Sunday, April 29, 2012

Ohio judge enforces sharia law in prison, says forced halal food not establishment of a religion

We are told sharia is benign and compatible with the constitution, that there is nothing bad or sinister about sharia and that we can trust it to be just like American civil law.  How does that comport with a decision by the director of Ohio prisons that forces all inmates to adhere to Islamic dietary principles?  It doesn't, and this judge (who is not named) needs to be not just removed from the bench but also made to read any of the books by Spencer, Geller, Warraq, Ibrahim so they understand, in context Islamic law and the problems therein.

Imagine if a prison decided to force all the inmates to adhere to a pure Catholic diet, or how about Southern Baptist-only meals?  That would immediately be challenged as a violation of the prisoners religious rights.  Islam gets a free pass because we certainly wouldn't want to be seen as Islamophobic, would we?

From the Greeley Gazette April 29 by Peter Grady

Judge rules enforcing Muslim law on everyone not establishment of religion

A federal judge says an Ohio prison that forces all inmates to adhere to a strict Islamic diet is not an establishment of religion  because everyone eats the same food.
A federal judge recently threw out prisoner James Rivers' lawsuit against Ohio Prison director Gary Mohr's decision to ban pork from kitchens in all prisons under control of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Mohr made the decision to stop serving pork products after a Muslim on death row filed a lawsuit against the prison system.
Abdul Awkal, an inmate on death row, argued in his lawsuit that the prison’s failure to provide halal meals violated his religious freedoms.
Despite Awkal’s claims, Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available.
Islam teaches that meat such as pork is considered unclean and not to be eaten. This would include all pork products including sausage and bacon.
Awkal was later joined by a second Muslim who is not on death row. Prison authorities had argued that they provided non-pork and vegetarian options for Muslims. The Muslims said that was not good enough and still insisted that the food they were given meet halal standards.
Despite Awkal’s claims that eating halal meat is a requirement of his faith, Islamic teaching says it is perfectly acceptable to eat non-halal meat if there is no halal food available.
Prison authorities had argued that providing halal meet for the thousands of Muslims in prison would bankrupt the system.
In response to the lawsuit, prison officials stopped serving pork products to everyone; including atheists and those whose religion contains no such prohibition.
Read it all

No comments: