The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Monday, 19 April 2010

All KFCs are Going Halal: the Meaning of Ritual Slaughter

86 outlets of KFC are going completely halal. What a victory for Muslims. Yet another victory for Muslims. Colonel Gaddafi is right. Islam will rule in Europe without a shot being fired. Gaddafi was referring to the rising population of European Muslims. He could just have easily been talking about the suicidal behaviour of various Dhimmis and their never-questioning attitude to Muslims and their constant demands.

What a kick in the face for animal rights activists. Actually; what a kick in the face for millions of British animal lovers.

Talk about ‘the right of Muslims to have halal products’ is in the air. What about the right not to eat halal products? Is that in the air as well? If not. Why not? This is a big thing. Not just to animal rights activists, but to most British people. But who cares about them? Leftists and left-liberal councils don’t. Anyway, not only are the British people not a minority, they are mainly white. And that clinches it for the Leftists and left-liberals in our councils and in Government.

Not only that. Some Muslim diners have had the nerve to say that the KFC chickens are not killed in the right way. What? They didn’t suffer enough? Were they killed by an infidel rather than a Muslim? Did the chickens die too quickly? Perhaps the knives used were haram because they weren’t blessed by a imam. Maybe the slaughterer should have balanced one halal shoe on his head during the act of slaughter.

Some of the actual Islamic reasons have been given. One reason is that some animals that go through the KFC's mechanical process are already stunned and some are also already dead. Thus there would be no true ritual without the suffering. Or at the least no ritual unless the suffering is in front of Muslims. The other thing is that during the factory process each slaughtered chicken is not individually blessed as it is killed. In other words, the death has to be both relatively slow and painful otherwise it is not a ritual death.

Halal methods of slaughter are ritualistic. That means that the way the animal is actually killed is important to Muslims. It has to be ritual slaughter. It is also the case that what makes ritual slaughter halal is the very act of killing. The animal’s being alive is part of the ritual’s essence. That is, part of the meaning of halal slaughter is that the animal must be alive when its neck is cut. Thus that process from life to death is part of the ritual. In addition, the stuffing out of life, and even the pain, are part of the ritual. The suffering of animals, and sometimes humans, was always a part of ritual slaughter in ancient kingdoms throughout the word. The suffering of the animal is also vital for Muslims even if that suffering is indeed short. That’s what makes it the ritual that it is. If it were only the case of killing the animal, then stun-gun death would be acceptable to Muslims. But in that case there would be no suffering and the event would quite simply be too short. It is the length of the neck-cutting which is important.

In defence it is no use saying that Muslims abide by ritual slaughter simply because it is part of Islam or what Mohammed actually did. That would simply lead to the question: Why did Mohammed and Islam demand such a sacrifice? For the suffering? Unless Muslims are prepared to say that the ritual part of halal slaughter is not as important as the fact that it is simply part of Islam. That would mean that Muslims carry out halal slaughter because this is what Muslims have always done and it is what Islam demands. Surely Muslims will feel obliged to say that there is more to it than simple tradition – even if it is a religious or Islamic tradition. However, there are various gratuitous or vacuous Muslim behaviours, rituals and beliefs that are only practiced and upheld simply because of what Mohammed said or did or what it says in the Koran. For example, Mohammed did not like dogs. Thus Muslims don’t like dogs. There is even the case of Mohammed sleeping on his right side which many Muslims have mimicked. Surely there isn’t much - or any kind - of a rationalisation for this mimicry - just as there may not be any known reasons for not liking dogs.

Let them have halal meat. Go on. It’s not that much of a big deal. Is it? In any case, the non-Muslim customers won’t know the difference.

That would be just one more case of dhimmitude or acquiescence after so many others. So why not one more case of dhimmitude after halal? Say, forcing female non-Muslim workers at these KFC outlets not only to deal with halal meat, but also to wear the hijab?

That isn’t much of a big deal either. So let’s do that as well. We will attract more and more Muslim customers. And that can only be a good thing.

I suppose one argument may be that because halal products do not taste any different to non-halal products, firms and institutions should make all their meat halal because non-Muslims wouldn’t be able to taste any difference, whereas Muslims would be made happy. And that can only be a good thing.

But British people are not against halal because of taste, obviously. They are against halal slaughter because it is cruel and barbaric. And it is cruel and barbaric precisely because it is ritualistic. The cruelty and barbarism go alongside the ritualism.

No comments:

Post a Comment