Creeping Halal

[micah719]

Note: it will be a peaceful day in the Middle East the day some stealth shariaist halals my ham, bacon, roast pork and pork chops!


a non-halal posted in full from:
Articles: Creeping Halal
Creeping Halal
By William Sullivan

In January of this year, the Daily Mail reported what was, to some at least, an alarming trend of "secretively prepared" halal meat (the meat of animals ritualistically slaughtered in accordance with Islamic law) being served in "Britain's most popular sporting venues, pubs, schools, and hospitals without the public's knowledge." So prevalently was this tactic employed that some schoolchildren had no non-halal choices beyond a "vegetarian option."

Once the public was made aware of this fact, Britons began voicing their concerns over the practice. Animal rights activists opposed it because "research suggests that animals can die a slow painful death" as a result of the bleeding halal requires, primarily because the animals are often not stunned prior to the act. Others, however, had a more religious objection. Over 10,000 Christians signed a petition that called for proper labeling, citing "reservations about eating meat from animals that are bled to death while an Islamic prayer is recited." Church official Alison Ruoff suggested that "there is a lot of fear about upsetting Muslims but as Christians you have to stand up for Christian values. Because we are unwittingly eating halal meat, we are spreading the practice of sharia law."

As a result of this outcry, Muslim and Christian leaders in the country agreed that "non-Muslims should not be compelled to eat halal meat." In a statement, the Christian Muslim Forum said, "We urge all food outlets, catering organisations, and public authorities to label halal food properly, for the benefit of both non-Muslim and Muslim consumers."

Contrast this reaction to that received by Pamela Geller for her efforts to expose Butterball's company practice of covertly slaughtering all turkeys in accordance with Islamic halal standards. She was met with ruthless accusations of bigotry, intolerance, and Islamophobia by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Ms. Geller merely offered that many "Christians, Hindus or Sikhs and Jews find it offensive to eat meat slaughtered according to Islamic ritual." She, very much like British activists did earlier this year, suggested that Butterball clearly mark their meat as halal so that consumers can make their choices accordingly, and until they "stop selling only halal turkeys and make non-halal turkeys available," (emphasis added) she asks that agreeing Americans boycott the company.

From a strictly secular point of view, is this any less reasonable than a Muslim minority asking that halal turkeys be made available to them and to have them labeled as such? Certainly not. So why has Geller been so viciously smeared for her efforts?

Geller's critics usually fit one of two templates. First, there are the secularists and Christians who describe halal slaughter as a "fairy tale ritual" involving a "meaningless prayer," and therefore "irrelevant." And because it doesn't matter to them, it shouldn't matter to Geller or to others -- halal or non-halal, they say, it's all nonsense.

Then, there are people like Ruth Nasrullah of the Houston Chronicle. She, like so many of Geller's opponents throughout the blogosphere, chooses not to focus on the lack of choice for those who would not eat halal, but rather to relate the similarities between halal and kosher slaughter, suggesting that to criticize one is tantamount to intolerantly criticizing the other. She goes on to say that "Geller uses the name 'G-d,' the traditional Jewish way of spelling the almighty." This statement plays to an underlying assumption held by many Americans, and one that is evidently readily believed by many of the commenters on her blog. The assumption is that both practices involve offering sacrifice and thanks to the same Abrahamic deity -- the same "almighty" by a different name -- and that since Christians (who intolerantly destroyed Native American civilization, anyway, she says -- who are they to say what is in line with freedom and inclusiveness?) worship that same God, they should not be concerned in eating a turkey that has been sacrificed to a deity called by her preferred title: Allah.

Of course, one has to wonder why, if this is true, Muslims would demand that their meat be halal in the first place -- if the practice is so similar, why are Muslims not entirely content eating kosher meats? The parity, it seems, applies only one way.

Many Christians have reservations about eating meat that is bled to death while an Islamic prayer is uttered. The validity of any American Christian holding such a viewpoint is not for anyone else to decide, just as it is not the place of any non-Muslim to decide the validity of halal itself. But as we live in a country that values religious freedom, we have a duty to see that people are free to exercise their religious expression in a reasonable manner.

And to those ends, a Christian requesting non-halal meat and labels should be every bit as reasonable as a Jew requesting kosher meat or a Muslim requiring halal meat. This is nothing more than reason, and it is certainly not hate.

[mattfivefour]

Many Christians have reservations about eating meat that is bled to death while an Islamic prayer is uttered.

God's Word for Christians on this topic:

"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

"However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." —1 Corinthians 8:1-13

"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake, "For the earth is the Lord's and all it contains." If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." — 1Corinthians 10:23-31

[micah719]

After dining with Indonesians and Vietnamese and Kashmiris, I never ask a foreigner what he just served up. Just be glad you have food, and don't ask uncomfortable questions about how many legs/tentacles that thing had, or how long ago it died, or whether it is indeed deceased.

I don't have any qualms eating halal as such, though some friends of mine that worked in an abbatoir told me about how after the 200th sheep the knife is practically a saw, and the animal takes a while to perish. I understand kosher is different and according to the research I've read, can be argued to be a more humane method than the bolt stun.

The thing that bothers me about the creeping halal thing is the creeping sharia that goes with it. It is the camel's nose in the tent, and there are already too many camels in our tents. It is one thing to show concern for an unbeliever's scruples so as to not compromise testimony, it is another to be blackmailed or deceived into practising their religion or mutely permitting them to introduce it. Just wait until sharia is official law....we won't have the freedom to discuss these things anymore anyway, or be permitted to be Christian without risking death. Not that this would be altogether bad....it would at least purge a lot of the fakes and firm up the fence-sitters.

In the meantime.....roast pork with apple sauce and cloves. Oh, the crackling! And bacon in maple syrup! Mmmmmmm......thank You Lord for this delicious food!