It was in 1683 that the Muslim Turks, in their invasion of south and central Europe, lay siege to Vienna for the second and last time. They did not obtain their objective; the Viennese withstood the attack. That unsuccessful siege was the high water mark of the Ottoman entry into Europe. Now, in 2023, there are more Muslims in Vienna (236,000) than there were besieging the city (170,000) in 1683. In all of Austria, there are now 840,000 Muslims. They have no need to lay siege with massive cannons as they did in 1683. They have been slowly conquering the country through a demographic jihad. Muslims have managed to arrive, legally and illegally, in Austria, by the hundreds of thousands, economic migrants posing as asylum seekers who came to the country prepared to batten on all the benefits that a generous welfare state can provide: free or greatly subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, family allowances, unemployment benefits without needing to have any work history in Austria, and more.
And those 840,000 Muslims brought with them their own Islamic laws, as they have all over Europe, that they intend to follow, whenever they can, even if those laws violate the laws of the Infidel state. Muslims, after all, are the “best of peoples,” while Infidels, like the Austrians, are “the most vile of created beings.” Why should the “best of peoples” be expected to submit to the laws of the “most vile of created beings”?
Among those laws are those that set out the methods to be used in the slaughter of animals to ensure that their meat will be halal. They are not stunned nor anesthetized, but remain conscious as their throats are slit and they slowly bleed to death, in great agony. Recently six Muslims were put on trial for such a ritual slaughter — a violation of Austrian laws on cruelty to animals – of 213 sheep. A preliminary Jihad Watch report is here, and more on their trial can be found here: “213 sheep illegally slaughtered: Six Viennese Muslims in court,” translated from “213 Schafe illegal geschächtet: Sechs Wiener Muslime vor Gericht,” by Michael Koch, Exxpress, March 30, 2023:
They call it a “slaughter festival”: Five Turks, an Afghan and the official veterinarian are in Vienna Neustadt in court for animal cruelty because they are said to have caused severe suffering to the animals during the ritual slaughter of 213 sheep.
In the dock of the Regional Court of Vienna Neustadt are five Turks and one Afghan between the ages of 29 and 52 – all from Vienna. And the responsible veterinarian. Together they should be responsible for what angry animal rights activists documented on the occasion of a slaughter according to the Muslim rite in a company in Haschendorf (Lower Austria). Horrible evidence of a bloody ceremonial.
According to the public prosecutor’s office, 213 sheep were slaughtered without the prescribed stunning. The animals’ throats are cut and they are supposed to bleed out slowly. “They were brutally abused and inflicted unnecessary torture on them,” the indictment said. The veterinarian, in his capacity as an officially appointed veterinarian, is accused of knowingly abusing his official authority by not being present during the entire “slaughter festival” and not complying with legal regulations. For example, with the verification of identity and compliance with the animal welfare slaughter rules.
I am certain that the reason the veterinarian didn’t try at any point to stop the illegal slaughter was that he was terrified of the reaction of the six Muslims doing the slaughtering. At the very beginning, he did urge that the sheep not be pulled by their ears into the abattoir; that was his only attempt to intervene. And he was right to be afraid; they might have turned their knives on him, a bothersome and protesting Infidel. He was not present for some of the killing because he could not stand the ghastly sight; eight hours of blood and gore and religiously-sanctioned cruelty.
In contrast to the other accused, the veterinarian pleaded “not guilty,” but wanted to take responsibility: “It was eight hours of slaughtering and 213 sheep, and things happened that did not comply with the legal norm,” he admitted. After all, he forbade the men to pull the sheep by the ears into the slaughterhouse.
That was the extent of his intervention, the limit of his persuasion: that the sheep be allowed to walk to their slaughter, rather than be dragged, in pain, by their ears. About the massive cruelty, and far greater pain, the animals would face once they were in the slaughterhouse, because of the primitive rules of halal slaughter, he had said nothing.
When asked by the court why he didn’t finish the slaughtering after many things had gone wrong, the accused veterinarian preferred to remain silent.
