Finger-Licking Fatwa: Indian Muslim Cleric Issues Fatwa Against Eating Kentucky Fried Chicken

160px-kfc_logosvgIndian clerics have issued a fatwa asking Muslims that they must not eat Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), which is now deemed a sin against Islamic law. The reason is the failure to kill chickens in front of Muslims.

KFC chicken is now deemed haram by the clerics. Dargah-e-Ala Hazrat cleric Salim Noori proclaimed “The halal certificates displayed at these stores have no relevance as they do not give details about the procedure that they follow to process the meat.”

So Popcorn Chicken is now beyond the reach of the faithful until every chicken is killed before a Muslim.

37 thoughts on “Finger-Licking Fatwa: Indian Muslim Cleric Issues Fatwa Against Eating Kentucky Fried Chicken”

  1. Look this is really a reflexive counter to the incredibly effective concept of Kosher.

    Ok, we can’t sell you pork anymore, think early middle eastern times. So, speed up to modern times and you get, you Jew loving Americans can’t sell us non Halal chicken. The Islamists’ spite goes back centuries.

    Kosher was truly one of the first religion driven, economically consequential cudgels in history.

    These Fatwas are a desperate grasp at retaining the glory of the 1100s by controlling consumption behaviors that conveniently eliminate competition from Infidels and at the same time consolidate powers within the Islamist community.

    These stone age purists would rather go for the $5 dollar virgin bride fill up.

  2. These people are Freakin’ INSANE!!! Agree wth Karen… good – leaves more for the rest of us 🙂

  3. Great. Who wants extremists to enjoy all those herbs and spices anyway.

    While they are at it, why don’t they make it haram to force children under 16 to marry? You know, get their priorities in order…

  4. Squeaky and Art Deco

    You illustrate my point very well. Shellfish were probably verboten when those in the know had to keep those following their taste buds from dying of this or that disease. If you follow religious dictums back far enough they typically have some rational raison d’être. Either at the same time or shortly after, however, the ingredient of pure power was added to the practical and we have today the mindless adherence that ranges from taking a light bulb out of the frigo to pelting people with stones, abstaining from food from dawn to dusk to lopping off the heads of anyone for no particular reason at all.

    Granted most religious dances are benign and to some degree colorful. As and artist and architect I appreciate religious expressions although I can’t bring myself to believe in the material. Having said that, the major problem, so clearly described by Squeaky, is the control of the present through the past and forgoing ‘thinking for oneself’. It is the ‘thinking for oneself’ that has brought us out of the times of despicable activities such as slavery, wife beating, child labor, etc. Along the way the mindless adherence to religious rules and rituals were the last supporters of the most despicable. It was only when overridden by freer thinking that the religions evolved. The proof of what I say can be found in the history of the Christian religion over the past 1,700 +/- years. Christianity has pretty much evolved to a socially benign and personal place. Christianity no longer drives the types of madness as can be found in Islam, regardless of the redeeming qualities of Islam. We have, illustrated for us, the almost full history of the evolution of one religion and the ongoing evolution of another.

    As with Christianity 700 years ago Islam today performs its most despicable acts by rounding up those most in despair and focusing that despair, anger, hatred, as a weapon. To give it any more attributes than that is a mistake. The greatest weapon the West and more advanced nations have to bring to bear against the thugs is to call them simply thugs and attach absolutely none of the religious values to their heinous actions and activities. The moment the words culture, religion, or any other value inspiring terms are attached these disgusting people acquire a degree of credibility. We should give them nothing. The term ISIS should be replaced by terrorist, criminal, thug, perpetrator, etc. There should be no religious connection or credibility whatsoever given to this vermin.

    A recent example of how the removal of some value from basic hate inspired crimes can combat activities inspired by that hate can be seen illustrated in the Protestant/Catholic Northern Irish ‘Troubles’. For decades one side slaughtered the other. At first and for a while supposedly valid reasons were given: ostracizing, bigotry, being kept out of jobs, etc. and of course the necessary religious superiority of one twist over the other. Slowly yet surely over the last decade of the ‘Troubles’ their ‘Fight’ appeared more and more to be what it was about, hate bred by hate bred by the results of that hate. It was when the values of each side were taken out that the ludicrousness of the actions appeared first and foremost. It took the rest of the world to stop giving this nonsense any credibility for them to see that to continue on was a worthless journey.

    The West must reduce these thugs to what they are and chastise the Muslim world for not doing so as well. Perhaps rejected by all that they deem to hold worthy, the locals that are today’s victims will do what is necessary to put a stop to this. That and lots of drones, cruise missiles, vetting, intelligence, etc. Wax em.

  5. Denying Islam and Muslims, etc., have stayed in a prior century actually is a good question. Perhaps they liked the warlord system of tribal government? Perhaps they enjoyed minimal life style of living? Perhaps their religion would not allow them to have mixed cultures. Perhaps they wanted to breed adolescent girls, against the laws of humanity. Perhaps they just wanted to stay in their stone age. Whatever the reason, an answer might lead to a better understanding.
    Considering the above, is this still a nonsense question?

  6. Why AD, you say I should sober up to post the truth about the food police? Hmmmmmmmm
    You say I should sober up to post the truth about child brides and Muslim clerics marrying adolescent girls? Hmmmmmmmm.
    If I were to take your advice, as you say, I would prefer to stay less than sober.

    You have posted another great example of thought police action. If you can’t take the truth, attack the message and messenger. But we are “on” to this game.

  7. Why have Islam, Muslim, etc., stayed in a prior century? Agreed that at one time these might have been protective measures (or an attempt to produce more eggs). Why have so many people shunned the growth of the rest of the world? We didn’t leave them behind, they stayed there. I remember seeing Afghanis digging their TVs up. They were buried because some nutcase declared them bad. Smart Afghanis didn’t destroy them, they buried them. I suspect they have been buried again, while the Grand Poobas watch NFL games.

    This could be a scheme for job creation. Chicken processing plants could hire “blood watchers” at minimum wage. We make things Kosher, have Kosher markets, etc. Our latest rage is gluten-free. Slap a sticker on chicken packaging and they’re happy. Wouldn’t it be great if KFC, knowing these rules, announced they have done this for years? Try charging more for properly-bled chickens and watch the amount purchased. If it sells, put the sticker on all of them.

    For now, tell the Fatwa fellow to shove it up his Fat___.

  8. If you get ritual purity from his, you could be a child molester.

    You’ve offered 3 paragraphs, all of them incoherent and non sequitur. Why not sober up before you post again?

  9. Not enough arable land is in short supply,

    No, land is scarce in the economist’s sense of the term, as is just about anything of value. Increasing yields have meant increasing per capital production. Meat production requires more inputs. Cattle are commonly fed….grain.

  10. Some religious rules have just outlived the reason why they were promulgated.

    Some people cannot avoid either projection or reductionism.

  11. Art Deco – Mr Abramowitz did not declare a fatwa on all my local fast-food chicken places.

    He doesn’t need to. What’s not kosher is defined by scripture and the Talmud. Unless you fancy these Indian clerics are going to put contracts out on the proprietors of KFC franchises in Delhi, their ruling is of a similar character to a rabbinic ruling.

  12. @Isaacb

    Some religious rules have just outlived the reason why they were promulgated. Back in Bible days, they did not have the Food and Drug Administration. So they did the best they could to try to find ways for people to not kill themselves unnecessarily. Thus, the ban on shellfish. Which are very easy to get botulism from, particularly if you don’t have refrigerators. And anti-biotics.

    Sooo, before you tease this stuff, just consider that maybe you are here today because some person way back in your ancestral line obeyed the rules not to eat a shellfish, and thus survived the Great Botulism Outbreak of 600 B.C. in Jaffa. And closer to today, somebody else in your line obeyed the “Do Not Commit Adultery!” nonsense, and thus avoided dying of syphilis back in 1500 A.D, during the outbreak of The French Disease which killed about 5 million Europeans.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.