Judge rules enforcing Muslim law on everyone not establishment of religion

by Peter Grady —

 

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.

Former Navy chaplain Dr. Gordon Klingenschmitt says while the judge ruled it is acceptable to force all non-Muslims to adhere to a Muslim diet, Christians have no dietary rights.
“This is another example of the Islamicization [sic] of America. It’s establishing Islam as the state religion of the prison system,” Klingenschmitt contends. “The judge’s reasoning is this: He said as long as all of the prisoners are forced to eat the same food, then there’s no discrimination taking place. In other words, if he enforces Muslim law equally, then there’s no establishment of religion. I think that’s wrong, and I pray this is overturned on the appeal.”


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by Peter Grady in General News category

 
  • Gary Rumain says:

    What disgusting dhimmitude! Both Gary Mohr and the judge should be lynched for treason.

  • Logan says:

    “”The judge’s reasoning is this: He said as long as all of the prisoners are forced to eat the same food, then there’s no discrimination taking place…..”

    Then if everyone was served pork then they would still be forced to eat the same food & no discrimination would be taking place. It’s a choice, eat it or don’t.

  • ali says:

    Sharia law is barbaric and inhumane. Only an idiot would apply sharia law in the United States.

  • Chris says:

    Forcing Jewish and Christian prisoners to eat halal meat is a violation of THEIR religious beliefs. It constitutes a kind of cruel and unusual punishment. The focus of Islam is not an omnipresent God but rather a black rock imbedded in the corner of the Ka’ba. All Muslims pray facing that rock. When Muslims make a pilgrimage, the penultimate act is to kiss the black rock 21 times as they circle the Ka’ba. (Reliance of the Traveler, j5.10 and j5.12) Muhammad’s successor confirmed that Muhammad used to kiss the black rock, so this became sunna. (Bukhari hadith 1494). This constitutes idol worship, in the view of many Christians and Jews. During the Roman occupation of what is now Israel at the beginning of the current era, there was a lot of idol worship by the non-Jews. The most offensive thing for Jews was to eat any food that had been offered up to idols. The first Christians were actually converted Jews. When they considered whether Christianity would be opened up to the Gentiles, the issue was the focus of intense debate. Would they have to be circumcised and would they have to follow all of the some 600 Laws of Moses, for examples. Finally they agreed to accept Gentiles into the fellowship under just four stipulations: 1) eat no food that has been offered to idols, 2) eat no blood, 3) eat no animal that has been strangled, and 4) keep yourselves from sexual immorality. (Acts 15:28-29) So halal meat fails on two grounds: the meat is given an idolatrous blessing as it is slaughtered and the throat-slitting procedure usually causes death by the animal strangled by its own blood. Probably if more Christians and Jews made the connection between the idolatry of Islam and halal meat, there would be a nationwide movement to insist that all such meats be properly labeled and excluded from prison diets. Muslim prisoners can always go vegan.

  • Slow Simmer says:

    The inmates are running the asylum…brilliant. What is it about prison that the keepers and the judiciary don’t understand? I suppose the guy on DEATH ROW got there by being fair and equal to all he met. What sort of lunacy affects these people? Never mind, I know, and it starts with an L and ends in chaos.

  • No Jizya says:

    If the non-Muslims “shank” all the Muslims over the loss of pork (it has happened over lesser affairs) the issue will be resolved as well. It’s only a matter of time.

  • cjk says:

    So forcing peolple of other religions to eat food sacrificed to Allah (Satan) is just dandy?
    Judge deserves to be butt-raped and beaten.

  • Bob Smith says:

    Islamization is a slow, step by step, process. This is one step.

    Step by step a country slowly starts to look and function like any Islamic hell hole on earth. Look at Pakistan. It used to be a peaceful Buddhist/Hindu country. What’s it look like today?

    This judge is a fool or a Muslim.

  • Chris says:

    The Islamic goal of subverting the U.S. legal system was documented in a religious ruling (or fatwah) distributed in 2008 by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, which stated among other things: 1) Authority to legislate rests with Allah alone; 2) a Muslim judge must do everything in his power to enact laws that allow the Muslims to practice their Sharia; 3) Muslim judges are not permitted to take this job except to serve Islam and Muslims; 4) Muslims must judge by the rulings of Sharia as much as possible even if by ruse; 5) a Muslim on a jury could be successful in co-opting some of the other jury members to agree with him on the ruling, whereby the Islamic ruling gains a majority of the votes; 6) it is required for a Muslim to be hostile to courts which rule by man-made law and to dislike them; and 7) if you are wronged and demand your rights guaranteed by Sharia , you have no recourse but to go to man-made courts as long as you have hatred in your heart for the courts . (Source: http://www.translatingjihad.com/2012/03/assembly-of-muslim-jurists-of-america.html

  • Rebbeca says:

    It’s like that judge used the wrong words – ‘applying Shari’a law – on everyone’ - invites appeal – and next time they will likely be much better prepared.

    That’s Islamic law – not US law!

    It’s the old you can eat whatever – and all meals must be tailored for the strict “religious” requirements of the minority – that is not acceptable – in a state run authority.

    The KFC in the UK - changed many restaurants in large cities to halal – the chicken doesn’t taste the same – it tasted washed out – [not the same quality that you grew up with] – but they hope by slaughtering it in this way and cutting out all products that might offend Islam – they could drum up slightly more business [though walking by almost exclusively non-Muslims in there] – but they can do this as they are a privately owned enterprise.

    [The UK halal chicken & chip shops are dirty cheap – hence their popularity with school kids – kfc – doesn’t get that.]

    Slaughtering the chickens in accordance to Islamic law – is deeply offensive to Sikhs [ex. India’s President] – as well as those of other religions may also object.

    The fact that there is a growing blatant disregard for everyone else’s cultural sensitivities and issues – on the belief that if Muslims are not given exactly what they want – they may become – radicalized – is not a valid excuse.

    These actions in Islam’s favor – taken with little or no regard for others – can even be seen as being racist or discriminatory.

  • right_wing2 says:

    So what happens if someone claims their faith requires them to eat pork?

  • Hinda says:

    This goes against our laws. Prisoners have no rights hence they are prisoners. The Judge needs to step down and be disrobed (but please I do not want to see what’s under that one’s robe). The prisoner is a criminal and should be given what is on the menu for criminals. No rights are violated as he lost his rights when he broke the law. Like B.O. broke many of the laws of this country by bypassing Congress.

  • Ferret says:

    I won’t eat meat which has been offered to a pagan god Allah.

  • Lewis says:

    Mohr and the judge are traitors!

  • GCBC says:

    I would have to apply for an immediate transfer to an unIslamic state,since eating food that has been prayed over to the rock is actually against my religion. It is against my civil rights to starve me when I have no choice. is there a lawyer who would do the case pro bono? The judge should be disbarred immediately.

  • Tommy says:

    To be blunt– With Halal slaughter a prayer is offered to Satan first and every halal slaughter requires a donation to islamic funds so this judge is knowingly filling the islamic coffers with dollars…to finance their civilization jihad

    Judges like this are a danger to the USA– he is a donkey bum

    ps- How could a Christian or indeed others knowing that the beast was slaughtered in the name of a satanic entity, possibly eat crap like this

  • Windy says:

    What? “Judge rules enforcing Muslim law on everyone not establishment of religion.” I think the U.S. Constitution says it best, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” 1st Amendment, Clauses 1 & 2.

    But for a Christian: a meat sacrificed to idols (allah) it can be purified by a dedication of that meat to the One True God Jesus and then eaten if one’s conscience allows it.

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>