Geert Wilders comes out of the closet as an anti-semite

**Hax** · 09-06-2012, 00:03

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also halal.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-06-2012, 01:07

Originally Posted by Hax

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also halal.

Which means that whether you chose to be offended or not is a matter of choice... interesting.

Of course, Christians don't slaughter their meet in the name of anything, unless is tries to escape.

**Fragony** · 09-06-2012, 08:01

Originally Posted by Hax

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also halal.

Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.

**Fisherking** · 09-06-2012, 09:27

Every method of slaughter is going to start with a live animal. You want them to bleed out.

Both the Jewish and Islamic practices are designed to be a humane as they could. For the Jews animals sacrificed could not be eaten and even knives used for sacrifice could not be used for slaughter.

I know Jewish practices allow that an animal be on its back or standing. I have not read up on the other.

These just seem to be so that the animal is known as healthy and not dieing from something else that could be transmitted to people. It seems more like ritualized quality control.

Is there any proof of anti-religious intent by any of the Dutch Parliament? How many were even aware that this bill would have religious ramifications? Were any religious groups lobbying against the law?

So far, it looks more like ignorance than intent.

**Fragony** · 09-06-2012, 10:03

No proof at all, calling Wilders an antisemist is absurd, the neo-nazi's hate him for a reason. It was also backed by labour that by all means can be called a rather jewish-dominated lot, the Amsterdam part at least. Only the christian party's are opposed.

**Hax** · 09-06-2012, 10:24

Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on pre-Islamic Arabia (Moros is, though) but I have two ideas:

1) Either its origins are contra-sacrifice: from what we know, Muhammad tried to eradicate superstition and idolatry throughout the Arabian peninsula. It could be that the verse is to be understood in the context of Muslim-pagan relations of the time.

2) It might have something to do with hygienical prescriptions, which actually makes more sense to me. It could be that people wanted to keep the slaughter of livestock within their own community, and this could very much be explained within the context of the prevention of diseases.

To be fair, I don't really know.

**Fragony** · 09-06-2012, 14:12

Given the historical contest it's not unthinkable that the original verse is : "that which has been made forbidden to you is the sacrificing of animals in the name of any other than Allah". For Mohammed the christian gods were the same one as allah, it would make sense that it's about ending polythism

**Moros** · 09-06-2012, 17:28

I have no knowledge of ritual slaughter that wasn't to do with sacrifice (do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves) or accompanying the death (especially camels, dromedaries or hybrids and horses). There was ritual hunting in eastern Yemen and Southern/Western Oman. I think the custom was mostly taken over from the Jews really.

So that would put it into quite another context. It depends on when these laws surfaced. Which is most certainly in the early Hellenistic age the latest. Probably even sooner. So that leaves us Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian customs that could have inspired or cause these laws. The latter had some strange laws about food and other stuff as well. So likely a lot of those rules might have Egyptian origins. Truth be told, I might be pretty wrong. But well what I can say is that as far as I known there wasn't a direct cause for these rules or that sentence in the Qur'an, when it comes to Arabia.