Skip to content

About Those Six Muslims Charged in Vienna with Cruelty to Animals

About Those Six Muslims Charged in Vienna with Cruelty to Animals
The judges will remind the accused that they live in Austria – not in their Muslim lands.
By Hugh Fitzgerald

It was in 1683 that the Muslim Turks, in their invasion of south and central Europe, lay siege to Vienna for the second and last time. They did not obtain their objective; the Viennese withstood the attack. That unsuccessful siege was the high water mark of the Ottoman entry into Europe. Now, in 2023, there are more Muslims in Vienna (236,000) than there were besieging the city (170,000) in 1683. In all of Austria, there are now 840,000 Muslims. They have no need to lay siege with massive cannons as they did in 1683. They have been slowly conquering the country through a demographic jihad. Muslims have managed to arrive, legally and illegally, in Austria, by the hundreds of thousands, economic migrants posing as asylum seekers who came to the country prepared to batten on all the benefits that a generous welfare state can provide: free or greatly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, family allowances, unemployment benefits without needing to have any work history in Austria, and more.

And those 840,000 Muslims brought with them their own Islamic laws, as they have all over Europe, that they intend to follow, whenever they can, even if those laws violate the laws of the Infidel state. Muslims, after all, are the “best of peoples,” while Infidels, like the Austrians, are “the most vile of created beings.” Why should the “best of peoples” be expected to submit to the laws of the “most vile of created beings”?

Among those laws are those that set out the methods to be used in the slaughter of animals to ensure that their meat will be halal. They are not stunned nor anesthetized, but remain conscious as their throats are slit and they slowly bleed to death, in great agony. Recently six Muslims were put on trial for such a ritual slaughter — a violation of Austrian laws on cruelty to animals – of 213 sheep. A preliminary Jihad Watch report is here, and more on their trial can be found here: “213 sheep illegally slaughtered: Six Viennese Muslims in court,” translated from “213 Schafe illegal geschächtet: Sechs Wiener Muslime vor Gericht,” by Michael Koch, Exxpress, March 30, 2023:

They call it a “slaughter festival”: Five Turks, an Afghan and the official veterinarian are in Vienna Neustadt in court for animal cruelty because they are said to have caused severe suffering to the animals during the ritual slaughter of 213 sheep.

In the dock of the Regional Court of Vienna Neustadt are five Turks and one Afghan between the ages of 29 and 52 – all from Vienna. And the responsible veterinarian. Together they should be responsible for what angry animal rights activists documented on the occasion of a slaughter according to the Muslim rite in a company in Haschendorf (Lower Austria). Horrible evidence of a bloody ceremonial.

According to the public prosecutor’s office, 213 sheep were slaughtered without the prescribed stunning. The animals’ throats are cut and they are supposed to bleed out slowly. “They were brutally abused and inflicted unnecessary torture on them,” the indictment said. The veterinarian, in his capacity as an officially appointed veterinarian, is accused of knowingly abusing his official authority by not being present during the entire “slaughter festival” and not complying with legal regulations. For example, with the verification of identity and compliance with the animal welfare slaughter rules.

I am certain that the reason the veterinarian didn’t try at any point to stop the illegal slaughter was that he was terrified of the reaction of the six Muslims doing the slaughtering. At the very beginning, he did urge that the sheep not be pulled by their ears into the abattoir; that was his only attempt to intervene. And he was right to be afraid; they might have turned their knives on him, a bothersome and protesting Infidel. He was not present for some of the killing because he could not stand the ghastly sight; eight hours of blood and gore and religiously-sanctioned cruelty.

In contrast to the other accused, the veterinarian pleaded “not guilty,” but wanted to take responsibility: “It was eight hours of slaughtering and 213 sheep, and things happened that did not comply with the legal norm,” he admitted. After all, he forbade the men to pull the sheep by the ears into the slaughterhouse.

That was the extent of his intervention, the limit of his persuasion: that the sheep be allowed to walk to their slaughter, rather than be dragged, in pain, by their ears. About the massive cruelty, and far greater pain, the animals would face once they were in the slaughterhouse, because of the primitive rules of halal slaughter, he had said nothing.

When asked by the court why he didn’t finish the slaughtering after many things had gone wrong, the accused veterinarian preferred to remain silent.

What could he have replied, after all? He was only one man against six Muslim men, who would be enraged if he tried to interfere with the slaughter that they knew was the only correct way to kill animals if their meat was to be judged halal.

He didn’t want to admit the truth: that he was simply afraid for his own life. And so the Muslims had their way, with their religiously-sanctioned and endlessly cruel slaughter of 213 sheep.

Now the judges, in handing down their judgment, will remind the accused that they live in Austria, not in their Muslim lands, and they are subject to the laws requiring humane treatment of animals, including those killed for food. And they will be sent, one hopes, to prison for several years where they may consider whether, upon their release, they want to remain in a country where slaughter according to the rules of Islam is not available.

Original Article

Back To Top