Halal USA

Familysecuritymatters.com ^ | 11-28-11 | Gadi Adelman

[bayouranger]

Back on March 1, 2010, almost 2 years ago I wrote,

“What is happening here is no different than what happened in Europe. Well, maybe a bit different, I think, because in Europe Sharia was creeping into the society and here it is steamrolling.”

No matter how many examples I give, no matter how much occurs day after day in this country, there are still those that say “Creeping Sharia, is not happening here”.

Well, I guess that’s true, it’s not ‘creeping’. According to one dictionary the word ‘creep’ is defined as,

to approach slowly, imperceptibly, or stealthily

When it comes to Sharia in the U.S., there is nothing slow, imperceptible or stealthy about it. It’s in our face every day and now it’s even the food we buy and it’s becoming more so daily.

What do the companies Costco, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonalds and Subway all have in common? They all serve or sell ‘Halal’ foods in some, or even all of their locations. If you don’t care you may want to re-think it.

First let’s examine exactly what ‘Halal’ means and for that we can go right to the source. According to the Halal Food Authority website,

The word 'halal' literally means permissible- and in translation it is usually used as lawful.

The Halal food Authority rules for halal are based on Islamic Sharia. Opposite to halal is haram, which means unlawful or forbidden.

Put plainly and simply, ‘Halal’ is part of ‘Sharia’ law or Islamic law.

[stuartcr]

Unless it’s so tasty you eat all of it, how can eating food tempt someone to sin?

[Little Ray]

That was answered in the article. Muslims don’t represent a large market segment and going Halal has not significantly increased sales.

[Boogieman]

If the Black Stone isn’t an idol, why was it housed in the Kaaba, which was specifically a house of idols?

[Boogieman]

That’s addressed in Corinthians. Basically, eating the food is no sin, but the act of sacrificing the food to idols is a sin. If, by partaking in the eating of the food, you can be seen as approving of or endorsing the sacrifice, then you could be tempting others to engage in the idolatrous practice.

[Sherman Logan]

The story is that the Ka’aba was a house of pure worship established by Abraham, which was later corrupted by idol worship till Mohammed purified it.

The same was essentially true, according to the OT, of the Temple in Jerusalem, which went through numerous episodes of corruption, including idol worship, and purification. So if a period of idol worship in a building makes it forever “a house of idols,” you’ll have to include the Temple Jesus preached in.

The theory that because Islam is guilty of many bad things it must be guilty of all bad things is just idiotic. It’s like saying Nazis must have been cruel to animals because cruelty to animals is bad and Nazis are bad.

In actual fact, of course, Nazis were the first government ever to make a priority of eliminating such cruelty. They preferred to focus their cruelty on people.

Same, IMO, with regard to saying anyone not a Christian, or possibly a Jew, is therefore an idolator. Sikhs, many Buddhists, Parsees and many other faiths would beg to differ.

[Secret Agent Man]

Does the stainless steel vagina around the black stone count as the idol?

[bayouranger]

That’s comical!

The story called the koran is a lie.

mo-mo purified something? How? Did he thigh it to death?

[stuartcr]

Perhaps they thought it would, so it was introduced. Since it really makes no difference, I imagine they were covering their potential bases.

[stuartcr]

Doesn’t make any sense to me, but thanks for the explanation.

[Boogieman]

“The story is that the Ka’aba was a house of pure worship established by Abraham, which was later corrupted by idol worship till Mohammed purified it.”

Well, that’s the revisionist history of the Mohammedans. There’s no evidence it had any connection to Adam, Abraham, or Ishmael before the Muslims invented that backstory to cover up the fact that they were revering a house of idolatry. The earliest accounts of the Kaaba are of it being dedicated to a panoply of idols, so it was, as far as can be determined, always a house of idols. It doesn’t fit the description of any worship center that Hebrews would consecrate, so the Muslim claim is patently ridiculous.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

I didn't take that verse out of context. I simply quoted it. I think you did the right thing in looking it up to find out the fuller meaning.

Here is the full section:

The Believer’s Freedom

23“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”c

27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ saked— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

I think that we agree on the interpretation. If you don't know something is Halal, don't worry about it. If someone tells you it's Halal, don't eat it but don't be offensive either. Christ wants us to be pleasant and inviting to non-believers while being clear what we do believe.

[aruanan]

That’s addressed in Corinthians. Basically, eating the food is no sin, but the act of sacrificing the food to idols is a sin. If, by partaking in the eating of the food, you can be seen as approving of or endorsing the sacrifice, then you could be tempting others to engage in the idolatrous practice.

This wasn't at all the focus of the Corinthians passage. Paul said that eating meat sacrificed to idols was nothing because we know there is but one God. He went on to say that some believers have weak faith and continue to believe that, as a Christian, eating meat sacrificed to idols is a sin. He said that those with strong faith having dinner at an idol's temple could find themselves, by their example, encouraging those of weak faith to go against their belief that eating such meat was a sin and, so, sin and have their faith, albeit weak, destroyed. He said that the meat doesn't make you closer to God; eating it doesn't make you better and not eating it doesn't make you worse.

He said that if an unbeliever asks you to go to dinner with him in such a place and you'd like to go, then go without any regard for conscience at all, enjoy yourself and eat whatever is set before you. But if another points out that the meat was sacrificed to an idol, don't eat for the sake of the other guy's conscience.

He said the important thing is not leading a weak brother to go against his (false) beliefs about eating meat sacrificed to idols and sin by doing so. He wasn't referring to a weak Christian brother being emboldened to engage in sacrifice to an idol! Ha ha ha. Come on! Aside from the text contradicting this, that doesn't even make sense.

It's an interesting point here that if you believe something is wrong, even though, from God's point of view, there is nothing wrong with it, and you do it anyway in violation of your conscience, it is sin that can be described as sufficient to lead to your destruction. Paul said a bite of meat wasn't worth the destruction of a brother and that he'd go without eating meat to avoid that.

[Boogieman]

Yes, you’re right, it was about tempting fellow Christians. I was just trying to sum up the gist of it, and it’s a pretty tricky issue, dealing with Christian liberty, which not even most Christians have a clue about nowadays.

[Boogieman]

Oh, if you check out reply #31, there are some related verses quoted that do talk about not causing non-believers to stumble either, so maybe I was conflating those with the passage in chapter 8.