The business of selling food that is halal, or acceptable to Muslims, is set to grow rapidly in Europe in coming years as more supermarket chains target the sector. Frits van Dijk, executive vice president at the world's biggest food group Nestlé, told Reuters at the World Halal Forum Europe in The Hague that he expected the halal food business in Europe to grow by 20 to 25 percent within the next decade.

(Photo: Halal hamburger restaurant in Paris suburb, 10 Aug 2005/Jacky Naegelen)

The total European halal food market is currently valued at about $66 billion, including meat, fresh food and packed food, while the global market is worth about $634 billion.

"We are starting to see that these products are not just in speciality shops but are also starting to get into the mainstream of modern retailers," said Van Dijk, pointing to Britain's Tesco and France's Carrefour, which stock halal goods.

Milk powder, cooking aids, seasoning and sauces are among the most popular halal products in Europe at the moment, while Nestlé has recently started selling a range of meat-based and frozen food halal products in France, Van Dijk said.

Read the whole story here.

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

A mouse that can speak? A monkey with Down’s Syndrome? Dogs with human hands or feet? British scientists want to know if such experiments are acceptable, or if they go too far in the name of medical research.

The Academy of Medical Sciences has launched a study to look at the use of animals containing human material in scientific research.

Using human material in animals is not new. Scientists have already created rhesus macaque monkeys that have a human form of the Huntingdon’s gene so they can investigate how the disease develops; and mice with livers made from human cells are being used to study the effects of new drugs.

But scientists say the technology to put ever greater amounts of human genetic material into animals is spreading quickly around the world — raising the possibility that some scientists in some places may want to push boundaries.

Religious groups are among those that are uneasy about the trend. One Catholic cardinal, Keith O’Brien of Edinburgh, has branded such work “Frankenstein science.”

Martin Bobrow, a professor of medical genetics at Cambridge University is chairman of a 14-member group looking into the issue.

He says: “Do most of us care if we make a mouse whose blood cells or liver are human? Probably not. But if it can speak? If it can think? Or if it is conscious in a human way? Then we’re in a completely different ballpark.”

What do you say?

It is rare that religion and science find agreement, but that is what happened when Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks spoke at a meeting on saving the earth from climate change.

"The great Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson published a book in 2007 called "Creation", subtitled An Appeal to Save Life on Earth," Sacks told leaders of all the major faiths meeting at Lambeth Palace in London on Thursday.

(Photo: A partially dried reservoir in Yingtan, Jiangxi province, China, 29 Oct 2009/stringer)

"I thought that was a very good book. E.O. Wilson is known not to be religious, but what this book was was a call to religious people and scientists to call off the war between religion and science and work together for the sake of the future of life on earth.

"And I felt that was a very generous and appropriate call by a non-religious scientist."

He said "that science and religion despite their apparent friction actually converge on a profoundly scientific and at the same time religious idea that there is a kinship of life and hence a covenant of life".

Not only did such a high-profile religious figure agree with the scientific world, but faith leaders found harmony among themselves at the same meeting.

Sitting next to Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the Anglican Church, was the Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, who only days earlier had delivered the Pope's offer to disaffected Anglicans the chance to convert to Rome.

Also attending were faith and community organisation leaders including Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Baha'i, Jain and Zoroastrian.

(Photo: Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, 23 July 2006/Paul Hackett)

Organised by Williams, the leaders issued a joint statement in which they "recognised unequivocally that there is a moral imperative" to tackle the causes of global warming.

They agreed to work together to raise awareness about the effects of "catastrophic climate change", saying it was the poor and vulnerable who most suffered from the ensuing droughts, floods, water shortages and rising sea levels.

Quoting from the book of Genesis, Sacks said man was placed on earth to serve it and protect it. "Man was a guardian, not the owner using and abusing the good things on earth," he said.

"We are taken from the earth and therefore owe it a sense of kinship and responsibility. We believe our very existence as human beings come wrapped up in environmental imperatives and ecological responsibility."

