/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Muslim inmates denied halal food



solid_snake
02-14-2006, 12:15 AM
Muslim inmates unhappy with food in state's prisons
By Maureen O'Hagan

Seattle Times staff reporter

Do Muslim prison inmates have a right to specialized meals that include meat?

That's the question being asked repeatedly of federal courts in Washington state in a flurry of inmate lawsuits. One case was filed recently by inmate Ronald Keal, and at least three others have been making their way through the courts.

Keal and the others say their religion requires that they eat what's known as "halal" meals, which require slaughter of animals in a tightly proscribed manner.

Some of the lawsuits ask for substantial monetary damages, while others ask for a change in the meal plan along with nominal costs.

Washington state prisons don't give practicing Muslims pork (which is forbidden in their faith) or meat from animals slaughtered improperly. In fact, they don't get any meat at all. Instead, inmates who choose a Muslim diet are on a lacto-ovo vegetarian meal plan, which includes eggs and milk products.

Thus, if a Muslim inmate wants to follow his religion, he has to become a vegetarian. And some inmates just aren't keen on eating so many greens.

Mohamad Joban, president of Washington's Imam Fatwa Committee, which makes rulings on religious issues, said that when he used to visit the prisons as a chaplain, he heard numerous complaints about the diet from Muslim inmates.

He even wrote a letter to prison officials asking for halal meals but didn't make any headway.

"Muslims are encouraged to eat meat," he said. "For them, [a vegetarian diet] is not a solution."

About 4 percent of Washington's prison population — or about 660 inmates — identify themselves as Muslim. A significant number of convicts adopt Islam once incarcerated, according to prison officials.




The state Department of Corrections (DOC) has argued in response to the lawsuits that lacto-ovo vegetarian meals meet the Muslim inmates' religious needs as well as their nutritional needs — which is what the DOC is required to do, said assistant attorney general Brian Maxey, who has handled two of the cases.

Two Muslim experts consulted by the state said there is no requirement that Muslims eat meat, court papers state.

In addition, the DOC argued that providing specialized Muslim meals would cost substantially more than the vegetarian meals and would require hiring additional staff members.

Halal rules require that an animal is calmly put on the ground and petted gently before slaughter, according to Aziz Junejo, a Muslim columnist for The Seattle Times. The animal is cut once across the jugular as a blessing is recited.

The courts agreed with the DOC.

"The fact that the diet designated for Muslim inmates does not contain meat does not alter the fact that [a Muslim inmate] is being provided with a diet which is apparently sufficient to sustain him in good health and which satisfies the dietary laws of his religion," U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler wrote in one case. It was dismissed last month.

A lawsuit in New Jersey resulted in a similar ruling.

Still, the inmates aren't satisfied. Jewish prisoners, the Washington lawsuits point out, are provided kosher meals. That's evidence of unequal treatment, the lawsuits state.

Kenneth Odza, a lawyer representing another inmate in a similar suit, explains, "This case is about [the inmate's] belief that the state is not allowed to favor one religion over another."

The DOC has successfully defended its practices on that front, as well. To be kosher, food has to be prepared with separate utensils in a separate kitchen. The DOC contracts with a vendor to prepare and deliver these meals.

"It's a very expensive system, but it's the only one that meets their religious needs," Maxey said.

Still, he can understand why this might not satisfy Muslim inmates.

"There's a common-sense appeal to that argument," he said of the differences in meals for Jewish and Muslim inmates. "But the prison has to weigh what it can do fiscally and what it can provide."

"We're not infringing on their rights," he said. "It doesn't mean they're thrilled with the result."

A magistrate judge recommended last month that a lawsuit on this topic filed in Eastern Washington should be dismissed, but a final decision has not yet been made.

Keal's lawsuit and another still are being considered.

Maureen O'Hagan: 206-464-2562 or mohagan@seattletimes.com
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Issa
02-14-2006, 01:23 AM
If they(all inmates) can have DVD, TV, video games, etc. Then why not a halal meal? I mean, aren't these things also expensive? I don't know how far it can be taken, but....
Reply

sonz
02-14-2006, 09:00 AM
Several lawsuits have been filed in federal courts in Washington state demanding rights of Muslim detainees to eat Halal meals.

Islam bans Muslims from eating pork, and orders them to eat Halal meat, which requires the slaughter of animals in a proscribed manner.

Washington state prisons do not offer pork or non-Halal meat to Muslims. In fact, they don’t offer Muslims any meat at all. Instead, Muslim detainees who choose an Islamic diet are on a lacto-ovo vegetarian meal, which includes eggs and dairy products.

Thus, if a Muslim prisoner wants to follow his religion, he has to become a vegetarian.

Mohammad Joban, head of Washington's Imam Fatwa Committee, which issues religious edicts, said that he hears a lot of complaints from Muslim inmates about the diet. He even wrote a letter to prison officials asking for “Halal” meals, but said that nobody responded to his demand.

"Muslims are encouraged to eat meat," he said. "For them, [a vegetarian diet] is not a solution."

Moreover, the prisoners say that Jewish inmates are offered Kosher meals, which they say shows unequal treatment.

Kenneth Odza, a lawyer representing one prisoner, says: "This case is about [the inmate's] belief that the state is not allowed to favor one religion over another."

About 4 percent of Washington's prison population, or about 660 prisoners, are Muslims. A significant number of inmates embrace Islam once incarcerated, prison officials say.

Source: The Seattle Times
Reply

Umar001
02-14-2006, 11:38 AM
Cant they eat the Kosher food?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Rabbiyah
02-14-2006, 11:50 AM
salam Alaikum
that was a deep article there always been alot of favortism it all boils down that they simply don't care what they eat our muslim brothers or sister who are incarcerated they have the least respect for us any way well that what it looks like anyway what can a person do to get some action to change this this is very much a problem. don't you think?
Reply

knuckles
02-14-2006, 02:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Rabbiyah
salam Alaikum
that was a deep article there always been alot of favortism it all boils down that they simply don't care what they eat our muslim brothers or sister who are incarcerated they have the least respect for us any way well that what it looks like anyway what can a person do to get some action to change this this is very much a problem. don't you think?
So you think all the muslims that are contained are innocent?
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
02-14-2006, 03:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
So you think all the muslims that are contained are innocent?
:sl:

Yes. They are being detained for no reason, simply based on a whim. Ever heard of the Patriot Act? It enables the US to detain anyone without even any proof. I wonder what happened to the constitutional rights that this nation is supposedly based on?

:w:
Reply

knuckles
02-14-2006, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Åhmed
:sl:

Yes. They are being detained for no reason, simply based on a whim. Ever heard of the Patriot Act? It enables the US to detain anyone without even any proof. I wonder what happened to the constitutional rights that this nation is supposedly based on?

:w:
Show me where it says that in the Patriot Act. Are you trying to tell me not one person in Gitmo fought with Al Queda and the Taliban?
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
02-14-2006, 04:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by knuckles
Show me where it says that in the Patriot Act. Are you trying to tell me not one person in Gitmo fought with Al Queda and the Taliban?
One of the most dangerous parts of the Patriotic Act is Section 213 which allows for delayed notification of search warrants. Under the fourth amendment, the government needs a search warrant to search and seize anything from your residence or business. They notify you of this warrant usually when they knock on your door and enter your house. However, under the patriot act the government can delay notification of the search warrant if they find probable cause that adverse consequences qould occur if the suspect was aware of the search warrant. This means your residence or business or just you can be searched without notification. This part of the Patriotic Act has also led to the detainment of suspects under investigation for indefinite amounts of time. Though a judge would set the amount of time a suspect would remain in custody, the investigators have the ability to return to that judge and continue the investigation, thus keeping the person in detainment for even longer. In one known case, a suspect was originally put in custody for seven days. However the investigators were able to renew that time period 31 times. Thats more than seven months that that person has to spend in custody, out of work, under investigation, and cut off from the rest of his/her life.
The patriot act, is very similar to a law that Hitler had made up on his second rise to power just before WWII. There was much said about it and anti passage campaigns just before it passed. Basically it is that the gov can demand any information about you or somebody you know, with or without your permission, if they suspect you of any wrong doing to the US. You must give them the information or risk arrest. You can not object, or risk arrest.

So tell me, did they find any proof for anyone held in guantonemo? There still being held on whims and not only that, thier being denied their consitutional rights.
Reply

HeiGou
02-14-2006, 04:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Åhmed
One of the most dangerous parts of the Patriotic Act is Section 213 which allows for delayed notification of search warrants. Under the fourth amendment, the government needs a search warrant to search and seize anything from your residence or business. They notify you of this warrant usually when they knock on your door and enter your house. However, under the patriot act the government can delay notification of the search warrant if they find probable cause that adverse consequences qould occur if the suspect was aware of the search warrant. This means your residence or business or just you can be searched without notification. This part of the Patriotic Act has also led to the detainment of suspects under investigation for indefinite amounts of time. Though a judge would set the amount of time a suspect would remain in custody, the investigators have the ability to return to that judge and continue the investigation, thus keeping the person in detainment for even longer. In one known case, a suspect was originally put in custody for seven days. However the investigators were able to renew that time period 31 times. Thats more than seven months that that person has to spend in custody, out of work, under investigation, and cut off from the rest of his/her life.
The patriot act, is very similar to a law that Hitler had made up on his second rise to power just before WWII. There was much said about it and anti passage campaigns just before it passed. Basically it is that the gov can demand any information about you or somebody you know, with or without your permission, if they suspect you of any wrong doing to the US. You must give them the information or risk arrest. You can not object, or risk arrest.

So tell me, did they find any proof for anyone held in guantonemo? There still being held on whims and not only that, thier being denied their consitutional rights.

Let me quote your original statement "Yes. They are being detained for no reason, simply based on a whim. Ever heard of the Patriot Act? It enables the US to detain anyone without even any proof. I wonder what happened to the constitutional rights that this nation is supposedly based on?"

You may have noticed that you failed to produce evidence as requested. This part of the Patriot Act does not allow anyone to detain anyone else on a whim or without any evidence at all. They have to show proof to a judge who has to approve the action. This has no resemblence to any law passed by the Nazis I know of, who simply detained people by administrative fiat without bothering with a court procedure. Perhaps you can point me to which one you mean?

It also, as it happens, is not that different to pre-existing laws in the US that allow the detention of material witnesses in some extreme cases.
Reply

knuckles
02-14-2006, 04:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Åhmed
One of the most dangerous parts of the Patriotic Act is Section 213 which allows for delayed notification of search warrants. Under the fourth amendment, the government needs a search warrant to search and seize anything from your residence or business. They notify you of this warrant usually when they knock on your door and enter your house. However, under the patriot act the government can delay notification of the search warrant if they find probable cause that adverse consequences qould occur if the suspect was aware of the search warrant. This means your residence or business or just you can be searched without notification. This part of the Patriotic Act has also led to the detainment of suspects under investigation for indefinite amounts of time. Though a judge would set the amount of time a suspect would remain in custody, the investigators have the ability to return to that judge and continue the investigation, thus keeping the person in detainment for even longer. In one known case, a suspect was originally put in custody for seven days. However the investigators were able to renew that time period 31 times. Thats more than seven months that that person has to spend in custody, out of work, under investigation, and cut off from the rest of his/her life.
The patriot act, is very similar to a law that Hitler had made up on his second rise to power just before WWII. There was much said about it and anti passage campaigns just before it passed. Basically it is that the gov can demand any information about you or somebody you know, with or without your permission, if they suspect you of any wrong doing to the US. You must give them the information or risk arrest. You can not object, or risk arrest.

So tell me, did they find any proof for anyone held in guantonemo? There still being held on whims and not only that, thier being denied their consitutional rights.
First there are NO US CITIZENS at Gitmo. None. It is against US law to hold or transport US citizens out of the country. There was a case recently a case where a guy held both Jordanian and US citizenship. He was found to be working with AL-Zaqwari in planning attacks. The US government wanted to transfer him to Iraqi control and it was shot down by the courts. See we have checks and balances in our society. As you see the investigators have to go to the courts with evidence under the Patriot act to keep these people detained. If the courts say let him go by law you have to release them within 24 hours. No where in the Patriot Act does it say otherwise. In the case of the proof of the people at Gitmo being guilty? Well pointing an AK-47 at US soldiers is a pretty good admission of guilt.
Reply

knuckles
02-14-2006, 04:19 PM
HeiGou you are correct. The Patriot Act is just an extention of the RICO laws we already had in effect.
Reply

Muezzin
02-14-2006, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by solid_snake

Still, the inmates aren't satisfied. Jewish prisoners, the Washington lawsuits point out, are provided kosher meals. That's evidence of unequal treatment, the lawsuits state.
Why don't the Muslim inmates just eat the kosher stuff? In the absence of halal meat, we are allowed to eat kosher meat, correct?
Reply

Umar001
02-14-2006, 05:54 PM
thats what I was thinking
Reply

Trumble
02-14-2006, 08:41 PM
Solution... serve only vegetarian food in prison. No religious discrimination, a healthy diet, savings for the taxpayer - and nobody need worry about how the food was killed!
Reply

aamirsaab
02-14-2006, 08:42 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Solution... serve only vegetarian food in prison. No religious discrimination, a healthy diet, savings for the taxpayer - and nobody need worry about how the food was killed!
Good point.
Reply

Muezzin
02-14-2006, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Solution... serve only vegetarian food in prison. No religious discrimination, a healthy diet, savings for the taxpayer - and nobody need worry about how the food was killed!
Then you get the damn hippies wanting 'organic' only :p ;)
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2012, 01:47 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-13-2009, 03:01 PM
  3. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-26-2008, 09:47 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 12:28 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 10:26 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!