The chicken time bomb scenario
Does halal chicken taste any different from non-halal chicken? You know, not as nice? Call me hopelessly naive but why else would you object to your children being served ‘a Muslim Christmas dinner’? Unless you were an abject bigot with no sense of perspective who should have been neutered to prevent you breeding?
Or maybe the non-Muslim parents who ‘expressed outrage last night’ at the plans to serve halal chicken at a school Christmas dinner were objecting to the way a chicken is killed in order for it to be halal. That said, is there a particularly Christmassy way to kill chickens?
No doubt they insisted on only organic free-range chickens who led happy lives before being painlessly dispatched and served to their children. Serving the cheaper non-organic and non-free-range variety that spend their short, miserable lives pecking at each other in windowless sheds and standing up to their ankles in their own shit just wouldn’t be Christian, wouldn’t it?
‘Why can’t we have a choice of chicken which suits everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims,’ said ‘outraged’ mother Rachel Johnson, from Kimberworth, who is in no way a bigot. We let our kids eat food prepared in all kinds of disgusting ways but suddenly brown people are preparing it in a different (but no less inhumane) manner and Mrs Johnson feels ‘my culture is being stolen away from me’. That someone has apparently made off with her dignity and power of rational thought seems, conversely, not to bother her. Can we take it that Mrs Johnson and her supporters also eschew American movies and music of a black origin in favour of a strict diet of Ealing comedies and madrigals?
‘This was an attempt to extend the spirit of inclusion which would allow Muslim children to sit down and enjoy a meal together,’ said do-gooding headteacher and traitor to Britain’s unadulterated and unsullied cultural heritage, Jan Charters. Somebody should tell this hippie that Rosa Parks is dead. Nobody solved anything by getting peoples of different colours and cultures to sit down together.
You could go on all day about this. The stratospheric levels of ignorance at play here make you fear for the gene pool. Needless to say accusations of ‘political correctness’ were thrown about like confetti. An organisation called the ‘Campaign Against Political Correctness’ felt compelled to get involved.
‘It is almost as stupid as serving up pork on Eid,’ said Mrs Johnson, on behalf of a ‘lot of parents’, as the swarthy hordes threw a blanket over her and forced her to face Mecca. Kimberworth should be sealed off immediately to prevent these people’s DNA making it out into the wider community. And ensure their cultural purity, obviously.
Posted on November 19th, 2006 at 10:45am under Miscellaneous misanthropy
| Related posts... • Alan Johnson Corpsewatch #3 • John Rentoul’s happy misfortune • Fighting over the scraps |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 48 Comments |
A friend of mine is the accountant or bursar or whatever at a school. She was recently asked about the chicken by a Muslim parent, and rather frantically (see below) passed the request on to the cook. It turns out that the chicken has been halal for years: the cook looked for the provider of the best quality meat at a reasonable price, and the best was incidentally also halal.
However, she says that generally she’s currently at her wit’s end. Every minority – Muslim, Hindu, Polish Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, even the archetypally laid-back Mediterraneans – is demanding a change to the school rules, largely in order to bring school culture in line with the cultures of their ancestral homes. These frequently conflict with the demands of other minorities, but of course to the person she’s talking to every other culture, including the status quo they eagerly moved into, is wrong. Mostly she tries to accommodate them, but whenever she has to explain why the demand – never, never a request – is not practicable in a multicultural environment, she’s the one that ends up being berated and sometimes threatened with the local papers (and occasionally with court, but only ever through flecks of foam).
It’s not just white people that are short-sighted, unreasonable, bigoted, racist, or indeed stupid. I appreciate it often looks like that because they’re the ones in power. But you’d be surprised at how much power can be wielded by simply shouting, and shouting, and shouting.
These are the sort of people who make it to the front page of the Sun and then everyone is up in arms and something gets done.
I’m leaning towards more people doing things and although this woman is clearly jumping on the bandwagon she is still a straw on the camels back.
There are about 800 million broiler fowl killed in the UK every year. Leaving aside the conditions in which they are reared (seething seas of misery is a pretty fair description), here is the process which, if adhered to, allows the finished product packaging to bear the description “RSPCA Freedom Food”. The bird is shackled by its feet alive and upside down on a slow-moving conveyor, it is submerged in a ’stunning bath’ containing a low-voltage electrode intended to induce a condition known as ‘electoplectic fit’. It then has it’s throat cut – mechanically. The RSPCA instructions say that …’all birds must be confirmed dead before entering the scalding tank’. In practice, it is estimated that at least 0.5% of all such birds are not only alive, they are also fully conscious. The effect of all this? – About 4,000,000 birds are killed by being submerged alive in boiling water! – AND such is the state this whole sorry industry that the packaging is very likely to carry the RSPCA ‘FREEDOM FOOD certification mark as well!
When it comes to food, farming and wildlife management, the sanctimonious outrage evoked by anything that offend a ubiquitous PC Disneyland image of animals, is not only selective but blind and pig ignorant too.
‘This was an attempt to extend the spirit of inclusion which would allow Muslim children to sit down and enjoy a meal together,’ said do-gooding headteacher and traitor to Britain’s unadulterated and unsullied cultural heritage, Jan Charters. Somebody should tell this hippie that Rosa Parks is dead. Nobody solved anything by getting peoples of different colours and cultures to sit down together.
What a wonderful piece of writing.
IIRC, Sikhs aren’t supposed to eat halal meat, so you can never be totaly inclusive this way. Still, i don’t see why the school could simply offer halal and non-halal chicken at the same time, other schools manage to do it.
As an atheist I refuse to eat anything that has been slaughtered by having its throat slit while some mumbling “holy man” mouths some mumbo jumbo over it. Why should non-Muslims eat this?
Why Michael, does it taste different? Are you frightened it might make you a Muslim? What if you were really, really hungry and there was nothing else but halal chicken in the fridge?
If you’re the rational athiest, why the objection?
Michael, you have misspelled ‘racist’.
What’s so traditional about turkey anyway?
Truly traditional british christmas dinner would be goose (Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, please put a penny in the old man’s hat).
Fucking ignorant racist peasants, don’t even know their own culture which they claim to be defending.
Whilst being both of British working class stock ansd firmly of the mind that all religion is utter bollocks, I must confess to partaking of a fair load of halal lamb (Aldi had some on special offer a while back) I must confess that at no time then or since have I felt the need to kneel and face Mecca, not even on bingo night. So I feel I can safley say to these folk, with some confidence, that their fears are misguided.
Ah, very stephen dedalus michael. If you don’t believe the religion has any power over the chicken/wine, how is it any different to a normal chicken/wine?
I agree with Michael. As an atheist I also refuse to eat anything that has been slaughtered by having its throat slit while some mumbling “holy man†mouths some mumbo jumbo over it.
But then I refuse to eat anything that has been slaughtered at all.
Take your wacky cult elsewhere, Teabag.
Justin
The Sheffield Star newspaper has picked this up
http://www.rotherhamtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=85&ArticleID=1884754
They are asking for comments to their letters page.
Perhaps you and others could oblige?
Done. Cheers for the tip, Dave.
Dear Andrew Barlett,
Why am I racist for not wanting, as a non-religious person, to eat meat that has been “blessed”?
Tell you what, Michael, in that case why don’t you tell us what quality is imbued in the meat, after it has been ‘blessed’, that makes it unpalatable.
Surely your athiesm tells you that it has changed by not one atom and is therefore safe to eat.
Did you read Katie’s comment Michael? If you’re not a Muslim, why does it matter to you if the meat is halal? If your objection is to the method of killing, see Sabretache’s comment instead.
As you claim to be an atheist, presumably you value reasoned grounds for belief over beliefs sanctified by religious authority. So what’s the reason for your preference? Is is a rationally supported belief, or something else?
It’s simple really. Slaughtering chickens by the halal method is inhumane. Cutting an animals throat and allowing the blood to drain is not a particularly pleasant end. The standard, non-halal, method involves stunning first, followed by instantaneous death. I’ve never read anything on your site before but first impressions suggest to me that your a typical right on liberal lefty. How about instead of asking this mother why does it matter if it’s halal meat, ask the ‘muslims’ why does it matter if it isn’t? It’s only meat after all. What difference can a ‘blessing’ make. How about if we do bless the meat but in the spirit of Christmas it’s done by a Catholic priest. You can then ask the muslims who refuse to eat it ‘what quality has been imbued that makes it unpalatable’?
Personally I’m no fan of Islam. As belief systems go it’s down there with Satanism http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005959.php . Anything that hinders its spread is fine by me.
Well, Guardian Apostate, citing an article that equates Islam with fascism, call the Prophet a psychopath and calls Muslims ‘masters of deception’ is one way to win round this ‘typical right on liberal lefty’. Well done.
The intellectual dishonesty contained within that article was really rather something but I supposed it pandered to your prejudices and required no further analysis from you. I could cite parts of the Bible (Leviticus for example) to show all Christians and Jews as bigots and murderers. Maybe I should cite Richard Dawkins as proof of the blinkered intolerance of all athiests? Are you won over?
On the matter of halal meat being inhumane, you give every impression of having not read my post and subsequent comments properly or else skimmed over the inconvenient facts. In most cases, non-halal chickens live in conditions and are slaughtered in a manner very far from humane. Or maybe you consider being boiled to death while still conscious (stunning not always being as effective as advertised) as a more pleasant way to go than having your throat cut. I have no comment to make on the humanity or otherwise of halal meat. My point was that until we as a country clean up our animal husbandry in this country, neither should anyone else.
The fact is, the plan to serve halal chicken was an attempt at integration and inclusivity. Terrible, hippy, Guardian reading concepts that make most people recoil in terror, I know. Making kids of different backgrounds share a meal? Well, it’s just not British, is it? I take it whenever you go abroad you eat nothing but egg and chips so your cultural purity maintains its integrity.
The Bible states that Christians can eat whatever they like without fear – eating halal chicken impacts on their faith not at all. Any pretence of this being an attack on the British or Christian way of life (whatever that is) is racism in disguise. Eating halal meat involves no cost to the non-Muslim whatsoever except to those who have a shaky grasp of their own cultural identity.
I also enjoyed the way you put the word muslims in quotes. Are you saying they weren’t real Muslims? What was your point?
I’m sorry but I don’t see any intellectual dishonesty whatsoever. I’ve done quite a bit of analysis, not only on Islam but on many religions, belief systems and philosophies. Islam is by far the worst by a long way. You can find a few parts of the Old Testament that are questionable but remember as far as Christianity is concerned the New Testament supercedes it. Anyway what few verses you can find are for a specific group of people for a specific time and place and not for all Jews, Christians and non-believers for eternity. You could do well to read more of Robert Spencer’s, extremely well researched and articulated work. It might enlighten you to the true nature of Islam. Start here for a bit more analysis on your moral equivalence of Christianity and Islam http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011364.php . Personally I’m not either a Christian or an atheist. I am, however, interested in Gnostic Christianity but that’s a very long story and not particularly relevant.
I am not an apologist for either the chicken rearing industry or slaughter houses of this country. I agree that both leave a lot to be desired. However whatever animal is slaughtered the law states that for humane reasons it needs to be stunned first. An exception to this rule is for halal meat where this is not required. In my opinion that makes halal slaughter markedly more inhumane that the procedure dictated by UK law for the rest of us. That these standards are not sometimes adhered to is a separate argument. All chickens, halal or otherwise, live in the same conditions, whether that be in the hideous confines of a factory farm or an open field. We are talking about the method of slaughter and only that. The inclusion of ‘blessings’ only makes matters worse as far as I’m concerned. As a result of my research I found I did not like or agree with sharia law, apostasy, violent jihad (which the Koran encourages) or Mohammed (who married a six year old girl and had sex with her at the age of 9). I discovered that Mohammed committed mass murder, spread his belief system by means of war, had nicknames for his weapons, preached the subjugation of women and was spectacularly intolerant towards all non-believers. I could go on. I’m sorry that you don’t agree with me but I want to limit all associations with this ‘faith’ as I possibly can which is why I have every sympathy for parents who complained.