Drawing on the story of Noah's Ark where all animals, including the lion and the lamb, had to survive side by side, he said we would all drown if we failed to work together.

Of course, if everybody kept the Sabbath, when nobody drove cars, flew by plane, or switched on any electrical appliances, the environmental problem would be solved, he said.

But more realistically, a new set of rituals would have to be devised that recognise the importance of the environment.

"What religion allows us to do is take the big ideas and translate them into daily rituals," he said.

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

One can guess what Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will say to Pope Benedict when the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion travels to the Vatican later this year. The more interesting question might be what  Queen Elizabeth is likely to say when she hosts the pope next year.

(Photo: Queen Elizabeth, 13 June 2009/Luke MacGregor)

The timing of the trips couldn't be more intriguing, especially the second one. The pope is due to visit Britain in September 2010 and is expected to preside there over the beatification of the late Cardinal John Henry Newman, a famous 19th-century convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

The queen is, after all, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, many of whose flock the pope is seeking to poach with his offer last week allowing Anglicans to convert en masse while keeping many of their traditions. And among her honorifics is "Defender of the Faith." While that sounds impressive, it pales in comparison to Benedict's long string of titles including "Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church." But oneupmanship is a British sport, so one never knows how these things can turn out.

It is unclear how many CofE traditionalists, upset at moves to ordain women bishops and the issue of homosexuality, will move over to Rome, but the conservative Anglican group Forward in Faith suggested 12 Church of England bishops may switch - more than a quarter of their total.

It was suggested by the Daily Telegraph newspaper earlier this month, before the Vatican effectively sabotaged decades of dialogue between the two churches, that the pope would receive a warm welcome at Buckingham Palace. "The warmth of her welcome will come as no surprise to the pontiff," it said.

Citing sources speaking to the Catholic Herald weekly, the Telegraph said the queen has "grown increasingly sympathetic" to the Roman Catholic Church over the years while being "appalled," along with her son and heir Charles, at developments in the Church of England.

(Photo: Pope Benedict, 11 Oct 2009/Max Rossi)

The Sunday Telegraph in July said the queen had told the heads of a traditional group that she "understood their concerns" about the future of the 77 million-strong global church.

But whether the warmth will stand up to the pope parking his tanks on her lawn, as Ruth Gledhill described it in The Times -- especially Buckingham Palace's lawns -- would be astonishing.

As head of her faith she must defend her church, and can do so on an equal footing in both political and spiritual terms, Vicki Woods of the Telegraph wrote. "When Pope John Paul II met the queen on his visit to Britain, he was for once wrong-footed," she pointed out.  "She spoke to him not as a fellow head of state but as a fellow head of the church: her church. Her faith. Which she defends. He was quite taken aback."

It is not only her church's clergy and laity which are up for grabs, but possibly also the buidlings.

And it was Queen Elizabeth I, after all, who so staunchly defended the English Reformation introduced by her father Henry VIII in 1534 in his dispute with Rome over his desire to divorce one wife and marry another.

The queen has already potentially been slighted by her Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who it has been reported in the media, apparently personally invited the pope to visit Britain during a private audience last February.

"He should read Carla Powell's diary in The Spectator," Woods wrote.  "Gordon Brown says he invited His Holiness, which if true would represent a gross breach of protocol. Only the queen can invite a head of state to Britain."

(Photo: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, 11 Feb 2009/Kieran Doherty)

The queen, needless to say, has said even less than her archbishop. The older royals don't often leave themselves open to be quoted. On one of the rare occasions they have, the late queen mother was reported to have only commented that church services should not last beyond an hour. The archbishop has barely said much more in response to the pope other than he did not see it as "an act of aggression" and that it would not derail dialogue between the two churches.

But when you become the focus of general sympathy, you must know that you have probably been dealt a rum deal.

The fact that the archbishop was only notified two weeks before the pope revealed just how far he was prepared to go in accommodating the Anglo-Catholics must have left him "starting to wonder if he has any friends left," Gledhill wrote in the Times over the weekend.  "He is like the academic boy at school who no one wants to play with because he doesn't understand the rules of fisticuffs," she added.

