also becoming popular within minority religions, such as Rastafarianism, followers of which have long avoided meat due to the teachings in Genesis (McFarlane, 2019:137). Even amongst societies that are commonly considered human-centred, such as China (Cao, 2019:56), the popular
17 philosophy Daoism advocates vegetarianism and teaches that animals are embodiments of the
Dao (“the Way”) (p.59).
2.4 Islam and Veganism
2.4.1 Animal Welfare
No publications exist as yet linking Islam and veganism, however numerous studies exist on related topics, such as animal welfare. The majority of Muslims eat meat (Foltz,
2006a:25) and do not question this as it was necessary for survival at the time of revelation
(pp.105-106). Amongst Muslims, attitudes vary considerably, from animal-lovers to strict anthropocentrists (p.7); consequently, there is no unified view of animals (p.149). Islamic tradition plays an important role in shaping Muslims’ attitudes (Tlili, 2018:3), however so do culture, ideologies and politics (p.2).
Animal welfare is discussed extensively in Islam, but within the context of halal meat.
There must be compassion in slaughter (Foltz, 2006b:152), so there are lots of conditions, for example only one cut is permissible, and animals should not be hoisted (Abdul Rahman and
Aidaros, 2012:28-29). In many instances however, up to 9 cuts are required to slaughter the animal (Velarde et al, 2014:281) and hoisting is common (Farouk et al, 2014:508); these slaughter practices openly violate Islamic teachings (Masri, 2007:87). Additionally, halal meat can only come from well cared for animals, in accordance with Islamic principles
(Foltz, 2006a:126). Much is imported from non-Muslim countries however (p.118), where animal cruelty is commonplace, rendering the meat unlawful (Masri, 2007:137). In some cases, animals are fed swine, also making the meat haram (Benzertiha et al, 2018:4). Muslims tend to focus only on slaughter however and not on the animals’ lifetime (Ramadan,
2004:243-244); even halal certification standards focus solely on slaughter (Furber, 2017:27), contradicting Islamic law. Dairy and eggs deserve more attention too. Mothers and babies
18 must remain together (p.18), animals must not be milked if it would harm the young (Izzi
Dien, 1992:30), birds must not be kept in cages (Foltz, 2006a:33) and animals must not live in cramped conditions (p.34). These intensive farming practices only exist due to consumer demand for cheap food (Furber, 2017:19), so farmers seek to be efficient and cost-effective
(Tlili, 2012:5); prioritising profit over animal welfare (Masri, 2007:2). Additionally, major agricultural organisations closely watch for legal developments that might implement protection for animals, fearing their practices could be affected (Stilt, 2018:1385).
It is not possible to rear animals on a large scale without inflicting significant suffering (Singer, 2004:115). Consequently, factory farming is now common in Islamic countries (Masri, 2007:44), even though it is Islamically unacceptable (Farouk et al,
2016:65). Adulteration has also become common (Nakyinsige et al, 2012:208), for example, some halal products are mixed with pork derivatives or blood plasma, making them haram
(p.209). There is therefore no longer any certainty surrounding permissibility (Foltz,
2006a:116), yet Islamic law dictates that when permissibility is doubtful the food should be avoided (p.117). Many Muslims and scholars appear unaware of these practices (Masri,
2007:x), which could explain the silence surrounding factory farming (Foltz, 2006a:117).
Furthermore, cruel practices are often hidden from the public (Masri, 1987:1), since animal cruelty is considered sinful (Masri, 2001:187). Conversely, kindness to animals is highly rewarded by Allah (Kemmerer, 2012:245). Scholars maintain that Islam is animal-friendly, but they rarely explore the issue in any depth (Foltz, 2006a:88). Many Muslims therefore are ignorant and become defensive (Perlo, 2009:112), referring to Qur’an 2:29 to support the argument of dominion (Stilt, 2009:16), which is used to justify meat-eating and animal exploitation (Furber, 2015:5). These individuals often display anthropocentric and speciesist attitudes, and consequently also a guiltless entitlement to use animals for human needs (Tlili,
2012:6).
19 Despite widespread animal cruelty, animal advocacy is on the rise. Many Muslims quote the legal maxim, “one may not forbid something which Allah has made permissible”, however Muslim activists are now highlighting another maxim, “allowed unless specifically
s’ﷺdisallowed” (Foltz, 2006a:99). The innumerable Hadith reporting Prophet Muhammad compassion for animals (Frayne, 2019:205), coupled with the prevalent plant food imagery in the Qur’an (Perlo, 2009:95) are also emphasised to affirm the importance of animal welfare.
A large number of Muslim animal activists are Western converts however (Foltz, 2006a:84), which could hamper advocacy, due to differences in culture and ideology (Tlili, 2018:15).
Another relevant topic is that of animal sacrifice, a practice originating in pre-Islamic society (Foltz, 2006a:123), which is still performed yearly on Eid-al-Adha. The Qur’an does not evidence God’s pleasure in this act, however many Muslims regard it a religious duty
(p.121). Islam asserts that sacrifice is an institution of charity (Masri, 2007:111) and a social obligation (p.116); consequently, it is widely practiced (Foltz, 2006a:105). The implications of this, however, include extensive waste (Masri, 1989:117), which defeats the original purpose and becomes sinful, since animal death without necessity is forbidden (Masri,
2007:119).
2.4.2 Environmentalism
Environmentalism is another issue relevant to veganism that has been discussed in the context of Islam. Islamic environmentalists consider environmentalism to be a component of the Qur’anic concept of stewardship (Foltz, 2000:64), yet religious scholars rarely discuss the topic (Nasr, 2003:87). In the past, environmental protection was discussed, however nowadays scholars seem to lack knowledge of the severity of the situation (Nasr, 2010:86), as well as animal agriculture’s responsibility for a significant share of environmental damage
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006:284), The West exerts a
20 great deal of control over Muslim countries, especially where modern technology and science are concerned (Nasr, 2003:88); consequently, traditional Islamic values have been abandoned and environmental problems have intensified (Wersal, 1995:451). According to Islamic law,
Muslims are required to act responsibly towards both the environment and animals (p.453), since the Qur’an refers to humans as being both in the service of Allah and viceregents of
encouraged Muslims to care for the ﷺAllah (Nasr, 2010:82). Moreover, Prophet Muhammad natural environment (Nasr, 2003:97), whilst forbidding wastefulness, needless destruction and pollution (p.98), since nature is considered the property of all of Creation (Masri,
1992:6).
Perceptions towards environmentalism vary within the Muslim community. Foltz
(2000:66) attended the Conference on Islam and Ecology in May 1998 at the Harvard Center for World Religions and found that environmental destruction was generally characterised as a symptom of social justice. Moreover, overpopulation was dismissed as a non-issue, despite scientific evidence that mass migration, urbanisation and industrialisation all have a devastating impact on the natural environment (Nasr, 2003:90). He argues that the dominant attitude expressed by Muslims was an outright refusal to acknowledge any link between a rapidly increasing human population and the challenges of social injustice, economic disparity and environmental degradation (Foltz, 2000:67). Often there is a lack of political freedom in Muslim countries however, so it is possible that scholars do not feel able to openly discuss environmental issues (Nasr, 2003:102).
Whilst governmental policies are often in opposition to environmental movements
(Nasr, 2003:91), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran are three examples of countries that have implemented positive developments. The creation of governmental and nongovernmental organisations dedicated to environmental protection and sustainable development, coupled with policy implementation all benefit environmentalism (Foltz, 2000:69). Iran is particularly
21 unique in that both official and public attitudes toward environmentalism express some progressive perspectives (p.71). Significantly more progress globally is required, however.
2.4.3 Vegetarianism
There is a long history of kindness to animals in Islamic history (Stilt, 2009:13), however discourse on vegetarianism is difficult to locate (Foltz, 2001:39). Many influential jurists have spoken out against vegetarianism, with the most common argument appearing to be the belief that Muslims must not prohibit that which is deemed halal. This view suggests that it is un-Islamic to be vegetarian (Izzi Dien, 2000:146). Other arguments include the fact
.(ate meat and so meat-eating is therefore sunnah (Furber, 2017:26 ﷺthat Prophet Muhammad
Stigma is consequently evident within the Muslim vegetarian community, with many being criticised for their dietary choices (Foltz, 2006a:108). Moreover, non-vegetarians often display confusion, hostility or rejection towards vegetarianism (Ali, 2015:273), with others taking offense at meat refusal (p.276).
Muslims rarely advocate vegetarianism (Ali, 2015:273), however some scholars are now speaking out in support of it, suggesting that excessive meat-eating is reprehensible
(Foltz, 2006a:108), whilst also emphasising the Qur’anic verses that promote a plant-based diet (Frayne, 2019:207). Masri (2007:97) adds that Islam does not demand meat-eating; the individual therefore has freedom of choice (p.86), since according to Islamic law, things are
“allowed unless specifically disallowed” (Foltz, 2006a:99). Even more recently, theorists have argued that due to changed conditions, God would not permit today what he allowed in the 7th Century (Masri, 2007:142; Perlo, 2009:133). Muslims are therefore becoming more open to the idea of vegetarianism (Foltz, 2006a:109).
and some ﷺVegetarianism is not uncommon in Islamic history. Prophet Muhammad other early Muslim role models are regarded by many as having been semi-vegetarian (Ali,
22 2015:272), whilst 10th Century poet al-Ma’arri adopted veganism and was accused of “trying to be more compassionate than God” (van Gelder, 2000:88). Similarly, an early female Sufi,
Zaynab, was persecuted for her abstinence from meat (Smith, 1978:154), whilst 15th Century
Sufi mystic Kabir openly condemned meat-eating (Bennison, 2011:218). Most accounts of
Sufi vegetarians originate in South Asia however, suggesting an Indic influence (Schimmel,
1975:348). This would also account for the fact that Sufis advocate “harmlessness as a principle of faith” (Said and Funk, 2003:174), as well as consider vegetarianism a form of spiritual discipline (Foltz, 2006b:154) and ascetic practice (Frayne, 2019:205). However, it is also argued that Sufis base their vegetarianism on Qur’anic teachings (Bennison, 2011:218), relating to the health of the body and soul (Foltz, 2001:47). Based on Sufi practice, it is certainly arguable that vegetarianism is permissible for Muslims (Robinson, 2019:87).
Nowadays, an increasing number of Muslims are adopting vegetarianism and veganism, especially in the West (Foltz, 2006b:155), both for spiritual reasons (Foltz,
2006a:109) and compassion for animals (p.111). Vegetarian and animal rights organisations are being established across the Islamic world, arguing that a plant-based lifestyle is preferable for Muslims, due to its numerous benefits and compatibility with Islamic teachings
(Foltz, 2001:54). Whilst there are no specific publications relating solely to veganism and
Islam, it is clear that veganism can complement the faith, however few Muslims have made this connection.
2.4.4 Resistance to Change
Vegan activists often consider organised religion an ideological opponent (Singer,
2006:617), since many followers are fiercely resistant to veganism. The most common argument is that it is forbidden to proscribe the things that God made permissible (Tlili,
2015:227); many Muslims are therefore conditioned to believe that animal exploitation is
23 religiously sanctioned, so they readily defend this viewpoint (Kemmerer, 2012:278).
Moreover, many argue that halal slaughter is an ethical practice (Perlo, 2009:102), with some even considering animal suffering to be acceptable because God will compensate the animal in the Afterlife (Tlili, 2015:231). Theistic subjectivism, which refers to Muslims surrendering their moral judgements to the decisions of God, is another aggressive strategy adopted by conservative Muslims (Hourani, 1985:184), whilst tawakkul, trust in God, is commonly cited in response to doomsday scenarios (Foltz, 2000:67). Two other common responses to factory farming include denial and a continued belief that it is religiously acceptable, and welfarist attitudes, whereby animal exploitation is acknowledged to be wrong, but where reform is favoured over veganism (Kemmerer, 2012:280).
