|Home | Articles | News | Blog | About | Mailing List | Resources | Prominent Islamists | Middle East Forum | Keep Us Informed | Donate|
Halal or Not Halal?
by Johanna Markind • Jul 24, 2015 at 4:24 pm
On July 21, 2015, the federal government filed a response in opposition to defendants' Establishment and Free Exercise Clause challenge to its criminal prosecution in the Northern District of Iowa case, United States v. Aossey, et al. For background, see the defendants' memorandum in support of their motion and IW's prior article on the subject.
The government argues that the case will not excessively involve it in religion, because it "takes no position as to what constitutes a proper 'Halal' slaughter." It explains, "The case will not place in issue whether those standards are proper under Islamic law, only whether defendants knowingly sold products that did not comport with represented standards [i.e., standards represented by defendants]" about the method of slaughter.
The challenged representations the government plans to show were "objectively false" include:
The government continues its argument that the case won't excessively entangle it with religion by presenting an imaginary prosecution of an imaginary salesman who sold tap water as though it were holy water from Rome blessed by the pope. Evidently, the government couldn't find a real case with which to make the point.