Many religious figures have been indignant at the way the Vatican has behaved towards Williams, with his predecessor George Carey urging him to protest at its "appalling" injustice.

The Vatican is expected to reveal more details about the offer in the next week or two. The conservative Anglican group Forward in Faith debated the offer in London at the weekend and decided its members would be consulted, with a decision due in late February after the CofE general synod.

Some women priests say that timing is cynical, based on emotional blackmail.

"It is beginning to sound like an abusive marriage," said the pro-women ordination spokeswoman Reverend Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, chaplain at University College, Durham, in northern England. She suggested the disaffected will threaten to leave unless concessions are made on the possible ordination of women bishops, which is due to be discussed at the synod.

(Photo: Rev. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes)

The Vatican made moves 17 years ago to attract Anglicans when the ordination of women priests was being discussed.  "They could say we will leave unless you do this and that," she  said.

What do you think? Will Queen Elizabeth surprise Pope Benedict and defend the faith, as she did with Pope John Paul? Or will diplomacy prevail?

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Do you have a question you would like to ask Chancellor Alistair Darling? Now is your chance.

At 1:30pm British time on Wednesday, October 21, Reuters is hosting an exclusive Web 2.0 interview with Darling and we want you to send us your questions to put to the top man from the Treasury.

From the crippling global recession to the debate over bankers' bonuses, it has been a tumultuous year at Number 11 Downing Street. You may want to quiz the Chancellor on one of these topics, ask him about the government's plans to prevent another downturn or how Labour plan to defy the polls and win the upcoming general election.

During the interview we will put as many of your questions as possible to the Chancellor and will be running a liveblog of the event, much like we did during this social media interview with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

Leave your question in the comments box below or via Twitter (using #askdarling) and join us on Wednesday for our Web 2.0 interview with the Chancellor.

The Church of England could restrict the powers of some women bishops under a plan designed to end a rift between traditionalists who want to keep the all-male senior clergy and liberals demanding equality.  The proposal has reignited the long-running debate over a supposed ecclesiastical "stained-glass ceiling" that stops women from attaining the most senior roles in the church.

The Church of England body reviewing the law on women bishops, the Revision Committee, has voted to change the rules to remove certain powers from female bishops in dioceses where they face opposition from traditionalists. Specially-appointed male bishops would assume those powers and the new system would be written into British law, the committee said in a statement.

(Photo: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the U.S. Episcopal Church, 4 Nov 2006/Jonathan Ernst)

While Anglicans in the United States, Canada and Australia already have women bishops, conservatives in many other parts of the Communion strongly oppose them. They say there is nothing in the Bible or church history to support women bishops. Liberals, who argue that women should be treated equally, said the latest proposals to allow women bishops, albeit with reduced powers in some areas, risked creating a two-tier church.

"Where there are parishes who don't recognize women bishops and want to look to another bishop, that diocesan bishop's duties and responsibilities to those parishes would be reduced automatically," a Church of England spokesman said. "Those duties would pass to this other bishop."

Read the whole story here.

Church of England statement "Revision Committee on Women in the Episcopate"

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Photo; Irish "Yes" campaigners celebrate in Dublin, 3 Oct 2009/Cathal McNaughton)

Europe has become increasingly selfish and materialistic in the 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the heads of the Roman Catholic bishops' conferences across Europe said at the end of their three-day annual meeting at the weekend.  "The crisis sweeping Europe today is serious," they said in a statement after the session in Paris. They cited materialism, individualism and relativism as major challenges facing European society.

The bishops' sober assessment contrasted with the upbeat mood that the overwhelming "Yes" vote in Ireland's Lisbon Treaty referendum created.  It must be noted they drew up their statement before they'd heard the news from Dublin on Saturday. And their statement ended with a note of Christian hopefulness. Still, their diagnosis is so fundamental it's hard to imagine they would have changed much in the text.