2.5 Research Objectives
Having only entered academic debate in the last decade, the literature on veganism is still very limited, with most publications situated in the secular context. Nevertheless, some studies do indeed discuss religion, but considering Islam is the second largest religion in the world (Sherwood, 2008), its absence from the debate is particularly striking. Studies do exist where animal welfare, environmentalism and vegetarianism are concerned, but veganism is yet to be explored. Given this major gap in the literature, I have formulated the following research objectives:
- What have the experiences of Muslim vegans in Britain been?
- What are the perceptions of veganism amongst the Muslim community of Britain?
To help answer these research questions, I will discuss the subjective turn in religion and associated sociological themes, namely habitus, detraditionalization, ontological security and individualisation, since they provide insight into this subject and highlight the processes involved in social change.
24 2.6 The Subjective Turn in Religion
In traditional societies identities are fixed (Kellner, 1992:141), since social institutions, such as religion serve to socialise the masses. Bourdieu (1990:53) explains this process through his concept of habitus, whereby practices and perceptions linked to social structures predispose people to behave in particular ways. Habitus is first constructed within the family, before also being shaped by other social institutions, such as schools and religion
(Bourdieu, 1977:87). Bourdieu (1990:55) argues that there is a degree of flexibility within habitus, however due to its nature practices are to some extent predictable. Ostrow
(2000:318) agrees, suggesting habitus does not tell us what to do, rather it provides a set of expectations. As modern society is becoming more detraditionalized and more individualised however, a reflexive habitus is becoming the norm (Sweetman, 2003:529). Shah (2014:515), in her studies on Jain practice, found that many second-generation Jains living in the West demonstrated a reflexive habitus and as such were showing a renewed interest in their religion, but instead of blindly accepting cultural practices, they engaged in religious exploration (p.516). This is representative of a cataphatic reflexivity (Mouzelis, 2012:217), whilst others who seek to deconstruct traditional practices, without maintaining a religious practice demonstrate an apophatic reflexivity (p.218). The adoption of veganism is an increasingly common means of constructing a religious biography for individuals in the West
(Shah, 2014:519), and this is likely due to the influence of Western social movements, such as animal rights (p.520). Reflexivity in the religious context is much more common amongst the younger generation who place emphasis on values, whereas the older generation unreflexively perform traditional cultural practices and thus disapprove of religious reflexivity (p.522).
The subjective turn in religion refers to the increase in the number of people identifying as spiritual but not religious (Hiebert, 2018:55), a phenomenon common amongst
25 atheists as well as those who believe in religious teachings (p.59). In the West, the general trend is a move away from God in favour of an exploration of the self (Houtman and Aupers,
2007:309) and spirituality (Shah, 2014:512). Whilst religion is no longer central to people’s lives (Voas and Crockett, 2005:24), religious beliefs are still influential for many people
(Houtman and Aupers, 2007:306). Despite living in a late modern society, religion is becoming more significant for those whose family are from religious cultures, such as
Muslims (Knott and Khoker, 1993:598) and Jains (Shah, 2014:513), whilst for many others who do not have this religious heritage, religion is being explored and adopted for the first time (Beck, 2010:29). Berger (1999:2) therefore argues that to regard the world as secularised now is wrong and that it is still very much religious.
Reflexivity and the subjective turn in religion have in part been made possible by processes of detraditionalization. Detraditionalization is one of the major forms of social transformation in modernity and involves the disappearance of social norms and practices
(Beck, 1992:2). This has resulted largely due to globalisation (Giddens, 2002:43), since individuals, in the face of multiple beliefs and practices, often have to justify their own behaviours and attitudes (p.45). This is especially the case in the West where traditions are considered to impede progress and innovation (Eyerman, 1999:120). Furthermore, many religious followers are beginning to reject religious authority and instead examine their own identity, due to the breakdown of tradition and marketization of religion (McAlexander et al,
2014:865). Detraditionalization consequently results in “precarious freedoms”, as well as anxieties and difficulties (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002:2). This is due to the lack of support networks available and the insecurities individuals face with self-identification
(Giddens, 1991:32-33). Therefore, as traditions break down and their power and influence decline (Campbell, 1996:149), individualisation becomes necessary (Giddens, 1994:56) in order to redefine and reconstruct one’s identity (Morris, 1996:225). People no longer depend
26 on traditions in the construction of the self (Giddens, 1991:32-33); rather they must rely on self-exploration (Giddens, 1990:36). The subjective turn in religion is therefore linked to reflexivity and individualisation (Shah, 2014:526), whereby individuals have freedom over the construction of their religious biography (Mouzelis, 2012:216). The subjective turn is often about leaving duties and obligations and instead finding meaning and subjective experience (Hiebert, 2018:63), since spirituality is internal to the individual whereas religiosity is external, often residing in social institutions (p.57).
Ontological security refers to the sense of order and continuity one experiences as part of everyday life. This feeling of security is reinforced by routine and habit and minimises the feelings of anxiety and precariousness associated with modernity (Giddens, 1991:44). Where this was once established through community, religion and tradition (Shah, 2014:514), this is now achieved through the process of individualisation (Bauman, 2001:144). Individualisation refers to the disintegration of traditional social institutions, disenchantment from culture and religion and the construction of new social forms (Beck, 1992:127), which obligates individuals to make decisions pertaining to all aspects of their identity (Beck, 1994:15).
Individualisation therefore becomes a responsibility (p.13). In the process of identity formation, people are vulnerable to the influences present in society, such as marketisation and consumerism. Both the media and advertisement channels can impact an individual’s behaviours and desires (Featherstone, 1992:270), both in positive and negative ways. Where veganism is concerned, the increase in education and scientific evidence linked to animal agriculture has helped many individuals to adopt and assume a vegan identity (Radnitz et al
2015:35). Similarly, in Labendz’s (2019:303) study on identity reconstruction amongst
Jewish vegans, he found that there was a global need to reinvent Jewish culinary and ritual traditions by creating new cuisines and developing a responsible Jewish food culture. Whilst foods themselves are easy to replace, it is more difficult to reinvent rituals. This is due to the
27 fear of losing them, as well as the fact that some people will not want to let go of traditions involving animal foods. This can cause disagreements within the community over what can be changed and what should not be changed (p.304). Such disagreements can encourage greater reflexivity and thus further the subjective turn in religion (McAlexander et al,
2014:865).
28 3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
For this study I adopted a mixed methods approach, using an exploratory format, whereby I conducted both qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey in parallel (Flick,
2007:94). My first research question concerns experiences and beliefs, which are best explored through in-depth analysis (Creswell, 2015:5) so I conducted qualitative interviews with Muslim vegans. My second research question explores the range of perceptions (p.76), so I conducted a quantitative survey. I analysed the qualitative data for themes (Creswell and
Plano Clark, 2018:240), whilst the quantitative data provided insight into the commonality of those themes (p.193). To ensure validity, I used two different samples (p.252), the quantitative sample being the larger of the two (Creswell et al, 2008:76).
I chose a mixed methods approach, predominately for triangulation and completeness reasons, however other benefits include expansion and validity (Bryman, 2006:105-107).
Mixed methods provides greater insight than a single methodology, since the findings from each method often highlight different aspects of the topic in question (O’Reilly and Kiyimba,
2015:99). Since my topic is hugely understudied, I felt mixed methods would offer completeness (p.106), thus enhancing knowledge on the topic and creating a foundation which other theorists can develop. Triangulation would also help me to answer my research questions better. Through this process, two sources of data are combined to gain additional knowledge (Moran-Ellis et al, 2006:47) or to check validity (Hammersley, 2008:23). It is especially beneficial when exploring experiences as it can inform how perspectives differ
(p.25). Methodological triangulation maximises validity (Denzin, 1970:310), since the weaknesses of each method are offset (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018:12), emphasising their combined strengths (Creswell, 2015:2).
29 Existing studies on veganism make use of both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Quantitative research has been used to explore perceptions (Bresnahan et al, 2016; Thomas,
2016), environmental impacts (Meier and Christen, 2013) and motivations (Radnitz et al,
2015; Janssen et al, 2016), whereas eating behaviours (Twine, 2018) and stigma
(Greenebaum and Dexter, 2017) have been examined through a qualitative lens. Where religion is concerned, qualitative research is the dominant approach (Shah, 2011; Adams,
2017; Labendz, 2019), with literature on Islam and eating habits all favouring secondary data in particular, since religious texts form the main source of information (Foltz, 2001; Tlili,
2012; Ali, 2015). This highlights the need for more primary data relating to religious individuals. Since mixed methods is a reasonably new methodology, theorists studying either veganism or religion have not yet utilised it, however I feel it offers huge potential for expanding knowledge.
When analysing, I used thematic analysis to explore the interviews and descriptive statistics to analyse the surveys. I then combined my analyses and used interpretivism to analyse the data overall, since my research questions explored perception and values
(O’Reilly and Kiyimba, 2015:11). I found that my results were complementary; the qualitative findings provided greater context and meaning to the quantitative findings (Flick,
2007:101).
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Qualitative Interviews
I interviewed six Muslim vegans, all of whom lived in Britain and were aged 18-30. I chose this criteria as Muslim vegans was my chosen demographic, whilst the requirements of residence in Britain and age maintained a consistent sample. Eighteen formed the lower age limit, both for ethical reasons and the assumption that adults are more likely to make personal
30 lifestyle decisions than minors. To source participants matching these criteria, I firstly used non-probability purposive sampling, whereby I selected individuals based on particular factors (Flick, 2009:122) and who I knew personally. Samples obtained through this approach are rarely representative of the wider population (Neuman, 2014:274), however in exploratory research they prove highly insightful (p.273), since the individuals most relevant to our research questions can be selected (Mason, 1996:93-94). To source my remaining participants, I used convenience sampling, which is where individuals are recruited in an easy, convenient manner (Neuman, 2014:273); I posted in vegan groups on social media platforms. Some theorists argue that when sampling we should seek to achieve saturation of ideas; however, this is not always appropriate (O’Reilly and Kiyimba, 2015:81). Given the timescale available, I opted to stop sampling once I had sourced six participants, since this was a manageable number and would generate sufficient data.
Pseudonym Gender Ethnicity Situation Motivation Layla Female Syrian Vegan for 5 years Animal welfare Nabila Female Bengali Vegan for 1 year Animal welfare Fatima Female Caucasian Vegan for 4 years Ethics and animal welfare Mina Female Somali Vegan for 1 year Health then animal welfare Zahra Female Pakistani Vegan for 2 years Animal welfare Razia Female British Vegan for 5 years Health then animal welfare and environment Table 1: Participant pseudonyms and key sampling information
The interviews were semi-structured, to ensure I reviewed the topics relevant to my research questions, whilst also giving my participants the opportunity to direct discussion
(Rubin and Rubin, 2012:31). To achieve this, I prepared an interview guide, consisting of open, exploratory questions that would enable in-depth exploration of the topics of interest
(Legard et al, 2003:14; May, 2011:134). The interviews lasted between fifty and seventy minutes, with two of the interviews being conducted face-to-face, since the participants lived locally, whilst the remaining four were conducted via Skype. For the face-to-face interviews I
31 obtained signed consent (Wiles, 2013:26), whereas with Skype, the consent form was either signed electronically or verbal consent was recorded (Lo Iacono et al, 2016:14). I audio- recorded the interviews, both to assist with analysis and to enable me to engage more with the discussion, since I did not have to make notes (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015:205). This also facilitated probing, which involves the interviewer asking questions in order to extract more information and discover underlying meanings (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:140). Probing also encourages more effective communication and greater rapport between the researcher and participant (Silverman, 2006:110).
