Anywhere Islamic law and Western law conflict, it is Western law that must give way.
And that is the fundamental difference between Islamic law (the sharia), Canon law and Jewish law: Canon law applies to Roman Catholics, Jewish law to Jews, but Islamic law asserts its punitive authority over non-Muslims, and Muslims (even those in Western nations) and imposes it by force and other means.
This defines Islamic supremacism.
Note also that the San Francisco Chronicle, like all the mainstream media, never mentions CAIR’s ties to Hamas or the convictions of several of its former officials for jihad terror-related offenses.
“Muslims say slaughterhouse proposal violates religious law,” by Evan Sernoffsky, San Francisco Chronicle, July 3, 2014 (thanks to Halal Pork Shop):
(07-03) 17:39 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — Muslim rights advocates in California are frustrated by a proposed state regulation on some slaughterhouses that would reportedly violate some people’s religious beliefs.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture is considering increasing food safety regulations that would in part order custom slaughterhouses to first stun animals before a nonemployee can come in and cut the animal’s throat.
“In general, Muslims aren’t supposed to eat meat that was stunned because halal requirements prohibit stunning,” said Zahra Billoo, the Bay Area’s executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Many Muslims believe for an animal to be slaughtered in accordance with the Quran, it must be killed by cutting its throat with a long sharp blade, causing it to bleed to death. The animal cannot be rendered unconscious or killed beforehand, the council wrote in a letter to the Department of Food and Agriculture after notice was given about the proposed regulation.
Workers at custom halal slaughterhouses don’t typically stun animals before they bleed them to death. But as part of the annual celebration of Eid al-Adha, or “festival of sacrifice,” many Muslims are required to kill animals themselves, Billoo said. It these cases, the new regulation would require the animal to be stunned.
“We don’t think there is anything ‘Islamophobic’ ” about the regulation, Billoo said. “It’s just misguided.”
While reviewing the proposal, the Department of Food and Agriculture conducted an economic impact assessment and did not find significant potential effects to business due to the rule.
The department did not, however, say if religious beliefs were taken into consideration.
Courtesy of PamelaGeller.comCOMMUNITY LINKS: Visit Our Sister Site for Articles Not Seen Here | Browse our Store for Conservative Gifts & Apparel | Join Our Free Speech Social Media Network