Here's the way they put it:

"All that has happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall has been a great stepping stone in the European adventure... (but) twenty years later, we now see that the incredible European project, with a strong ethical basis, has greatly weakened... The hopes placed on building Europe have not so far been fulfilled. Here we take note of the influence of several factors:

• "The development of the European Union has gone hand in hand with a growth in consumption, at least for some people. The mere constant acquisition of goods will never fill people's hearts... The rules of the market and competition will never give birth to the ideal.
• "Present society wishes to give to the individual every possible opportunity to exercise individual choice and to seek personal fulfilment. In doing so it risks simply locking the individual into the defence of self-interest or acquired benefits... A society in which each individual, each group, each nation defends only their own vested interests cannot but be the jungle... We should not be surprised then if mafia and terrorist organizations thrive against this background...
• "A pluralistic society often risks being tempted by relativism, and particularly by ethical relativism. Each person sets their own norms and claims their own rights. Social life can only rest on common rules, on a vision of humanity that does not change according to shifting lobbies or opinion polls...

"The crisis sweeping Europe today is serious. Low birth rates and the future of its demography do not lead to optimism. However, we do not intend to be prophets of doom. Things are not necessarily doomed to get worse! Our faith calls us turn our attention to the European society in which we live, and to gaze on it with hope."

Do you think materialism, individualism and relativism are the main problems nagging Europe? If so, will it take more than the feel-good factor from the Irish vote to put "EU show... back on the road" again?

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

Pressure is growing in Europe for some form of legalised euthanasia but few governments have gone as far as the Benelux countries in allowing assisted suicide in clearly defined cases. The mix of growing public support for ending lives of the terminally ill or brain dead but continued prohibitions on it in the law has led to some long and hard-fought legal battles in Italy (Eluana Englaro) and in France (Vincent Humbert).

(Photo: Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, whose case prompted Britain's new guidelines, 2 June 2009/Stephen Hird)

It has also created a legal and ethical twilight zone where for compassionate reasons the law did not really punish the doctors, nurses or relatives who helped someone die. In France, this became clear in a number of court cases where the person accused of assisted suicide were convicted but got only a short suspended sentence. In Britain, a frequently used way to get around the law has been the so-called "suicide tourism" route to the Dignitas suicide group in Zurich.

Pressed by the Law Lords to clarify British policy, the Director of Public Prosecutions in London has issued guidelines indicating when someone who helps another person to commit suicide might face legal action. At first glace, this may seem like a clarification. But it still leaves enough questions out there to leave the issue shrouded in uncertainty. The reception in London has been mixed. Some commentators say this strikes a sensible balance but others think it's not enough and parliament has to debate and legislate on it.

The guidelines are listed below and here is our news report explaining the story.

Do you think governments such as Britain's should take a clear decision to keep the euthanasia ban or scrap it? Or do you think they should leave some leeway, as in the case of these guidelines, to let families make the final decision for relatives who suffer from  terminal illnesses or want to end their lives because of severe and incurable physical disabilities?

(Photo: Undertakers remove body of assisted suicide from Dignitas office in Zurich, 20 Jan 2003/Sebastian Derungs)

Among factors weighing against a prosecution are:

• The victim expressed a clear wish to commit suicide
• The victim asked for assistance in killing themselves
• The victim had a terminal illness or a severe and incurable physical disability; or a severe degenerative physical condition
• Those assisting were wholly motivated by compassion
• The victim was physically unable to undertake the act that constituted assistance
• The act of assistance or influence was judged to be relatively minor

Among factors weighing in favour of prosecution:

• The suicide victim was under 18 years old
• The victim's capacity to make an informed decision on suicide was affected by illness or learning difficulties
• The victim did not have a terminal illness, nor a severe and incurable physical disability nor a severe degenerative physical condition
• The victim had not unequivocally indicated a wish to kill themselves
• The victim had not personally asked for assistance

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

The following is a guest contribution. Reuters is not responsible for the content and the views expressed are the author’s alone. Sughra Ahmed is a Research Fellow at the Policy Research Centre, which is based at the Islamic Foundation in Leicestershire and specialises in research, policy advice and training on issues related to British Muslims.