Interviews were the most appropriate method for the qualitative element of my study, since they offered insight into the participant’s own perspectives (Brinkmann and Kvale,
2015:27), enabling me to explore their feelings towards particular ideas (Lichtman,
2014:246). The open-ended questions provided rich, valid data (Oppenheim, 1966:81) and since participants could answer in their own words (May, 2011:135), interviewing proved useful for in-depth examination of meanings (Hitchings, 2012:65), experiences (Edwards and
Holland, 2013:90) and social realities (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012:4). I was able to explore events that I had never experienced, as well as complex social matters, namely religion and veganism, which are often invisible in society (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:3-5).
Because of this, interviewing served to fill the gaps in existing knowledge, which adds to completeness (p.60), one of my reasons for choosing a mixed methods approach. Qualitative interviews regularly produce highly credible results, which contributes to the robustness and validity of conclusions (p.64). Moreover, interviews proved an economical choice, in terms of the time and resources I had available (Silverman, 2006:113).
Qualitative interviews have limitations too, however, such as their inability to offer generalisability (Oppenheim, 1966:67), due to small sample sizes (Creswell, 2015:5). This is rarely the objective of qualitative theorists, anyway. Furthermore, their reliance on
32 interpretation increases the risk of misrepresentation and misinterpretation, especially since language can be ambiguous and meanings contested (Edwards and Holland, 2013:93).
Misrepresentation can also occur when an interviewee inaccurately recounts an event, either due to forgetfulness or ignorance of particular circumstances (May, 2011:158). Additionally, if a participant does not already hold an opinion on a particular topic, their answer will be formed during the interaction and consequently may not be entirely reliable (Peek and
Fothergill, 2009:47).
I maintained quality assurance by selecting knowledgeable participants with first- hand experiences, as well as asking open, exploratory questions to encourage detailed answers, which provided a range of themes and perspectives useful for answering my research questions. I also sought to be thorough in my discussions, by probing where I identified missing information and where I suspected alternative explanations. All of these practices, as well as recording and transcribing the data, enabled me to achieve credibility, validity, richness and accuracy in my data (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:60).
3.2.2 Quantitative Surveys
I produced a self-administered online questionnaire which generated 100 responses.
Given the timescale available and the sampling difficulties I experienced, 100 responses were the most achievable for acquiring insightful data. The criteria included identifying as Muslim, living in Britain and being aged 18-30. This kept the sample consistent with my qualitative sample, however was directed at the wider Muslim community. The questionnaire consisted of 35 questions, took approximately ten minutes to complete and was completely anonymous.
Since the main purpose of my questionnaire was to explore different perceptions, I used Likert scales, where I asked respondents to indicate how well they agreed or disagreed with a list of statements (De Vaus, 2002:101). I also included a middle option (p.106) to
33 avoid forcing respondents into giving an opinion they did not have (Nardi, 2006:74).
Additionally, I provided a definition of veganism before the scale-based questions, to ensure respondents could answer accurately (De Vaus, 2002:140). I also included demographic questions which were multiple-choice with nominal categories, so that I could obtain descriptive statistics (p.105).
It was not possible to obtain a convenient sampling frame of my target population, as a complete list of Muslims in Britain aged 18-30 does not exist. For this reason, simple random sampling was not possible (Nardi, 2006:113) and undercoverage in my sample was likely (Groves et al, 2009:54). I decided to use convenience sampling, which relied on individuals seeing my survey advertised and volunteering. As a result, my data had limited generalisability since members of the population had an unequal chance of selection.
Moreover, those with a chance of selection could have had different characteristics to those who did not (Nardi, 2006:119). Nevertheless, the survey still provided valuable insight into perceptions within the community. Larger sample sizes are better (p.122) but I did what was manageable in the timeframe available. The survey link was shared on online platforms, either by myself, my contacts or Islamic groups and centres that I had contacted. This form of advertisement can help to obtain respondents from a wide range of sites (De Vaus, 2002:74), however it is not possible to calculate response rates for this method of sampling (pp.138-
139). This is because we do not know how many people see the link (p.127). The software I used shows that 704 people clicked on the survey, with 100 completing it and 604 abandoning it. I cannot be certain of the reasons for nonresponse, however I would speculate that reasons included not meeting the criteria or loss of interest in participating.
34 Men Women Practicing Knowledge 1st 2nd + British (4+) (4+) Generation Generation Heritage Migrant Migrant Men 29 26 23 9 18 2 Women 71 67 62 16 47 8 Practicing 26 67 93 82 22 62 9 (4+) Knowledge 23 62 82 85 23 55 7 (4+) 1st Generation 9 16 22 23 25 Migrant 2nd + Generation 18 47 62 55 65 Migrant British 2 8 9 7 10 Heritage Table 2: Survey respondent sampling information
Surveys have many strengths. Typically, they offer insight into generalisability
(Creswell, 2015:76), however given my sampling approach this is not something I can claim
(Nardi, 2006:148). I chose web-based surveys because they are the most cost and time-
effective mode (Sarracino et al, 2017:151), as well as ideal for investigating different
attitudes that are not observable (Nardi, 2006:67). Many individuals prefer self-administered
surveys because they are flexible (Revilla, 2010:151) and respondents can take their time
when answering (p.154). They therefore tend to be more reliable, however the fact they are
more private (de Leeuw, 2008:133) and so less affected by social desirability bias (p.78) and
researcher presence help too (Nardi, 2006:68).
Two significant drawbacks to web-based surveys are the issues of access and
computer literacy (Nardi, 2006:69). These mostly affect the older generation however (Bech
and Kristensen, 2009:1), hence my decision to target younger people, for whom the internet
is now widely accessible (de Leeuw, 2018:77). Due to issues with access, internet samples
are also unlikely to be representative of the wider population (De Vaus, 2002:76). Similarly,
small or single samples, like mine, introduce a higher risk of sample bias, whereby many
individuals who fit the criteria are discounted. Because of this, my sample cannot be said to
generalise (Fowler, 2009:13). Nevertheless, such samples can still offer value. The greatest
35 challenges with online surveys are therefore coverage, sampling and non-response (de Leeuw and Hox, 2008:254).
To improve the quality of surveys, the questionnaire design should first be scrutinised
(Biemer and Lyberg, 2003:196). I achieved this through pre-testing, whereby I asked some friends, who are trained in sociology and research, to critically analyse my questionnaire
(Brace, 2008:179). Through this exercise, I discovered how the questions were interpreted and whether they were understood correctly. When discrepancies were found, I revised the questionnaire design (Conrad and Blair, 2004:67) and eliminated the errors before making the survey public (Willis, 2004:24). Once released, it is advisable to repeat samples as this reduces sampling error (Fowler, 2009:14); I did not have sufficient time or resources to do this, however. Quality is also improved with an adequate sampling frame (p.173).
3.3 Data Analysis
To analyse my interviews, I used thematic analysis, a process which identifies and analyses patterns in a data set facilitating interpretation (O’Reilly and Kiyimba, 2015:75). I began by transcribing the recordings before identifying themes within the transcriptions
(Gibbs, 2007:38; Barbour, 2008:217). Using these themes, I created a coding frame (see
Appendix G), allocating a different colour to each code (Gomm, 2008:245). I then highlighted the transcriptions accordingly. I conducted data-driven coding, where themes are seen to emerge from the data (Gibbs, 2007:45), however, having read extensively around the topic already, I had some ideas of what the codes were likely to be. Coding is an important part of thematic analysis as it facilitates data retrieval (Gibbs, 2007:48; Rubin and Rubin,
2012:192); making comparisons, looking for patterns and producing explanations become easier (Gibbs, 2007:78).
36 With the use of SPSS, I conducted descriptive statistical analysis to analyse my survey data, namely univariate analysis to explore the frequency of particular attitudes, and bivariate analysis to explore similarities, differences and associations between characteristics and attitudes (Blaikie, 2003:29). Whilst conducting univariate analysis, I produced percentages (p.59), and displayed my data using frequency tables (De Vaus, 2002:212) and bar graphs (Blaikie, 2003:62). Whilst conducting bivariate analysis, I produced cross- tabulations, since these display the relationship between two variables (p.91) and indicate association (De Vaus, 2002:241), then displayed the data using clustered bar graphs (p.249).
The risk of coding errors in my analysis was minimal as I conducted the analysis myself
(Groves et al, 2009:344).
To analyse my findings as a whole, I adopted the interpretivist approach. This is the best method for exploring perceptions and experiences (Hunter and Ainlay, 1986:3;
Lichtman, 2014:12), as well as culture (Benton and Craib, 2011:234) and religion (Geertz,
1973:14; Wuthnow, 1986:121). Interpretivism is also ideal for extracting meanings and values (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012:46), which provide insight into social practices and behaviours (Hay, 2011:172). Whilst religious texts consist of a set of rules, teachings may be interpreted differently by different people, since individuals have agency (Schwartz-Shea and
Yanow, 2012:46). Interpretivism is therefore vital for understanding the various perceptions in existence, regardless of what the teachings themselves say (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:62).
3.4 Reflections on the Methodology
Sampling was my greatest challenge. I struggled to find six interviewees, so had to use convenience sampling to recruit enough people. I had hoped to interview some men, however I could not find any male Muslim vegans. I do not know whether this is due to an unwillingness to participate or because there are not many of them. I had similar difficulties
37 with the survey. I had hoped that Islamic university societies would share the link, however the majority did not respond to my emails. In order to get enough responses, I shared the link myself, as well as with my contacts, local mosques and Islamic groups. Because of this sampling approach, my survey respondents were predominately female, not a 50:50 divide representative of the population. I also found that a high number of people were clicking on my survey but then abandoning it. Again, I do not know the reason; perhaps they realised they did not meet the criteria, or they lost interest. As my sample was not random, I cannot assume generalisability, however I feel that my research is still valid, as it provides insight into existing experiences and perceptions. Nevertheless, I would like, with more time and resources, to repeat the study, but with improved sampling approaches.
I maintained ethical practice by obtaining informed consent (O’Reilly and Kiyimba,
2015:53) and ensuring confidentiality and the use of pseudonyms in the interviews and anonymity in the survey (Wiles, 2013:41). I also clarified that participation was entirely voluntary and could be withdrawn (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:88-89). A further ethical implication is the fact that some individuals who met the criteria could have been discounted from the study, due to lack of Internet access (Nardi, 2006:69). Given the high prevalence of technology use amongst the younger generation today however (de Leeuw, 2018:77), I would consider this risk minimal.
Reflexivity and positionality are key concepts to be aware of in interpretivist research, especially for the qualitative element. Some theorists are concerned that misunderstanding can result if researchers cannot grasp certain social meanings (Geertz, 1973:14). Being a
Muslim vegan myself however, I already had a deep understanding of Islamic teachings and experiences as a vegan, so I was not at risk of cultural bias (Neuman, 2014:440). However, as a revert with a secular, white British background, I lacked knowledge of cultural influences.
38 Interviews often depend on the researcher’s competence (Legard et al, 2003:142) so my previous experience of conducting semi-structured qualitative interviews helped ensure the success of my interviews in this study. As an interviewer, I was an active participant
(Silverman, 2006:112) so my own attitude and social positioning had the potential to influence the discussion (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:72), since qualitative research requires an investment of the self (Oakley, 1981:41; Birks, 2014:26). Therefore, sharing a common understanding with my participants helped to build rapport (Rubin and Rubin, 2012:76) and made them feel at ease to provide honest answers (Lichtman, 2014:252).
39 4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
My study seeks to answer two research objectives. The first enquires into the experiences of Muslim vegans in Britain, and the second investigates the perceptions of veganism amongst the Muslim community of Britain. I will begin this chapter with an exploration of experience, which I will discuss in relation to the qualitative interviews that I conducted. I will also consider sociological themes such as the subjective turn in religion and individualisation to explain how these have contributed to my interview participants’ experiences. I will then examine the perceptions that exist within the Muslim community of
Britain. I will first consider those that were reported in the qualitative interviews, before discussing the findings from my quantitative survey. Again, I will draw on themes such as habitus and detraditionalization to argue why perceptions in the Muslim community are so diverse.
4.2 Experiences of Muslim Vegans in Britain
When asked to describe their experience as a Muslim vegan, the general consensus was that it was easy. The reasons given were numerous, however most were a direct result of living in the West, such as the widespread availability of vegan options, open-minded attitudes in society, independence and the ability to cater for oneself. The availability of both vegan products in supermarkets and vegan options in restaurants was mentioned by all six participants as a major factor contributing to the ease of their experience. It was also suggested that living in the West increased the likelihood of one becoming vegan. From a sociological standpoint, the West is described as undergoing a process of individualisation and detraditionalization (Beck, 1992) which contributes to open-mindedness and greater reflexivity since individuals are encouraged to explore and make decisions relating to their
40 own identities (Beck, 1994:15). Zahra explained, “I think being raised in England has had a really big impact on me more than anything as I feel more open-minded than the people in my family who weren’t born here, so I am really open to other religious points of views and even non-religious points of view”, whilst Razia demonstrated a cataphatic reflexivity, stating
“we must not take everything literally. We need to understand the wisdom behind teachings and understand their conditions”. By living in Britain and interacting with a wide range of people, including non-Muslims, vegans and vegetarians, my participants explained that they had been exposed to pro-vegan information, such as scientific evidence and footage from factory farms detailing animal cruelty that had helped them make the connection and adopt veganism; a finding also made by Radnitz et al (2015:35). All six participants consequently quoted animal welfare as a major motivation in their decision to become vegan. This corresponds with the findings by Janssen et al (2016:649) that animal welfare is the most widespread motivation amongst vegans in the West and Foltz’s (2006a:111) argument that compassion for animals is a common motivation amongst Muslims. Moreover, Mina and
Razia claimed that health had also played a role in their decision to change their eating habits, with Fatima explaining how she too had experienced health benefits since adopting a vegan diet. Health was therefore important for my participants too, a conclusion echoed by Cramer et al (2017:561). In addition to the availability of vegan products therefore, the accessibility of information in the West has also made being vegan easier.
It is evident that individualisation also played an important role in my interview participants’ experiences. All interviewees had the freedom and ability to cater for themselves, despite differing home situations; four lived with parents, one lived with her husband and another lived with a housemate. For those living with family, the parent that cooked also catered for the vegan by either cooking vegan dishes for all the family or adapting the main dish so that it was vegan. This helped to make the experience of being a
41 Muslim vegan easier. In terms of the wider Muslim community however, only Fatima considered herself an active member and this could be down to that fact that she had found most members quite accepting of her veganism. The other five participants however did not engage with the Muslim community to a huge extent and as such led individualised lives, independent from religious influence. Zahra made the conscious decision to avoid Islamic events, explaining, “I feel very left out at these sorts of gatherings, which is why I don’t bother going anymore, if I don’t have to. I’d rather avoid getting upset.” Others described not being part of the community, due to not knowing anyone, not living near a mosque or having a busy life, which did not leave time for active participation in the wider Muslim community.
Detraditionalization involves the disappearance of social norms and practices (Beck, 1992:2) however in the case of the Muslim vegans I interviewed, it was not so much that the social norms and practices had disappeared from the Islamic way of life, rather these individuals had chosen not to integrate with the wider Muslim community; they were therefore not influenced by Islamic customs and beliefs. For these individuals, the long-held traditions did not have as much power and influence as they would have over strongly affiliated members of the community (Campbell, 1996:149). It is consequently arguable that experience is made easier by this separation as individuals have more freedom to make their own decisions in regard to their lifestyle, as well as being less influenced by the beliefs and practices of others.
They therefore construct their identity through reflexive practice linked to their own experiences and decisions (Giddens, 1990:36).
The subjective turn in religion, although commonly used to describe the move away from religion towards spirituality (Hiebert, 2018:55), can also refer to the reinterpretation of religious belief and practice (Shah, 2014:516), which was indeed the case for my interview participants. Layla portrayed a strong reflexive attitude towards her Islamic identity, stating
“I’m coming to terms with my own experience of being a Muslim, it doesn’t necessarily have
42 to be exactly the same as my parents … It’s something I’m still trying to figure out”. The other five participants demonstrated cataphatic reflexivity, whereby they identified as religious, however instead of credulously following cultural beliefs and practices, they were engaged in actively researching the religion in order to understand and practise it in a way that made sense to them and which was still in line with the teachings. There was a great emphasis placed on values, with all participants arguing that they felt veganism and Islam were complementary, especially where animal welfare was concerned. A point emphasised by every interviewee was the fact that halal slaughter and the treatment of animals on farms are subject to a large number of conditions (Abdul Rahman and Aidaros, 2012:28-29), however in the majority of cases, these conditions are not being met, and in many instances they are even being violated (Masri, 2007:87). Nabila explained how “it’s impossible the way animals are slaughtered or even treated today for it to meet those conditions so when you’re eating it, it’s not actually halal is it, and you’re not allowed to consume non-halal meat”.
Zahra added, “the halal label doesn’t guarantee anything about animal welfare, it just guarantees that the animal’s neck was slit and that some halal circumstances were met.
Anyone could place a halal sticker on a haram product.” Layla and Razia meanwhile also mentioned the consequences of animal agriculture in other areas and how they contradict
Islamic values. Layla found it perplexing that Muslims consider animal products to be halal, especially since we are now aware of the harmful impact that animal agriculture has on the environment and our health, whilst Razia explained that in Islam there is “the permissibility to eat meat and the command to protect the environment and they are contradicting one another, threatening one another … It’s not bad to be vegan but it is bad to harm the environment … People shouldn’t be so hung up on a permissibility when it means they are neglecting a command.” In every interview, it was argued that there is an urgent need for
Muslims to reflect on the conditions of consuming animal products and the context in which
43 we live and eat, as well as think critically about such matters and consider whether in the process of following cultural norms, we are in fact failing to follow other commands properly. All six participants therefore incorporated extensive reflexivity into the construction of their religious biographies, focusing predominately on values rather than cultural traditions, behaviour also observed by Shah (2014:515) and Labendz (2019:303).
Despite describing their experience as easy overall, my interviewees still reported experiencing numerous difficulties. The difficulty of lifestyle change was described by Mina and Razia, who explained that at first it was difficult to know which foods were and were not vegan, as well as where to get certain nutrients. Lack of support is another difficulty many new vegans face, but for Muslim vegans this can be extra difficult. Zahra explained, “another hard part about being a Muslim vegan is finding other vegans who are Muslim also. I know there are many of us worldwide, but I have yet to be friends with one.” Mina added that although she has non-Muslim vegan friends, she wished she also had Muslim vegan friends with whom she could share a common background and understanding. This links to ontological security and the desire for a sense of order, involving shared experiences so as to overcome the feelings of anxiety caused by modernity (Giddens, 1991:44).
Another commonly quoted difficulty was travelling, especially if there was a cultural and language barrier. Fatima explained that other countries do not label allergens or ingredients as well as the West does and Nabila added that commonly, other countries do not even know what it means to be vegan. Moreover, if the destination was a Muslim country, and especially one where family members reside, this could prove extra difficult; Nabila explained, “the way Bengali culture is, it’s very family-oriented, it’s not individualistic so much, so you will be expected to eat what they cook and if you don’t, it’s seen as kind of rude”. Whilst the experience of being a Muslim vegan in Britain is easy due to the availability of both products and information, as well as the individualised and reflexive
44 nature of society (Beck, 1994:15), one’s experience would be vastly different in other cultural contexts where traditions and religion are more authoritative.
By far the most common difficulty mentioned by my interviewees, however, was dealing with family and social situations. Whilst most of the interviewees tended to avoid such interactions, there were times when this was unavoidable and consequently, they had to attend a social gathering, where most members would be meat-eaters who either did not understand or did not approve of the individual’s veganism. This indicates that within the
Muslim community, detraditionalization has not occurred to the same extent as it has within the secular, Western context; consequently, traditions and beliefs are still very dominant
(Berger, 1999:2). This has a huge influence on perception.
4.3 Perceptions of Veganism amongst the Muslim Community of Britain
It is evident from the previous section on experience that some individuals hold very strong positive views towards veganism since they themselves are vegan, however given that they are a minority group, it is important to explore how the wider Muslim community view this lifestyle too. In order to explore the perceptions held by the wider community therefore, I asked my interview participants to detail how others had responded to their adoption of veganism, as well as conducted a quantitative survey, which asked a range of perception- based scale questions. As discussed in the previous chapter on methodology, the data generated is not representative of the whole population, however it is still insightful as it indicates the types of perceptions in existence amongst the Muslim community of Britain.
The survey only obtained data from Muslims aged between 18-30, so I cannot test for differences amongst age, however the interviews did report perceptions held by a variety of
Muslims, including older individuals. Due to these differences, I will analyse the interview findings and survey results separately.
45 4.3.1 Interview Findings
I asked my interview participants to describe how Muslim family, friends and community members had responded to their adoption of veganism. Whilst a range of both positive and negative perceptions were reported by all, there appeared to be a much longer list of negative perceptions. Dealing with these negative perceptions was commonly quoted as a difficulty, however despite this their experience was largely described as easy; five of the six participants generally avoided interacting with the Muslim community however and led very individualised lives.
A number of positive perceptions were reported by all interview participants, all of which link to my previous argument that living in the West makes being vegan easier. Both
Mina’s mum and Zahra’s best friend were supportive from the outset, however others experienced great negativity from their immediate family members at first, which has improved over time. These same family members now accept their veganism and in many cases, cater for them by cooking vegan food. Razia, speaking about her husband, said he
“used to say things like “when are you going to stop all this vegan rubbish?” but over time, maybe because I’ve stuck with it or maybe also because he’s learnt more about it he’s become a lot more understanding”, whilst Zahra said, “My father was quite angry at first …
We ended up falling out for a while, but he soon learned that it wasn’t what he thought and he ended up learning about it. He is very supportive now and even cooks vegan meals for me”. In the West, there is greater accessibility to information and pro-vegan activism
(Radnitz et al, 2015:35) so even if an individual is not vegan, they are more likely to have an accurate understanding of it, thus encouraging them to hold more positive views.
Furthermore, when eating out in restaurants or at a friend’s house, Fatima and Mina explained how their friends were very thoughtful and always made sure that there would be vegan options available. With the widespread availability of options in eateries in the West
46 nowadays, this makes socialising with vegans much easier as well as exposes non-vegans to plant-based dishes, thus improving their perceptions.
In terms of the wider community, Zahra remarked how other Muslims regularly show an interest in her lifestyle. “Even my teacher in school who was a Muslim was very fascinated and understanding of me being a vegan. Despite being part of the older Muslim generation himself, he was still willing to talk to me about it, which was a surprise, as you’d expect the older generation to be against it the most. This might be down to the fact that he himself was born and raised in England, possibly making him more open-minded”. Fatima also explained how the community that she was part of had generally demonstrated accepting views. Reflexivity and individualisation are common features of modern life in the West
(Beck, 1994:15) and are generally associated with increased open-mindedness and a willingness to learn more.
Although numerous positive perceptions were described, an even greater number of negative perceptions were reported. Using Link and Phelan’s (2001:367-375) stigma model, it is possible to categorise the negative perceptions quoted into each of the five behavioural types. Where labelling is concerned, some of my interviewees explained how they had been called stupid, crazy and brainwashed, whilst Zahra reported having been called a fake
Muslim due to her vegan diet. Others described comments linked to negative attribution.
Some family members became angry or shocked, believing that veganism was impossible to sustain, whilst others could not understand why anyone would want to be vegan. The older generation also tended to regard veganism as a joke and consequently made patronising remarks. Layla explained, “I feel like their reactions are patronising, like they’re always like
“it’s a phase, don’t worry, like you’ll be eating meat in a couple of years, we’ll laugh at you then”, I think they think I’m still a child”. All of these responses demonstrate ignorance and as such, suggest that the older generation has not had the same level of exposure to the
47 scientific evidence and pro-vegan information that the younger generation, and especially non-Muslims, are used to seeing. They are also more likely to be influenced by culture and tradition and as a result, have not experienced individualisation to the same degree as the vegan Muslims in my study.
Separation was also described. Mina reported feeling as though the Muslim community treated her differently, whilst Zahra explained that she often felt left out and as though other Muslims treated her like an outcast. By being vegan, these individuals are deviating from the behavioural norms dictated by their culture’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1990:53), so consequently members of this culture often keep their distance and treat them differently
(Markowski and Roxburgh, 2019:7). Foltz (2006a:108) claims that many Muslim vegetarians are also criticised for their dietary choices and this was indeed the case for all six of my interview participants. Negative comments, debates and arguments had been experienced by all, again demonstrative of the strength of tradition and habitus in the Muslim community.
The moral disengagement of other Muslims also resulted in dismissive comments such as
“it’s OK to eat meat”, “you’re missing out”, “I couldn’t quit meat”, “if it’s labelled halal, it’s fine” and “there are more important issues than animal rights”. These comments also indicate an anthropocentric and speciesist attitude, which is common amongst Muslims (Tlili,
2012:6), and representative of the fact that reflexivity is not widely practiced in cultures where tradition and religion have great power over behaviour and perception.
Marginalisation, and in particular the belief that veganism is a threat to the religion, constituted the majority of negative perceptions within the Muslim community. Greenebaum
(2018:682) found that veganism was often deemed incompatible with ethnicity, and the same appears true in Islam. Almost all of my interview participants described how others quoted
Islamic references to argue against veganism, for example many drew on the argument of dominion to justify the consumption of animal products. Numerous Muslims have tried to
48 lecture Mina on how God created meat for humans to eat and so being vegan is wrong, whilst
Razia explained that many Muslims argue, “don’t make what’s halal, haram”, a phrase that
Foltz (2006a:99) and Tlili (2015:227) also found common. Similarly, Nabila had on multiple occasions been told that veganism is an innovation, a sin in Islam, and is thus haram. Layla described how many members of the community considered meat-eating to be a command and that to be vegan was to go against the command of God; as a result, many Muslims could not comprehend how it was possible to be both Muslim and vegan, a question Zahra was asked a lot. Fatima added that many seemed confused that she would question something that is allowed in the religion. The Muslim community of Britain still has a strong religious habitus therefore, which influences their perceptions and renders them less open-minded than those individuals who have adopted a reflexive habitus. Moreover, it is clear that Islamic traditions and practices are still highly influential (Tlili, 2018:3) and as such the process of detraditionalization has not yet had much impact on the Muslim community.
I also asked my interview participants to speculate whether they thought particular groups of Muslims were more or less likely to hold favourable views towards veganism. All six interviewees felt that the younger generation was more open-minded, however Zahra did add “personally I have found that Muslims from any age and background have different views on this and that opinions on veganism are completely down to the person”. Fatima,
Zahra and Razia also mentioned how living in the West could make people more open- minded, whilst Nabila emphasised the influence of culture, “they’re so ingrained in that culture, they’re like this is our food, this is how we do things, whereas if you’re just a general
British Muslim, it’s not so ingrained in a specific culture, you will follow the teachings of
Islam or you will research it a lot more and then you will be like open-minded”. Fatima added that older people tended to be more influenced by culture, whilst Razia argued that family could be very influential too, for example if a young person was raised in a strict,
49 cultural family, they are more likely to share perceptions held by the older generation. Where
Islamic practice was concerned, Layla and Fatima had opposing suggestions. Layla explained how she had found less religious people to be more understanding, whilst Fatima said in her experience, it was actually the most pious and practicing who were more accepting. I will discuss these speculations in conjunction with my survey results.
4.3.2 Survey Results
As part of my mixed methods study, I conducted a quantitative survey, targeted at the younger generation of Muslims in Britain, which asked a range of perception-based questions. Due to the small sample size and lack of randomness, the results cannot be said to be generalisable, however they have proved highly insightful. Where I only surveyed younger people, I cannot test for differences according to age, however the overall consensus appears to be largely favourable, which does indicate that younger people on the whole are more open-minded towards veganism, a suggestion made by all of my interview participants.
Moreover, as my survey was targeted only at Muslims in Britain, I cannot explore the perceptions held by Muslims in other countries. It is therefore difficult to test whether culture and living in the West do indeed influence perception, however given the widespread prevalence of favourable perceptions, it could indeed be argued that Western influence has a positive impact. Nevertheless, the results indicated a diverse range of perceptions, with every single question achieving at least one answer in every category, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A selection of statistical tables can be found in Appendix E.
My first two questions asked about veganism and Islam in general. Both attracted a range of responses, however on the whole perceptions were more favourable. 68% considered it acceptable to follow a vegan diet in Islam, whilst only 12% disagreed with this statement. Similarly, 84% said a Muslim vegan can still practice Islam properly, whilst only
50 7% thought it not possible. The media and advertisements often influence individuals
(Featherstone, 1992:270) so these favourable views could indeed be a result of living in the
West and being surrounded by vegan discourse. Even if one is not vegan themselves, having knowledge of the lifestyle can help to overcome misconceptions and encourage a more favourable perception.
Figure 1: Bar graph relating to the statement “It is acceptable in Islam to follow a vegan diet”
Figure 2: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim can still practice Islam properly, despite being vegan”
51 I was also interested in exploring perceptions towards different motivations, so I offered 4 different reasons for becoming vegan and asked what the survey respondents thought of each. The first three were all deemed “absolutely fine” by the vast majority; health being the most accepted with an 89% acceptance rate. Animal welfare and environmental reasons were also widely accepted, however they attracted more disapproving attitudes than health. This could be indicative of defensive attitudes linked to the beliefs that Islam is animal friendly (Stilt, 2009:13) and kind to nature (Nasr, 2003:97); veganism therefore implies that God made something permissible that harms these two things.
Figure 3: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan for health reasons. This is:”
Figure 4: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan because they are concerned with animal welfare. This is:”
52
Figure 5: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan in order to help the environment. This is:”
The fourth motivation I suggested was “because they feel it is the Islamic thing to do”. This generated mixed responses, with just over a third both agreeing (36%) and disagreeing
(38%).
Figure 6: Bar graph relating to the statement “A Muslim chooses to be vegan because they feel it is the Islamic thing to do. This is:”
Other questions that tied in closely with Islam also generated very mixed responses, for example the question that asked whether it was acceptable to justify one’s veganism with
53 quotes from the Qur’an and ahadith. Whilst approximately two fifths said they did not have any strong opinion on the topic, the proportion of people in agreement (35%) was only slightly higher than the proportion of those who disagreed (24%). The results discussed thus far demonstrate that whilst younger Muslims may hold largely favourable views towards veganism, there is still a tendency to want to keep it separate from Islam and assert that it is not an Islamic practice (Izzi Dien, 2000:146).
Figure 7: Bar graph relating to the statement “It is acceptable for a Muslim to justify their veganism with ayahs from the Qur’an and ahadith”
Another controversial topic was that of animal sacrifice. Most schools of thought do not consider it obligatory for Muslims to sacrifice an animal on Eid-al-Adha, however it is widely regarded a recommended practice and therefore a religious duty (Foltz, 2006a:121).
For this reason, when asked whether it would be acceptable for a vegan Muslim to refuse to sacrifice an animal, a higher percentage of individuals found this to be unacceptable, 41% compared to 33% in favour. This demonstrates the strength of tradition within the Muslim community and the important role it plays in shaping Muslims’ attitudes (Tlili, 2018:3).
Detraditionalization therefore has not occurred to a huge extent within the Muslim community, and consequently many still display a strong religious habitus, whereby
54 particular views linked to religious ideas are commonly shared amongst community members
(Bourdieu, 1990:53).
Figure 8: Bar graph relating to the statement “It is acceptable for a Muslim to refuse to sacrifice an animal on Eid-al-Adha”
To expand on these findings, I also conducted bivariate statistics, hoping to locate instances of association which would indicate reasons for particular views. However, despite asking a variety of demographic questions, I was unable to find any strong associations.
Zahra’s speculation that perceptions are diverse and thus down to the individual therefore seemed most probable.
Most survey respondents were female, nevertheless males gave similar answers; gender therefore did not seem to influence views. This could be indicative that Thomas’s
(2016:85) argument that gendered perceptions are becoming more equal is indeed the case, even amongst the Muslim community.
55
Figure 9: Clustered bar graph depicting gendered views towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam
Figure 10: Clustered bar graph depicting the views of different generations of migrants towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam
I also wanted to explore whether a Western influence impacted perception, so I asked my survey respondents to indicate which generation of migrant they were. Again, views were very diverse, with little indication of any trend, however some weak associations were clear.
More first-generation migrants approved of a vegan diet than third-generation migrants, a
56 surprising find, since the latter group would have spent more time in Britain. However, one could speculate that the third-generation migrants who disagreed with the statement could have been brought up in strict and traditional households (Knott and Khoker, 1993:598), albeit in Britain, whilst the first-generation migrants who agreed with the statement could have been refugees or economic migrants who were well integrated into the British way of life and who had consequently adopted a reflexive habitus (Shah, 2014:515). Further research would be required to test for this. On the whole however, given the tendency for opinions to be in agreement, it can be argued that Western influence does have a positive impact on perception.
Where Islamic practice and knowledge is concerned, views were once again very diverse. However, for these two categories it is important to note that a considerably higher number of respondents identified as both practicing and knowledgeable compared to those who claimed to not practice the religion or know much about it, which could distort the results.
Table 3: Frequency Table of Islamic Practice Table 4: Frequency Table of Islamic Knowledge
Linking back to the speculations of my interview participants, Layla suggested that Muslims who practiced less were more open-minded, whilst Fatima argued that it was actually the most pious and practicing who were more understanding. To some extent, my results support both these arguments, since 100% of non-practicing individuals held favourable views
57 towards the acceptability of veganism in Islam, whilst approximately two thirds of those who selected 6 or 7 for Islamic practice claimed to agree with the statement. More broadly, those who selected 4 or higher for Islamic practice were more likely to have diverse views, albeit still more favourable than not. The situation was almost identical for Islamic knowledge.
Further research with a larger number of individuals would be required to offer a more definitive conclusion to this hypothesis, however.
Figure 11: Clustered bar graph depicting the variation of views according to the level of Islamic practice towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam
Figure 12: Clustered bar graph depicting the variation of views according to the level of Islamic knowledge towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam
58 Once again, perceptions were extremely diverse for accommodation type as well, suggesting that the younger generation of Muslims in Britain today are less influenced by their home surroundings and thus also the traditions and beliefs of the wider community.
Figure 13: Clustered bar graph depicting the variation of views according to accommodation type towards the acceptance of a vegan diet in Islam
Perceptions are likely to be diverse due to a number of factors. The positive perceptions towards veganism can be explained by the processes of individualisation and reflexivity in Western society (Giddens, 1990:36), whereby individuals reflect upon and re- interpret traditions and practices, thus coming to their own conclusions (Beck, 1994:15), as well as instances of detraditionalization, which involves the reduced influence of traditions
(Campbell, 1996:149). The negative perceptions meanwhile exist due to the ongoing power of religion in society (Berger, 1999:2), which limits the extent to which detraditionalization can take place. Furthermore, with a religious habitus and the predisposition for Muslims to possess particular viewpoints and to behave in specific ways, it is unsurprising that some perceptions are disapproving of veganism. Since the Muslim community is still regarded an ethnic minority in the West, it is to be expected that perceptions will be diverse. Some individuals will have integrated more and will demonstrate British values and behaviours,
59 whilst others will be deeply immersed in Islamic culture and as such be influenced strongly by tradition and practices. This variety can be further explained as a result of globalisation and the multicultural society that we live in (Giddens, 2002:43).
4.3.3 Summary
In summary, it is evident that perceptions towards veganism within the Muslim community of Britain are very diverse, with a range of both positive and negative attitudes.
The interview data detailed some positive perceptions, however more negative perceptions were reported, which could be due to the fact that most responses described came from family and community members who were older. The survey results on the other hand were generally very positive, indicating that the younger generation of Muslims are indeed more open-minded. Considering these two sources of data in conjunction with one another, it is certainly arguable that perceptions within the Muslim community of Britain are on the whole more favourable than not, however there are still a huge number of misconceptions and prejudices, that not only contribute to stigma towards Muslim vegans, but that also prevent more Muslims from exploring a vegan diet themselves.
60 5. Conclusion
5.1 Research Conclusions
In this study, I sought to explore both the experiences of Muslim vegans and the perceptions of veganism amongst the Muslim community of Britain. I began with an exploration of existing literature pertaining to veganism in general, religion and veganism and Islamic discussions on animal welfare, environmentalism and vegetarianism. This enabled me to formulate my research objectives and directed me towards the theory on the subjective turn in religion which helped me to answer these research questions. I then outlined my methodology, which consisted of mixed methods; I interviewed 6 Muslim vegans and conducted a quantitative survey which generated 100 responses. Using thematic analysis for the qualitative interviews and descriptive statistical analysis for the quantitative survey, I was then able to analyse my results, which, in accordance with the theory from my literature review, enabled me to answer my research questions below.
What have the experiences of Muslim vegans in Britain been?
On the whole, the experience of being a Muslim vegan in Britain was described as easy. This was in large part due to living in Britain, where there is a widespread availability of vegan options both in shops and restaurants. Similarly, there is greater accessibility to information and pro-vegan activism, which helps encourage more open-minded attitudes. It was also evident that the subjective turn in religion was taking place, whereby my participants adopted a reflexive habitus and reinterpreted religious practice in line with their values. Moreover, processes of reflexivity and individualisation in Western society made it easier for my interviewees to cater for themselves and lead more individualised lives, which in most cases resulted in separation from the wider Muslim community. All participants described experiencing some difficulties too, however. Firstly, there was the challenge associated with
61 lifestyle change, however this was only temporary during the transition period. Other difficulties included feeling lonely due to the lack of Muslim vegans, travelling, when there were cultural and language barriers, and dealing with the negative perceptions of others.
What are the perceptions of veganism amongst the Muslim community of Britain?
Perceptions of veganism amongst the Muslim community of Britain are hugely diverse, with a variety of both positive and negative viewpoints. My interview participants described positive perceptions as including having family and friends cater for them, other community members showing an interest in their lifestyle and many individuals generally having accepting views. As with experience, it is likely that these perceptions exist due to the positive influence of the individual and living in the West where there is an abundance of vegan products, information and open-minded attitudes linked to widespread reflexivity and individualisation. Negative perceptions were more numerous, however, but these came predominately from the older generation. Examples included labelling, derogatory or patronising comments and discrimination. Many also referred to Islamic references to argue both the permissibility of consuming animal foods and the legal maxim “don’t make what’s halal, haram”. Some could not understand why one would question something that is permissible, whilst others asserted that veganism is an innovation and thus haram. These negative perceptions are likely to be a result of the dominance of tradition and culture in the
Muslim community, where a religious habitus is highly authoritative and anthropocentric attitudes linked to beliefs surrounding dominion exist. The survey results meanwhile were largely favourable, suggesting that the younger generation are more open-minded. Again, individualisation and reflexivity, as well as access to information are the likely reasons for these favourable results. There were however a few individuals who considered veganism unacceptable and impermissible. The questions that asked whether veganism could be both
62 justified with Islamic teachings and considered the Islamic thing to do were much less popular, however. Moreover, the question relating to the acceptability of refusing animal sacrifice was also very unpopular with equal proportions of individuals agreeing and disagreeing. This demonstrates the strength of tradition in the Muslim community and evidences that whilst Muslims are generally accepting of veganism, they are also keen to assert that it is an un-Islamic practice. I also sought to explore whether certain groups were more predisposed to particular views than others, however I could not identify any associations. Overall, perceptions were highly variable and likely to be specific to the individual.
5.2 Implications of the Study
Since my samples were small and not randomly selected, my results cannot be said to be generalisable to the whole Muslim population of Britain. I would argue that my findings are transferable and replicable, indicators of quality in mixed methods research (O’Cathain,
2010:533-534), however, since the data generated indicates likely trends in the population, as well as what perceptions exist. My study adopted a mixed methods approach, which I argue was most effective for exploring my research objectives, as it offered completeness and enabled me to provide detailed answers to my research questions. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data in a mixed methods study is an efficient means for producing insightful conclusions (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018:13), since it is possible to achieve findings that would not be manageable from one approach alone (Tashakkori and Teddlie,
2008:102). Consequently, it permits the harnessing of each of the individual methodology’s strengths, whilst, at the same time, offsetting any weaknesses (Creswell and Plano Clark,
2018:12). In this process however, more time and resources are required (p.15), which can make a mixed methods study more challenging. Analysis can also be testing, firstly because
63 results could be inconclusive or divergent (Doyle et al, 2016:632) and secondly because it is important to integrate the analyses well (Bryman, 2008:99) and not favour one method over the other (p.13). Furthermore, since the methodological approach of mixed methods is still somewhat new, it is not considered a credible approach by all theorists (Creswell and Plano
Clark, 2018:16). There are a number of ways to improve the credibility and validity of mixed methods research however, all of which I feel I have done in my study. Triangulation is a very effective method (O’Reilly and Kiyimba, 2015:31), and one that was a main motivation for my adopting mixed methods from the outset; by triangulating my findings from the interviews with my findings from the survey, I could reach more complete conclusions.
Whilst the results from each method were not identical, however, they were complementary as some similarities were apparent. In regard to the differences, the likely reason for these was that the perceptions described in the interviews came predominately from the older generation, an age group which did not complete my survey. Other techniques for improving credibility include transparency and reflexivity, which I have demonstrated throughout the course of this study. Although there are indeed limitations to my study, I argue it is of good quality, since I was able to triangulate my findings and thus obtain greater completeness, ultimately providing insightful answers to my research questions.
To improve the study, I would repeat it with a greater number of participants. I would also employ a better sampling strategy, involving a more random sourcing of participants.
Where the interviews are concerned, it would be beneficial to also interview male Muslim vegans to explore whether gender affects one’s experience. I had hoped to interview male
Muslim vegans in this study, but I was unable to source any on this occasion, however. A larger number of participants would also prove more insightful, thus improving transferability. In terms of the survey, generalisability could be improved by sourcing more
64 respondents from a more diverse demographic background, for example more men and more non-practicing Muslims, since a low number of such individuals completed my survey.
It would also be interesting to add an element of qualitative research to the survey, especially where the negative perceptions are concerned. The survey results have informed me that there are people who have such disapproving attitudes towards veganism, however I do not know the reasons why. To combine the survey with an element of qualitative research therefore would enable me to better explore the reasons behind such negative perceptions.
This could be done through an explanatory sequential approach, whereby quantitative methods are conducted first, followed by qualitative methods which serve to explain the quantitative results in greater depth (Creswell, 2015:6). Additionally, it would be interesting to also interview and survey a wider range of age groups, especially the older generation, so that I could compare similarities and differences where age is concerned and explore whether the younger generation is indeed more open-minded. Similarly, if I could examine perceptions held by individuals in other countries as well, this would help to indicate whether living in the West also makes Muslims more open-minded to veganism.
65 Reference List
Abdul Rahman, S. and Aidaros, H. (2012) ‘Islam and Animal Welfare with special reference to Cruelty to Animals during Transport and Slaughter’, Journal of Commonwealth Veterinary
Association, 28(2), pp.27-30.
Adams, C. J. (1996) ‘Caring about Suffering: A Feminist Exploration’, in Donovan, J. and
Adams, C. J. (eds.) Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of
Animals. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, pp.170-196.
Adams, C. J. (2000) The Sexual Politics of Meat. New York: The Continuum Publishing
Company.
Adams, C. (2017) ‘The Poetics of Christian Engagement: Living Compassionately in a
Sexual Politics of Meat World’, Studies in Christian Ethics, 30(1), pp.45-59.
Ali, K. (2015) ‘Muslims and Meat-Eating: Vegetarianism, Gender and Identity’, Journal of
Religious Ethics, Inc., 43(2), pp.268-288.
Babb, L. A. (2011) ‘Jainism’s Ethics of Non-Harm’, in Vyas, M. A. (ed.) Issues in Ethics and
Animal Rights. New Delhi: Regency Publications, pp.198-211.
Barbour, R. (2008) Introducing Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bauman, Z. (2001) The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bech, M. and Kristensen, M. B. (2009) ‘Differential response rates in postal and Web-based surveys among older respondents’, Survey Research Methods, 3(1), pp.1-6.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
66 Beck, U. (1994) ‘The Reinvention of Politics: Towards a Theory of Reflexive
Modernization’, in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (eds.) Reflexive Modernization:
Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.1-
55.
Beck, U. (2010) A God of One’s Own. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bennison, R. (2011) ‘The Qur’ân, Shari’a Law and the Exclusion of Nonhuman Animals’, in
Vyas, M. A. (ed.) Issues in Ethics and Animal Rights. New Delhi: Regency Publications, pp.212-222.
Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2011) Philosophy of Social Science. 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Benzertiha, A., Kierończyk, B., Rawski, M., Józefiak, A., Mazurkiewicz, J., Józefiak, D.,
Salah Messikh, M. and Światkiewicz, S. (2018) ‘Cultural and practical aspects of halal slaughtering in food production’, Medycyna Weterynaryjna, 74(1), pp.1-6.
Berger, P. L. (1999) ‘The desecularization of the world: A global overview’, in Berger, P. L.
(ed.) The desecularization of the world: Resurgent religion and world politics. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, pp.1-18.
Berkman, J. (2004) ‘The Consumption of Animals and the Catholic Tradition’, in Sapontzis,
S. F. (ed.) Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. New York: Prometheus Books, pp.198-208.
Bertuzzi, N. (2017) ‘Veganism: Lifestyle or Political Movement? Looking for Relations beyond Antispeciesism’, Relations, 5(2), pp.125-143.
67 Biemer, P. P. and Lyberg, L. E. (2003) Introduction to Survey Quality. Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Birks, M. (2014) ‘Practical Philosophy’ in Mills, J. and Birks, M. (eds) Qualitative
Methodology: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.17-30.
Blaikie, N. (2003) Analyzing Quantitative Data. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Blatte, D. (2018) ‘Vegan Dharma’, in Tuttle, W. (ed.) Buddhism and Veganism: Essays
Connecting Spiritual Awakening and Animal Liberation. Danvers: Vegan Publishers, pp.25-
34.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brace, I. (2008) Questionnaire Design: How to Plan, Structure and Write Survey Material for Effective Market Research. 2nd edn. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Bresnahan, M., Zhuang, J. and Zhu, X. (2016) ‘Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? Understanding vegan stigma’, Stigma and Health, 1(1), pp.3-15.
Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing. 3rd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Bryman, A. (2006) ‘Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?’,
Qualitative Research, 6(1), pp. 97-113.
Bryman, A. (2008) ‘Why do Researchers Integrate/Combine/Mesh/Blend/Mix/Merge/Fuse
Quantitative and Qualitative Research?’, in Bergman, M. M. (ed.) Advances in Mixed
68 Methods Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.87-100.
Buttlar, B. and Walther, E. (2019) ‘Dealing with the meat paradox: Threat leads to moral disengagement from meat consumption’, Appetite, 137, pp.73-80.
Calvert, S. J. (2019) ‘Eden’s Diet: Christianity and Vegetarianism’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey,
C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.223-
231.
Campbell, C. (1996) ‘Detraditionalization, Character and the Limits to Agency’, in Heelas,
P., Lash, S. and Morris, P. (eds.) Detraditionalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.149-169.
Cao, D. (2019) ‘Confucianism and Daoism: Animals in Traditional Chinese Thought’, in
Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics.
Oxon: Routledge, pp.56-62.
Cherry, E. (2006) ‘Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach’, Social
Movement Studies, 5(2), pp.155-170.
Cole, M. and Morgan, K. (2011) ‘Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers’, The British Journal of Sociology,
62(1), pp.134-153.
Conrad, F. G. and Blair, J. (2004) ‘Data Quality in Cognitive Interviews: The Case of Verbal
Reports’, in Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J. and Singer, E. (eds.) Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Hoboken:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp.67-88.
69 Cramer, H., Kessler, C. S., Sundberg, T., Leach, M. J., Schumann, D., Adams, J. and Lauche,
R. (2017) ‘Characteristics of Americans Choosing Vegetarian and Vegan Diets for Health
Reasons’, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 49(7), pp.561-567.
Creswell, J. W. (2015) A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L. (2018) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. 3rd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. and Garrett, A. (2008) ‘Methodological Issues in Conducting
Mixed Methods Research Designs’, in Bergman, M. M. (ed.) Advances in Mixed Methods
Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.66-83.
De Leeuw, E. D. (2008) ‘Choosing the Method of Data Collection, in de Leeuw, E. D., Hox,
J. and Dillman, D. (eds.) International Handbook of Survey Methodology. Abingdon: Taylor
& Francis Group, pp.113-135.
De Leeuw, E. D. (2018) ‘Mixed-Mode: Past, Present and Future’, Survey Research Methods,
12(2), pp.75-89.
De Leeuw, E. D. and Hox, J. (2008) ‘Self-Administered Questionnaires: Mail Surveys and
Other Applications’, in de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. and Dillman, D. (eds.) International
Handbook of Survey Methodology. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group, pp.239-263.
Denzin, N. K. (1970) The Research Act. Chicago: Aldine.
De Vaus, D. (2002) Surveys in Social Research. 5th edn. London: Routledge.
70 Dombrowski, D. (2004) ‘A Very Brief History of Philosophical Vegetarianism and its
Influence’, in Sapontzis, S. F. (ed.) Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. New
York: Prometheus Books, pp.22-33.
Donaldson, B. (2016) ‘From Ancient Vegetarianism to Contemporary Advocacy: When
Religious Folks Decide that Animals Are No Longer Edible’, Religious Studies and
Theology, 35(2), pp.37-57.
Doyle, L., Brady, A. and Byrne, G. (2016) ‘An overview of mixed methods research – revisited’, Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), pp.623-635.
Edwards, R. and Holland, J. (2013) What is Qualitative Interviewing?. London: Bloomsbury
Academic.
Eyerman, R. (1999) ‘Moving Culture’, in Featherstone, M. and Lash, S. (eds.) Spaces of
Culture. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.116-137.
Farouk, M. M., Al-Mazeedi, H. M., Sabow, A. B., Bekhit, A. E. D., Adeyemi, K. D. and
Ghani, A. (2014) ‘Halal and Kosher slaughter methods and meat quality: A review’, Meat
Science, 98, pp.505-519.
Farouk, M. M., Pufpaff, K. M. and Amir, M. (2016) ‘Industrial halal meat production and animal welfare: A review’, Meat Science, 120, pp.60-70.
Featherstone, M. (1992) ‘Postmodernism and the aestheticization of everyday life’, in Lash,
S. and Friedman, J. (eds.) Modernity & Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.265-
290.
Flick, U. (2007) Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
71 Flick, U. (2009) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th edn. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Foltz, R. C. (2000) ‘Is There An Islamic Environmentalism?’, Environmental Ethics, 22, pp.63-72.
Foltz, R. (2001) ‘Is Vegetarianism Un-Islamic?’, Studies in Contemporary Islam, 3(1), pp.39-
54.
Foltz, R. (2006a) Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures. Oxford: Oneworld
Publications.
Foltz, R. (2006b) ‘“This she-camel of God is a sign to you”: Dimensions of Animas in
Islamic Tradition and Muslim Culture’, in Waldau, P. and Patton, K. (eds.) A Communion of
Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics. New York, Columbia University Press, pp.149-159.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow:
Environmental Issues and Options. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e.pdf
(Accessed: 22 August 2019).
Foster, C. (2019) ‘Mormonism: Harmony and Dissonance between Religion and Animal
Ethics’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal
Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.107-115.
Fowler, Jr., F. J. (2009) Survey Research Methods. 4th edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Frayne, C. T. (2019) ‘Animals in Christian and Muslim Thought: Creatures, Creation, and
Killing for Food’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.201-215.
72 Furber, M. (2015) Rights and Duties Pertaining to Kept Animals: A Case Study in Islamic
Law and Ethics. Abu Dhabi: Tabah Foundation.
Furber, M. (2017) Intensive Animal Farming: Wrongs & Responsibilities. Abu Dhabi: Tabah
Foundation.
Gaffney, J. (2004) ‘Eastern Religions and the Eating of Meat’, in Sapontzis, S. F. (ed.) Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. New York: Prometheus Books, pp.223-235.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Gibbs, G. (2007) Analysing Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1994) ‘Living in a Post-Traditional Society’, in Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash,
S. (eds.) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social
Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.56-109.
Giddens, A. (2002) Runaway World. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Goffman, E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Hammondsworth:
Penguin Books Ltd.
Gomm, R. (2008) Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction. 2nd edn.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M. and Oliveira, A. (2015) ‘Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet’, Appetite, 95, pp.113-125.
73 Greenebaum, J. B. (2012) ‘Managing Impressions: “Face-Saving” Strategies of Vegetarians and Vegans’, Humanity & Society, 36(4), pp.309-325.
Greenebaum, J. (2018) ‘Vegans of color: managing visible and invisible stigmas’, Food,
Culture & Society, 21(5), pp.680-697.
Greenebaum, J. and Dexter, B. (2018) ‘Vegan men and hybrid masculinity’, Journal of
Gender Studies, 27(6), pp.637-648.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, Jr., F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. and
Tourangeau, R. (2009) Survey Methodology. 2nd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hammersley, M. (2008) ‘Troubles with Triangulation’, in Bergman, M. M. (ed.) Advances in
Mixed Methods Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.22-36.
Harper, A. B. (2010) Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society. New York: Lantern Books.
Hay, C. (2011) ‘Interpreting Interpretivism Interpreting Interpretations: The New
Hermeneutics of Public Administration’, Public Administration, 89(1), pp.167-182.
Heiss, S., Coffino, J. A. and Hormes, J. M. (2017) ‘Eating and health behaviors in vegans compared to omnivores: Dispelling common myths’, Appetite, 118, pp.129-135.
Hiebert, D. (2018) ‘“The Massive Subjective Turn”: Sociological Perspectives of
Spirituality’, Journal of Sociology and Christianity, 8(2), pp.55-75.
Hitchings, R. (2012) ‘People can talk about their practices’, Area, 44(1), pp.61-67.
Hourani, G. F. (1985) Reason and Tradition in Islamic Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
74 Houtman, D. and Aupers, S. (2007) ‘The spiritual turn and the decline of tradition: the spread of post-Christian spirituality in fourteen Western countries (1981–2000)’, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 46(3), pp.305–320.
Hunter, J. D. and Ainlay, S. C. (1986) ‘Introduction’, in Hunter, J. D. and Ainlay, S. C. (eds.)
Making Sense of Modern Times: Peter L. Berger and the Vision of Interpretive Sociology.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, pp.1-8.
Izzi Dien, M. (1992) ‘Islamic Ethics and the Environment’, in Khalid, F. and O’Brien, J.
(eds.) Islam and Ecology. London: Cassell Publishers Limited, pp.25-35.
Izzi Dien, M. (2000) The Environmental Dimensions of Islam. Cambridge: Lutterworth.
Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M. and Hamm, U. (2016) ‘Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture’, Appetite, 105, pp.643-651.
Jhutti-Johal, J. (2019) ‘Sikh Dharam: Ethics and Behavior toward Animals’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon:
Routledge, pp.150-158.
Johnson, L. (2019) ‘Veganism as a Legally Protected Religion’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C.
(eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.307-
313.
Kalechofsky, R. (2004) ‘The Jewish Diet and Vegetarianism’, in Sapontzis, S. F. (ed.) Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. New York: Prometheus Books, pp.168-176.
Kellner, D. (1992) ‘Popular culture and the construction of postmodern identities’, in Lash, S. and Friedman, J. (eds.) Modernity & Identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.141-177.
75 Kemmerer, L. (2012) Animals and World Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knott, K. and Khoker, S. (1993) ‘Religious and ethnic identity among young Muslim women in Bradford’, New Community, 19(4), pp.593–610.
Labendz, J. A. (2019) ‘Jewish Veganism as an Embodied Practice: A Vegan Agenda for
Cultural Jews’, in Labendz, J. A. and Yanklowitz, S. (eds.) Jewish Veganism and
Vegetarianism. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp.289-313.
Labendz, J. A. and Yanklowitz, S. (2019) ‘Introduction: Considering Jewish Veganism and
Vegetarianism’, in Labendz, J. A. and Yanklowitz, S. (eds.) Jewish Veganism and
Vegetarianism. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp.ix-xxiii.
Legard, R., Keegan, J. and Ward, K. (2003) ‘In-depth Interviews’ in Richie, J. and Lewis, J.
(eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.138-169.
Lichtman, M. (2014) Qualitative Research for the Social Sciences. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Link, B. G. and Phelan, J. C. (2001) ‘Conceptualising Stigma’, Annual Review of Sociology,
27, pp.363-385.
Linzey, A. (2004) ‘The Theological Debate about Meat Eating’, in Sapontzis, S. F. (ed.)
Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. New York: Prometheus Books, pp.186-
197.
Lo Iacono, V., Symonds, P. and Brown, D. H. K. (2016) ‘Skype as a Tool for Qualitative
Research Interviews’, Sociological Research Online, 21(2), pp.1-24.
76 Long, J. D. (2011) ‘Compassion for All Beings: Ethical Treatment of Animals in the Indic
Religions’, in Vyas, M. A. (ed.) Issues in Ethics and Animal Rights. New Delhi: Regency
Publications, pp.189-197.
Markowski, K. L. and Roxburgh, S. (2019) ‘“If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me:” Anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets’, Appetite, 135, pp.1-9.
Mason, J. (1996) Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Masri, B. A. (1987) Islamic Concern for Animals. Petersfield: The Athene Trust.
Masri, B. A. (1989) Animals in Islam. Petersfield: The Athene Trust.
Masri, B. A. (1992) ‘Islam and Ecology’, in Khalid, F. and O’Brien, J. (eds.) Islam and
Ecology. London: Cassell Publishers Limited, pp.1-23.
Masri, B. A. (2001) ‘They Are Communities Like You’, in Walters, K. S. and Portmess, L.
(eds.) Religious Vegetarianism from Hesiod to the Dalai Lama. Albany: State University of
New York Press, pp.181-191.
Masri, B. A. (2007) Animal Welfare in Islam. Markfield: The Islamic Foundation.
May, T. (2011) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
McAlexander, J. H., Dufault, B. L., Martin, D. M. and Schouten, J. W. (2014) ‘The
Marketization of Religion: Field, Capital, and Consumer Identity’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 41(3), pp.858-875.
77 McFarlane, A. A. (2019) ‘Rastafarianism: A Hermeneutic of Animal Care’, in Linzey, A. and
Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.136-141.
Meier, T. and Christen, O. (2013) ‘Environmental Impacts of Dietary Recommendations and
Dietary Styles: Germany As an Example’, Environmental Science and Technology, 47(2), pp.877-888.
Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V. D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J. and
Thomas, H. (2006) ‘Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and implications’,
Qualitative Research, 6(1), pp.45-59.
Morris, P. (1996) ‘Community Beyond Tradition’, in Heelas, P., Lash, S. and Morris, P.
(eds.) Detraditionalization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.223-249.
Mouzelis, N. (2012) ‘Modernity and the secularization debate’, Sociology, 46(2), pp.207–
223.
Nakyinsige, K., Bin Che Man, Y. and Qurni Sazili, A. (2012) ‘Halal authenticity issues in meat and meat products’, Meat Science, 91, pp.207-214.
Nardi, P. M. (2006) Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods. 2nd edn.
London: Pearson Education.
Nasr, S. H. (2003) ‘Islam, the Contemporary Islamic World, and the Environmental Crisis’, in Foltz, R. C., Denny, F. M. and Baharuddin, A. (eds.) Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed
Trust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp.85-105.
Nasr, S. H. (2010) ‘Ecology’, in Sajoo, A. B. (ed.) A Companion to Muslim Ethics. London:
I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., pp.79-90.
78 Neuman, W. L. (2014) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
7th edn. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Oakley, A. (1981) ‘Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms’, in H. Roberts (ed.) Doing
Feminist Research. London: Routledge, pp.30-61.
O’Cathain, A. (2010) ‘Assessing the Quality of Mixed Methods Research: Toward a
Comprehensive Framework’, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.) SAGE Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.531-
555.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1966) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement.
London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.
O’Reilly, M. and Kiyimba, N. (2015) Advanced Qualitative Research: A Guide to Using
Theory. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ostrow, J. (2000) ‘Culture as a fundamental dimension of experience: a discussion of Pierre
Bourdieu’s theory of human habitus’, in Robbins, D. (ed.) Pierre Bourdieu: Vol. 1. London:
Sage, pp.302-322.
Peek, L. and Fothergill, A. (2009) ‘Using focus groups: lessons from studying daycare centers, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina’, Qualitative Research, 9(1), pp.31-59.
Perlo, K. W. (2009) Kinship and Killing: The Animal in World Religions. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Petter, O. (2018) ‘Number of vegans in UK soars to 3.5 million, survey finds’, Independent, 3
April. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/vegans-uk-rise-
79 popularity-plant-based-diets-veganism-figures-survey-compare-the-market-a8286471.html
(Accessed: 22 August 2019).
Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B. and DiMatteo, J. (2015) ‘Investigation of lifestyle choices of individuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons’, Appetite, 90, pp.31-36.
Ramadan, T. (2004) Western Muslims and the Future of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Remele, K. (2019) ‘There is something fishy about eating fish, even on Fridays: On Christian abstinence from meat, piscine sentience, and a fish called Jesus’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C.
(eds.) Ethical Vegetarianism and Veganism. Oxon: Routledge, pp.117-126.
Revilla, M. (2010) ‘Quality in Unimode and Mixed-Mode designs: A Multitrait-Multimethod approach’, Survey Research Methods, 4(3), pp.151-164.
Rhodes, A. B. (2014) ‘Veganism as a Nontraditional Religion: First Amendment Protection for Employees and Prisoners?’, The Dartmouth Law Journal, 12(1), pp.165-185.
Robinson, N. (2019) ‘Islam: Ants, Birds, and Other Affable Creatures in the Qur’an, Hadith and Sufi Literature’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.80-90.
Rooke, D. W. (2019) ‘“You Shall Not Eat Any Abominable Thing” (Deut. 14:3) – An
Examination of the Old Testament Food Laws with Animal Ethics in Mind’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon:
Routledge, pp.216-222.
Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. (2012) Qualitative Interviewing. 3rd edn. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
80 Said, A. A. and Funk, N. C. (2003) ‘Peace in Islam: An Ecology of the Spirit’, in Foltz, R. C.,
Denny, F. M. and Baharuddin, A. (eds.) Islam and Ecology: A Bestowed Trust. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, pp.155-184.
Sampson, P. (2019) ‘Evangelical Christianity: Lord of Creation or Animal among Animals?
Dominion, Darwin and Duty’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.63-72.
Sarracino, F., Riillo, C. A. F. and Mikucka, M. (2017) ‘Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being’, Survey Research Methods, 11(2), pp.141-169.
Schimmel, A. (1975) Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
Schwartz-Shea, P. and Yanow, D. (2012) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and
Processes. New York: Routledge.
Sciberras, C. (2011) ‘Animals in Buddhism: In Defence of Hierarchical Evaluation’, in Vyas,
M. A. (ed.) Issues in Ethics and Animal Rights. New Delhi: Regency Publications, pp.223-
234.
Shah, B. (2011) ‘Vegetarianism and Veganism: Vehicles to Maintain Ahimsa and
Reconstruct Jain Identity among Young Jains in the UK and the USA’, in Vyas, M. A. (ed.)
Issues in Ethics and Animal Rights. New Delhi: Regency Publications, pp.108-118.
Shah, B. (2014) ‘Religion in the everyday lives of second-generation Jains in Britain and the
USA: resources offered by a dharma-based South Asian religion for the construction of
81 religious biographies, and negotiating risk and uncertainty in late modern societies’, The
Sociological Review, 62, pp.512-529.
Sherwood, H. (2018) ‘Religion: why faith is becoming more and more popular’, The
Guardian, 27 August. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion- why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next (Accessed: 22 August 2019).
Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data. 3rd edn. London: SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Singer, P. (2004) ‘Animal Liberation: Vegetarianism as Protest’, in Sapontzis, S. F. (ed.)
Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat. New York: Prometheus Books, pp.108-
117.
Singer, P. (2006) ‘Animal Protection and the Problem of Religion’, in Waldau, P. and Patton,
K. (eds.) A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science and Ethics. New York,
Columbia University Press, pp.616-618.
Smith, M. (1978) The Way of the Mystics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stilt, K. (2009) Animal Welfare in Islamic Law. Cairo: Animal People.
Stilt, K. (2018) ‘Constitutional Innovation and Animal Protection in Egypt’, Law & Social
Inquiry, 43(4), pp.1364-1390.
Sweetman, P. (2003) ‘Twenty-first century dis-ease? Habitual reflexivity or the reflexive habitus?’, Sociological Review, 51(4), pp.528–49.
Szücs, E., Geers, R., Jezierski, T., Sossidou, E. N. and Broom, D. M. (2012) ‘Animal Welfare in Different Human Cultures, Traditions and Religious Faiths’, Asian-Australasian Journal of
Animal Sciences, 25(11), pp.1499-1506.
82 Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2008) ‘Quality of Inferences in Mixed Methods Research:
Calling for an Integrative Framework’, in Bergman, M. M. (ed.) Advances in Mixed Methods
Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp.101-119.
The Vegan Society (2019) Definition of Veganism. Available at: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism (Accessed: 4 September 2019).
Thomas, M. A. (2016) ‘Are vegans the same as vegetarians? The effect of diet on perceptions of masculinity’, Appetite, 97, pp.79-86.
Thornes, T. (2019) ‘Animal agriculture and climate change’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C.
(eds.) Ethical Vegetarianism and Veganism. Oxon: Routledge, pp.245-253.
Tlili, S. (2012) Animals in the Qur’an. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tlili, S. (2015) ‘Animals would follow Shāfi’ism: Legitimate and Illegitimate Violence to
Animals in Medieval Islamic Thought’, in Gleave, R. and Kristó-Nagy, I. T. (eds.) Violence in Islamic Thought from the Qur’an to the Mongols. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.225-244.
Tlili, S. (2018) ‘Animal Ethics in Islam: A Review Article’, Religions, 9(9), pp.1-18.
Tuminello III, J. A. (2019) ‘Jainism: Animals and the Ethics of Intervention’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey, C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon:
Routledge, pp.91-100.
Tuttle, W. (2018) ‘Introduction: Do Buddhist Teachings Mandate Veganism?’, in Tuttle, W.
(ed.) Buddhism and Veganism: Essays Connecting Spiritual Awakening and Animal
Liberation. Danvers: Vegan Publishers, pp.15-23.
83 Twine, R. (2014) ‘Vegan killjoys at the table – Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices’, Societies, 4(4), pp.623-639.
Twine, R. (2018) ‘Materially Constituting a Sustainable Food Transition: The Case of Vegan
Eating Practice’, Sociology, 52(1), pp.166-181.
Vainio, A. (2019) ‘How consumers of meat-based and plant-based diets attend to scientific and commercial information sources: Eating motives, the need for cognition and ability to evaluate information’, Appetite, 138, pp.72-79.
van Gelder, G. J. (2000) Of Dishes and Discourse: Classical Arabic Interpretations of Food.
Richmond: Curzon.
Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P., Dalmau, A., Fuentes, C., Llonch, P., von Holleben, K. V., Anil,
M. H., Lambooij, J. B., Pleiter, H., Yesildere, T. and Cenci-Goga, B. T. (2014) ‘Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current practices in selected countries’, Meat Science, 96, pp.278-
287.
Voas, D. and Crockett, A. (2005) ‘Religion in Britain: Neither Believing nor Belonging’,
Sociology, 39(1), pp.11-28.
Ware, K. (2019) ‘Orthodox Christianity: Compassion for Animals’, in Linzey, A. and Linzey,
C. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Animal Ethics. Oxon: Routledge, pp.127-
135.
Wersal, L. (1995) ‘Islam and Environmental Ethics: Tradition Responds to Contemporary
Challenges’, Zygon, 30(3), pp.451-459.
Wiles, R. (2013) What are Qualitative Research Ethics? London: Bloomsbury Publishing
Plc.
84 Willis, G. B. (2004) ‘Cognitive Interviewing Revisited: A Useful Technique, in Theory?’, in
Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J. and Singer, E.
(eds.) Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, pp.23-44.
Wuthnow, R. (1986) ‘Religion as Sacred Canopy’, in Hunter, J. D. and Ainlay, S. C. (eds.)
Making Sense of Modern Times: Peter L. Berger and the Vision of Interpretive Sociology.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, pp.121-142.
85