What could he have replied, after all? He was only one man against six Muslim men, who would be enraged if he tried to interfere with the slaughter that they knew was the only correct way to kill animals if their meat was to be judged halal.
He didn’t want to admit the truth: that he was simply afraid for his own life. And so the Muslims had their way, with their religiously-sanctioned and endlessly cruel slaughter of 213 sheep.
Now the judges, in handing down their judgment, will remind the accused that they live in Austria, not in their Muslim lands, and they are subject to the laws requiring humane treatment of animals, including those killed for food. And they will be sent, one hopes, to prison for several years where they may consider whether, upon their release, they want to remain in a country where slaughter according to the rules of Islam is not available.
The Muslims have got around this situation with Australian sheep. Australia exports thousands of live sheep to Islamic nations. When the sheep arrive at their destination, Muslims can slaughter them the Islamic way and get away with it. But the boat journey results in cruel deaths of many sheep. The animals are packed-in, no room to lie down, meager food and water is provided, but the intense heat (the ship has to cross the Equator to get to its N hemisphere destination) kills many – they die of thirst. Either way, the poor animals suffer.
Sounds like Muslims treat animals and infidels like Nazi’s did the Jews and other “undesirables”.
Oh, they treat Infidels much worse than the Nazi’s treated the Jews. Infidel women who are gang raped by Muslim men are forced to quote the Islamic screed or be killed. Once they do, they’re enslaved because they’re now considered women “of the right hand.” Every horrible human darkness you can imagine, including child sexual abuse of boys (Muslim boys at that) and girls (Muslim and Infidels), is allowed and in many instances, encouraged. At least the Nazis shot or gassed many of the Jews quickly and never told the Jews they were abusing them for their own good because God told them to.
No gassing has been documented
Tony Rice says
All religious / ritual slaughter be it kosher or halal is cruel and must be stopped in every country where it is not required by religion. Original Judaic law required no animal be slaughtered in the sight of another and was an advance over what was taking place in those far off days and places ” Thou shalt not cut a limb from a living animal ” BUT civilisation has moved on since then and all slaughter should be in accordance with the most humane way possible. if not, NO slaughter.
Carlos Murthy says
Isn’t this exactly how kosher slaughter is done?
Or you don’t dare say Jews are as cruel as Muslims!!!
it’s not at all the same, do a little research, ignoramus – but don’t let facts get in the way of your hatred.
Tex the Mockingbird says
Do those Pinheads from PETA know of this?
Firstly,I have to say I was impressed beyond belief that Merkle’s Christian Germany gave sanctuary to a million Syrians,mostly Muslim, within a lifetime of that same European country slaughtering some six million Jews,including women and children, in brutal and terrifying Death Camps.
As to the topic,here, Muslims can abide by Human and Animal Rights laws. Else go Vegan.
“Section 77 of the Meat Inspection Regulations states that animals slaughtered in accordance with Judaic or Islamic law “shall be restrained and slaughtered by means of a cut resulting in rapid, simultaneous and complete severance of the jugular veins and carotid arteries in a manner that causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately.”
The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, British Veterinarian Association and Federation of Veterinarians of Europe have all publicly opposed the method, along with many advocacy groups, including the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Slaughter Association, and others.
Slaughtering animals without prior stunning is already banned in Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Slovenia, Norway, and likely soon in Belgium. Denmark’s minister of agriculture and food, Dan Jorgensen, famously said, “Animal rights come before religion,” leading some groups to deem the ban anti-Semitic, and interfering in religious freedom.”
Unfortunate,but necessary in this age of Social Media. The Spammers,the Scammers,the Haters,etc.all seem to be a step ahead of reason,civility,and decency. Oh,but for the pre-Social Media days when the Letters to the Editor of both liberal and conservative newspapers were read by readers and little hate,etc got by the Editor. Pity.
PS I see many of your commenters have been posting for years,and were never guilty of spam, or abuse, so if there were any way to allow these proven emails to go through automatically, without manual review, that would be a benefit. Just askin’.