By Sughra Ahmed

It may seem well and good to think children should be seen and not heard - there's nothing wrong with a touch of Victorian, especially true during a good movie! But what if the censored are not young children at all? What if they are flashpoints in our conversations on not so trivial subjects, you know, things like national security, integration and democracy. And what if, instead of listening, we systematically speak on their behalf, saying what they are thinking and how they fit into the whole social and political spectrum.

(Photo: Woman at "Muslims Against Terrorism" rally in London, 11 Sept 2007/Toby Melville)

Enter young British Muslims, but please sit down over there in one group, and mind you don't speak - we have interpreters for that: a choice of representative institutions, community spokespersons, experts on what young people think, and media sound bytes. Yes, much is said and written about young Muslims, not only in black ink but leapfrogging from blog to blog and showing no signs of tiring. Rarely though, is it the young voices themselves. Commentators of many persuasions seem keen to tell us how and what a silent majority from British Muslims think. If it's not the majority then certainly a large proportion .

Let's take a look at the basics: nearly half of British Muslims are under 25 and overwhelmingly British born, about a third are 16 or under. Half are women (I feel a need to state the obvious) and most are not in northern former mill towns (less than 5% of British Muslims actually live in ‘popular imagination' Bradford).

We are used to hearing about young Muslims in the context of radicalisation of Muslim opinion, but their lives are far more complex. There is an untold story of intergenerational challenges, the role of community leadership and its short comings as well as alienation from institutions of wider society. But the picture is not all bad - young people feel a strong sense of national pride and really want to do things to make their lives better.

These were some of the considerations surrounding my report released today called Seen and Not Heard: Voices of Young British Muslims, published by the Policy Research Centre. Here's the Reuters news story on it -- "Young British Muslims angry with police and media." Interestingly 45% of the young people I spoke with were female; hearing their thoughts, feelings and aspirations was enlightening. Young women are often sidelined from mainstream debates both within Muslim organisations and wider British society. Hearing their audible views and concerns alongside and with their male counterparts reflects the invaluable contribution they have to make - they had a lot on their minds.

The voices of young British Muslims - and especially those of women - are increasingly valuable when we speak of intergenerational challenges within Muslim communities. These are exacerbated by the different cultural environments and influences in which generations have grown up. Some young Muslims, from both sexes, tend to face two different worlds in their lives - one inside and one outside the home - as a way to negotiate the intergenerational gap that evidently is due to a communication divide on the basis of language, but also ideas of modern life and ways as well as cultural taboos.

Young Muslims often see such taboos in terms of what they can or cannot speak to their parents about, how concepts such as respecting your elders is a key influence in how they engage with older people and interestingly the way they operate in their social circles outside the home. These  illustrate some of the difficult challenges young British Muslim are negotiating on a daily basis. These challenges are even greater for young women as the traditional norms restrain them from making choices for themselves and their own lives in relation to education, social activities and who they spend time with.

Then we have the role of religion in their lives. Young British Muslims often feel perturbed at suggestions of friction or even conflict between their religion and their national identity. Instead, young people argue there is a sense of synergy between their faith and their British (or in some cases Scottish and Welsh) identities. The role of faith for many young people is a peripheral aspect of who they are. Over time, as they grow into ‘older young people' it becomes an aspect some focus on more, all the while in the context of growing up as young Brits.

(Photo: Central mosque in Birmingham, 31 Jan 2007/Darren Staples)

If we are to make effective social connections, we need to invest in young people and their development, for example through the creation of more mentoring schemes, development of leadership and work to facilitate role models. Voluntary sector organisations can reach a sizeable number of young women. Whilst the space they provide and mix of projects they run is admirable, they would benefit from specialised youth skills training and long-term investment to let young people speak for themselves. Surely it is the voice of young British Muslims that will enable the rest of us to better engage the very audience we seek to understand - let them tell us with their own voices and let us listen!

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld