It is quit illustrative that that article gives Al-Qaeda as the only recent example of use of taqqiya, don't you think?
Its an example used in that specific article. Doesn't mean its the only one and no real need to make prejudgements on the examples used by the author of the article.
I'll up Wilders on this. Wilders is actually an AQ operative. His frequent visits to and pronounced love of Israel is an elaborate ruse to conceal this. His founding an anti-Islam party is a plot to thus strengthen the cohesion in the Dutch Muslim community so that, when they're big enough, they'll stand as one man behind introduction of Islamic theocracy. Everything he does is taqqiyah!
All roads lead to Wilders.
It is an exception, plain and simple, when you look at the law.
Its pretty simple if you look at it as a freedom of religion as well.
What's the fundamental difference? Secular concerns should trump religious concerns, IMHO. If there's a way to reconcile them - great! However, Ms. Thieme has presented extensive scientific evidence that unstunned slaughter causes more suffering to the animals in question. Who should I trust more when it comes to this point: reports from veterinary associations and from Wageningen University, or claims by rabbis or imams? I sense intellectual dishonesty when, e.g., Moshe Kantor in the same letter first stresses that Jewish slaughter rules are designed to minimize suffering, but then tries to negate the scientific evidence (see the link below).
And this is where your prejudice lies, secularism trumps religious freedoms/concerns. And that's your opinion.
The issue here is to find a middle ground on this issue where religious dietary customs and animal welfare requirements are met.
For the "victim card", see my previous post. For the rest, I don't have an issue with it, I just noted the difference in reaction. I don't see what your issue is when I say I perceive the Jewish community as well-connected. Is that something bad?
Its this need of yours to compare the Jewish organizations and their dietary requirements as irrelevant and unbudging, whilst presenting Muslim organizations and Islamic dietary requirements, as flexible and unorganized, all the while there is no religious law in Islam that states that stunning is haram (on big animals). A red herring of sorts on top of what Mycroft has already pointed out.
I don't see sheep slaughter specifically mentioned in the parliamentary debate I linked to. Maybe you confused the Dutch words "schapen" (sheep) and "schappen" (shelves) - some of the PMs used the words "the meat on the shelves in the supermarkets"?
Yeah, was late night, misread the sentence.
When it comes to cows, btw, export seems to be the main driver nowadays. The Dutch Jewish community estimates about 2,500 cows yearly for domestic consumption, while the Agriculture Ministry estimates export of about 25,000 (tenfold!) to Israel and smaller numbers to other countries.
An additional issue then in relations to companies that export and how this would affect said companies. Export to the Israeli market as kosher meat would be completely lost.
And the numbers of halal butcheries? If one keeps bringing up halal butcheries, at least there should be numbers presented to compare.
There are, unfortunately, no definite numbers on numbers of ritual slaughter, due to rules liberalization in the past decade. The estimates differ by a factor of 2. Slaughterhouses with a permit to slaughter unstunned don't have to report these numbers to the inspection agency.
So more speculation. Anything on the numbers of stunned ritual slaughter then? Or is this too not disclosed? I've read about about 285 officially registered slaughterhouses in the Netherlands. What number are halal/kosher?
Based on these numbers of production, I would see this number as pretty irrelevant:
Meat Processing Industry in the Netherlands
Livestock, Meat and Eggs in the Netherlands 2010
It's not just an issue of cost-effectiveness. The compulsion to stun an animal before slaughter is in the "Animals Health and Welfare Act". The name of the law should give a hint. And with the last sentence, do you hint to people slaughtering sheep in their backyard? I see no need to drag something that's simply illegal into the discussion. And no need to drag a country without a government into the discussion.
I said an issue, not the only one, but central to stunning apart from its primary motivator, the safety of butcher employees.
As for sheep slaughter during that festive holiday, animal welfare would be trumped by this practice.
There will be ongoing debate about the most humane form of slaughter, training of employees in proper slaughter, and the effectiveness of stunning on larger animals (as compared to chickens when stunning is concerned, are dead prior to slaughter, hence irrelevant to the halal/kosher argument), so I wouldn't see this argument as easily over.