I’m sure the kids shared a meal every other day of the year. Including, from what I understand, meals associated with Eid. You think nothing of accusing these parents of being racist or intolerant (one of your commentators even describes them as ‘fucking ignorant racist peasants’) because they may be opposed to halal slaughter methods but wouldn’t dare to reciprocate with similar attacks on muslims.
I’ve no idea why I put muslims in inverted commas. I suspect it’s something to do with trying to work and comment on things at the same time.
Just when I thought this couldn’t get any more insane…
From the tenor of the Express article, the method of slaughter doesn’t even seem to be the issue. It states that ‘furious parents accused the school of undermining the Christian faith’. They’re entitled to their opinion, of course, but the rest of us are equally entitled to ask them to start making sense.
So, Guardian Apostate, this actually has nothing to do with Halal slaughter methods, or defending ‘British’ culture, and everything to do with the fact that you really, really dislike Muslims? Including their children? From your argument it barely matters whether Halal slaughter is the best thing that could ever happen in a chicken’s life, because the problem is the fact that it is a Muslim tradition, and you want ‘to limit all associations with this ‘faith’ as possible’.
Like I said on my blog, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a BNP provacateur at work here, whipping the kind of xenophobia produced by ignorance into barely hidden racism.
What do you want, GA? How far would you go in limiting your association with Muslims. Logic would suggest that you’d be up for segregating schools, or at least withdrawing your children lest they… meet a Muslim. Are you up for banning books written by Muslims? Music composed by Muslims? Smashing up Muslim artwork? Are you a Nazi who has found a new near-east ethno-religious group to base a politics of fear and hate around?
Because if you are not willing to limit your association with all aspects of Muslim culture, if you Muslim children do not make you feel queasy, then this flap about Halal is wooly-headed nonsense. As this case is NOT an animal welfare issue, as THE animal welfare issue is the very ordinary, ‘British’ mode of meat production and slaughter. Any rhetoric about animal welfare is the sort of cover used to recruit liberals to far-right causes. You can see it in some, but certainly not all, of the people who now cast themselves as the defenders of the rights of women and homosexuals against the wicked Muslims. Defending Western civilisation from degenerate, decadent accomodation of the ethno-religious Fifth Column within. Yes. I have heard that one before.
So are you a woolly-minded posturer? Or are you, as your comments suggest, a thoroughgoing Nazi?
Oh, I’m all for a bit of moral equivalance. Particulary when the history of Western Europe is as blood-soaked as it is. Why single Islam out as particularly violent? Why not Christians? Remember the Crusades.
Or how about this?
‘I discovered that the Bush family committed mass murder, spread their belief system by means of war, had nicknames for their weapons (‘bunker busters’), preached the subjugation of women (abortion = terrorism) and was spectacularly intolerant towards all non-believers (George Bush Snr: ‘I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots’).’
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that Muslims are extraordinarily more violent than the rest of us, despite abusive partners, knife crime and drunk drivers killing way more people in this country every year than Islamic terrorists. The fact that we don’t have the tenets of our violent behaviour written down in a book (and there are scholars who argue against the Koran being a handbook for eeeevil) doesn’t make us any less so.
I’d be interested to know more about the ‘true nature of Islam’ though you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your recommendations at face value. Are you saying that every single Muslim in the world is waiting for a signal after which they will rise up and slaughter the rest of us? The evidence of everyday life would suggest that all Muslims are not like this. I haven’t seen any news stories of Muslims chasing non-Muslims down the street with nicknamed swords. I’m prepared to accept that a very small minority are violent just as I’m prepared to accept a very small minority of men abuse their partners and children.
I also particularly enjoy the ‘Mohammed was a nonce’ argument. Although you didn’t put it that crudely, the message was clear. You’ll also have to forgive me if I say I’ve yet to see it used in a context that wasn’t trying to be deliberately inflammatory. It seems you also seem to view the matter in a purely moral context which, 1200 years after the fact, seems a little eccentric. I take it your research didn’t examine the historical and pramatic precedents with regard to this (and the rest of the elements of the Prophet’s character that you cite)? The people of Western Europe during the middle ages were also wont to marry young, life-expectancy being what it was, ie short.
I haven’t noticed many Muslim men these days with young things on their arms although I do note it is legal to marry a 13 year-old girl in New Hampshire in Christian America and have a really good time with a 12 year-old in Roman Catholic Malta.
Your argument about the slaughtering of animals seems strange also. ‘That these standards are not sometimes adhered to is a separate argument,’ you said. I’m sorry but it is the argument if people are complaining about halal meat on ethical grounds. It demonstrates a double standard. These people should not be complaining about the nature of halal meat if they are not prepared to lobby for better animal husbandry across the board – in the case of chickens, we are all inhumane, standards or not. You’re prepared to ignore the filthy and inhumane way non-Muslims sometimes get their meat because it’s an inconvenient fact. To acknowledge any parity between Muslims and non-Muslims would undermine your argument.
‘You think nothing of accusing these parents of being racist or intolerant,’ you said and you’re right. The fact I’m not reciprocating with attacks on Muslims in this instance is because they’re not the ones displaying intolerant stupidity. That hasn’t always been the case. My dhimmification is a little way off yet.
Okay, here we go.
So, AB, it has something to do with the slaughter method and wanting to defend British culture and on a purely personal level it’s because I really really dislike Islam.
You obviously have no care for the British tradition of a Christmas dinner with turkey but unsurprisingly some of us, including the parents who complained, do. That they saw no good reason why they should give this up, particularly when they claim they’d participated in the Eid celebrations, seems perfectly reasonable. What possible problem was there in having a choice? The sensible alternative. Some of them may also have objected because they see no reason why their child should have to eat halal slaughtered meat. If it’s ok for muslim parents to insist their child eat halal meat why should non-muslim parents be criticised for not wanting their child to eat it. Whether this be for animal welfare reasons or otherwise is up to them. The reason I mentioned my dislike of Islam is because that, for me , is another good reason for not wanting a child of mine to eat halal meat. It’s my free choice.
Why do you assume that just because I’ve come to an educated dislike of Islam I must be a member of the BNP. I’m not as it happens. ‘Whipping the kind of xenophobia produced by ignorance into barely hidden racism’? What a ridiculous overreaction. What ignorance are you referring to? I’ll debate the merits of Islam with you if you like. I’ll go as far as the law allows in limiting my associations with this faith. I am able to distinguish between Islam the religion and individual muslims who practice it. That said I’ve read enough to be cautious of anyone who claims to be a devout muslim. I would remove a child of mine from a school where there was a majority of muslim students. It’s my personal freed choice. As Islam only faith schools seem to growing exponentially it looks as if plenty of muslim parents have similar wishes. Have you angrily condemned them? Avoiding association with all things Islamic does not correspond to wishing to ban books or music or smash up muslim artwork. Again, a ridiculous overreaction. In fact much of your response is quite immature which comes as nothing of a surprise. How you manage to leap to accusations of Nazism is beyond me. The rest of your comment barely makes sense so I’ll move on to Justin’s comment.
Justin, do yourself a favour and research how Islam has been spread throughout the world. The crusades were a response to that war violence and aggression. Arguing about this on a blog is pointless, besides it sounds as if you have no wish to learn more about Islam. Don’t tell me, it’s name means peace and it’s being misinterpreted by a few fanatics. I’m afraid not. If a Christian is violent then it’s despite the teachings and example of Jesus. If a muslim is violent it’s quite likely because of the teachings and example of Mohammed.
The Bush family comparison is, frankly, absurd to say the least. At best the Bush family command the support (votes) of less than half of the population of America. If you decide to vote Democrat next time round you won’t be killed. Their position on abortion hardly equates with the mandated subjugation of women in the Koran. Why am I even bothering to respond to such nonsense?
Please, I beg you, do some more research on Islam. I suggested Robert Spencer because he’s extremely knowledgeable and explains much about the Koran, hadiths and sunnah that even I can understand. He seems scrupulously honest and fair and is completely open to debate with anyone. No I don’t think every single muslim is prone to violence but in my opinion that’s despite Islam and not because of it. Again your equation of Islamic and muslim violence with that of abusive husbands is ridiculous. Just take a look at the wholesale violence occurring in the name of Islam around the world. It’s a minority of muslims that actually commit violence but how many actively, or passively, support it? That’s the question we need to ask ourselves. It may not be quite as small a proportion as you hope for.
‘And so when the subject of little Aisha comes up, it may be that your Muslim interlocutor, who up to that point had managed to pretend to be a Western man, more or less, capable of sweet reason and mastering his passions, will suddenly go into a rage. He may first try to deny that Aisha was six when betrothed to Muhammad and nine when that marriage was consummated (what a demure word, how it puts us in mind of having tiny cress and cucumber sandwiches at, say, high tea at The Dorchester or Claridge’s, and since it is midwinter, asking for a little dish of consomme as well), and then when you cite chapter and verse will retreat into the argument of Context, because back in the Seventh Century everyone married young, Everyone Was Doing It. And at that point you can partly concede that yes, twelve-year-olds were betrothed to one another in some places, and royal alliances were thus fashioned. But in this case it was a nine-year-old girl and a man in his fifties. And furthermore, if it was merely a matter of “context,” then why is it that almost the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to nine? We know why. If it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for everyone, for all time.’ http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013967.php
I make no apology for using Robert Spencer’s words instead of my own. He expresses it much better than I ever could and with much more authority. Really, honestly, research Islam and all the violence and intolerance done in it’s name may begin to make sense.
There’s nothing strange about my arguments regarding the slaughtering of animals at all. The parents were free to assume that the chicken would be killed by halal methods and the turkey that they preferred would be killed to the standards set down in UK law. The halal method, as you appear to agree, is by several degrees more cruel. This seems a perfectly reasonable cause for complaint by the parents. Only a Guradanista like yourself would attempt to reverse the argument and accuse them of hypocrisy because they didn’t also complain about how the chicken had been reared, even if it was done to UK standards. Using your logic we should all rise up to complain about the standards of chicken farms and halal slaughter. Suits me, I think both are inhumane which is why I eat organic chicken. Accusing these parents of racism is grossly unfair. I suspect you’re closer to dhimmification than you care to admit.
British tradition of a Christmas dinner with turkey
Wrong. Turkey is an American tradition. We imported it. Britons did not start eating turkey for Christmas until the 1950s. You are clearly knowledgeable of the British culture you claim to defend.
You know, what’s the point? You fail to point out just why, if Islam is a violent religion the vast majority are happy to live in peaceful co-existence. Where is this ‘wholesale violence occurring in the name of Islam around the world’? Around the world or in a handful or countries? One has to spend so much time sifting your distortions that it leaves littles left for engaging with your bigotry.
I tell you what, I’ll give you a shout when I’ve got a nicknamed sword pressed to my throat. You can tell me you told me so and give me advice on how to resist my impending dhimmification. Inshallah.
Turkey is part of a traditional British Christmas dinner?!
Ha ha ha ha!
You goose!
If the Oakwood parents are trying to defend british traditions then the choice of fowl is not particularly relevant. That is, unless the parents were objecting to turkey. Eating turkey at Christmas is a relatively recent development in Britain.
If the Oakwood parents are objecting to Halal-sluaghtered fowl on the basis of animal welfare, then they are simply ignorant of the chain of production involved in the rest of their meat. You, GA, might eat organic, free-range chicken. I would stake a significant amount of money that the complaining Oakwood parents this is not the case.
They are patently not objecting to Halal-slughtered chicken on the grounds that they are irrational atheists of the MB stripe.
They claim to objecting to Halal-chicken on the grounds that they are defending Christianity, yet there is no mainstream theological or clerical support for this position. If they have adopted some unorthodox theology, then they are hardly defending British tradition.
GA, I wasn’t accusing you of being a BNP provacateur. I was suggesting that, at Oakwood there may well be. My comment on CY, but not my own blog, was ambigious. But you are still a bigot. And when it comes down to it, bigotry is the only British tradition that the Oakwood parents are defending. Their objection, ridden as it is with unreason, even within the bounds of the value system they declare, boils down to, ‘erggh, I’m not having my kids eat that foreign muck’.
So we’ve been eating turkey for over 50 years, at least, but that doesn’t qualify as traditional. Eating turkey is a tradition in my family and every other family I know. If that’s also true for the parents of the kids at that school then good luck to them for daring to upset lefty liberal idiots like you. Goose? Are you serious? We haven’t been eating goose for, well, over 50 years. Anyway all that absolute nonsense about ‘the chain of production’ is irrelevant. Your whole argument smacks of desperation. What’s wrong with with providing a choice? Halal chicken or turkey, the choice is yours. If it had been Sikh and Hindu parents complaining, which is absolutely certain would be the case, would they be ‘ridden with unreason’ and racist bigots? Would you have even posted about it? Of course not. The bigotry is yours I’m afraid. The perfect example of self-hating, loony left, liberal moonbats.
If we wait for blind fools like yourselves to wake up to the Islamic threat the battle will already be lost. You may have a knife to your throat sooner than you think.
http://www.challenging-islam.org/contributors/hugh/onislam.htm
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23355&only
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. Little Green Footballs! Self-hating! Loony left! Moonbats!
I’ve arrived.
I hate myself!
Have you ever noticed how anti-muslim posters all use the same set of phrases, usually in the same order?
I’m not actually saying they’re just regurgitiating this stuff without thinking, but…
Neil. It’s anti-Islam not necessarily anti-muslim, there’s a subtle difference. I used to be a Guardian/Independent reading lefty, just like you. Then I decided to inform myself about Islam and I did lots of thinking. Try checking some of the links in any of my comments and do some thinking of your own.
So hang on then, ‘Guardian Apostate’, if we’re distinguishing between Islam and Muslims, does that means you hate the faith but not its practitioners?
Does that mean I don’t actually hate myself but merely my own moonbattery?
Also, ‘Guardian Apostate’, how many actual, real Muslims have you spoken to about this? Or are you getting it all second hand from Little Green Footballs and the like?
“I used to be a Guardian/Independent reading lefty, just like you.”
You know all that about me, just from my two-sentence post?
Gosh, you marmite-loving, Vauxhall-driving fly fishermen are perceptive bunch!
Abraham was willing to cut his son’s throat, had a voice in his head not recommended a passing sheep instead. I demand the elimination of all poisonous religions based on this psychopath’s ravings.
I live in a country where a holy war took place in the last century, its soldiers blessed by the Catholic Church. It killed more lefties than Little Green Footballs could count. Even using multiplication.
Thankfully, it seems, not all muslims have studied the koran, hadiths and sunnah intensively, or if they have they’ve chosen to ignore the large parts that involve intolerance, violence, war, deceipt, misogyny, homophobia and paedophilia. Unhappily, many have and so assume a divine mandate when they behead Christian schoolgirls, stone rape victims or detonate bombs in night clubs or tube trains. Although I do try to distinguish between the two I maintain a healthy scepticism as I’m wary of anyone who reveres a prophet who has sex with 9 year old girls; nicknames 3 of his (many) swords ‘pluck out’, very sharp’ and ‘death’ and allows his (male) followers to hit their wives ‘if they fear high-handedness’. There are many, many more hideous examples if you want them. I’m guessing you’ve spoken to lots of muslims in the first category and not so many in the second. It’s those in the second I’m most concerned about.
Neil, it was just an informed guess. Lefty wingnuts like your good self tend to base their world view on those particular papers. Marmite’s vile, I stopped fishing when I was 15 because I thought it cruel but, bingo, I do drive a Vauxhall. Very reliable they are too.
Alex, you won’t have any arguments from me on that score. All I would say is compare and contrast the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the bible itself) with those of Mohammed. For more on the development of the ‘big 3′ religions try this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Laughing-Jesus-Timothy-Freke/dp/1905047819/sr=8-2/qid=1164213729/ref=sr_1_2/026-8677895-9410855?ie=UTF8&s=books An extremely enlightening book I highly recommend.
Ejh, I’m very definitely not a defender of the Catholic church. I think the key words in your comment are ‘last century’.
I must say it’s frustrating, reading comment threads like this, because I know there are perfectly liberal-minded people calling other perfectly liberal-minded people steaming great bigots for no good reason. I have various issues to take with Islam (from the usual atheist/feminist/liberalish perspectives), but increasingly refrain from trying to express that or explore it at all with people online (or offline for that matter). Because I know I’ll get accused of racism (no, it isn’t, look it up – I think genuine victims of racism would be pretty pissed off at the flagrant misuse of the word now) or Islamophobia or of being a Friend of Eva, or something.
People accuse Muslims of over-sensitivity, but I think liberals are often even more over-sensitive on their behalf. This leads to a kind of… intellectual anaphylaxis? You can’t have a reasonable debate when everyone’s in this allergic, hysterical state.
So I hesitate an awful lot to weigh in at all, which is self-censorship in action, of course. I don’t want to be judged by the people I consider my peers, and cast out as some kind of evil demi-fascist. And no, I’m not going to blame that squeamishness on some dodgily-slaughtered chicken, but I’m just pointing out the near impossibility of having anything approaching a reasonable debate about anything pertaining to Islam at the present time. Because the moment you take issue, Godwin’s Law comes into play.
Evidently this tab-friendly row has brought out the closed-minded Mail-reading parent brigade, and it may well be fair to accuse them of bigotry, but just a load of people standing about trying to decide who’s the bigger bigot doesn’t help anyone, in my humblemost opinion.
Shit, does that make me a bigot of some sort? I should pipe down, shouldn’t I.
My point, which you appear to have missed, is that this extremely bloody episode was connected with a religion other than Islam. And why it should simply be reagrded as “last century” escapes me when Pope Rat is in the high chair.
Oh and this really isn’t being used in any incendiary way – please God, make it stop – but according to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5217424.stm
the age of consent within marriage under Sharia law is still nine. Children of 13 can now get married without parental consent in Iran, apparently. Just because I thought it needed clearing up. (Did anyone see the programme that article refers to? It was the most awful thing I’ve seen in an long time.)
I like Marmite, incidentally.
“Lefty wingnuts like your good self tend to base their world view on those particular papers.”
Okay, you’ve got me there. Chucking a tired cliche and a couple of buzzwords in the general direction of someone you’ve never met, know nothing about and could be Baron Tebbit for all you know proves you’re a deep thinker. Congratulations.
Ejh, I didn’t miss the point. Buy the book I linked to. You’ll see the Catholic church pulled apart every bit as much as Islam, if not more. The Pope and his gang may well have been a problem in your country in the last century but I’m far more concerned about Islam in this century pretty much all over the world. Including my very own country.
Neil, I knew that would get you and it did.
I’d love to say I’ve enjoyed our little spat on your yoghurt knittting site but I’m not altogether sure I have. Until the next time….
GA, well done for succeeding where centuries of wrangling between Sunnis, Shias, Sufis and others has failed, you’ve only gone and discovered the true nature of Islam.
Would it surprise you to learn that when Amy Gutmann set out to find the Mormon position on polygamy, she was forced to conclude there was no such thing? Apparently, as amazing as it may sound, different Mormons approached the question differently, depending among other things on whether they were male or female, married or unmarried.
Now, if that’s the case for a branch of religion that is seen as quintessentially monolithic, you’ll forgive me for taking your assertions about the whole of Islam with a pinch of salt.
All I would say is compare and contrast the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the bible itself) with those of Mohammed.
“Jesus says love your neighbour as yourself. Mohammed does not. For this reason we must make war on the Muslims”.
Two people, one who will only eat halal chicken, the other who won’t eat halal chicken. Both refusing to eat it because of the way it was killed. So which one is the bigot? And why isn’t the other one? Should the religious reason always trump any other?
I hope that is faux naivety, Eve.
One person will only eat Halal food because they believe that is what God commands them. This, in itself, makes them a superstitious fool, but nothing worse.
The other person will not eat Halal food because that is what those disgusting foreigners eat – and if you think that there is a better argument at work in this case please let me know -, and we are on safe ground in describing this other person as a bigot.
Simple, really.
Goose? Are you serious? We haven’t been eating goose for, well, over 50 years.
We have – as a child I regularly used to meet our goose before Christmas and since it always gave me an evil look and tried to attack me I felt I was getting my own back when I loaded my fork come the 25th. Geese are evil.
Turkey, on the other hand, is devil food. It’s like eating evil-tasting slices of balsa wood. That’s one tradition I’ll leave to the Yanks, thanks.