THIS is how subtle insinuation works.
First, claim that it is an issue affecting Muslims only and that non-Muslims a.k.a. the kafir (infidels) lot should butt out.
Then start to highlight certain businesses that are popular with Muslim customers and start casting aspersions as to why Muslims should not be patronising the said establishment.
It’s a well-worm bullying tactic that hides behind the façade of religion when it is nothing but an attempt to force business away from a legitimate enterprise that has done nothing wrong.
This seems to be the precise modus operandi of the Halal Inquiry site on Facebook which seems to be in the habit of highlighting non-Muslim owned establishments that are putting bum on seats.
Editor’s Note: Yesterday (Jan 19), FocusM featured Halal Inquiry’s query on the halal status of Chinese-owned Botak Nasi Lemak (BNL) for its deceptive name and over the fact that the eatery (and its branches) are not certified as halal by JAKIM (Department of Islamic Development Malaysia).
This is despite the very fact that BNL has never made any claim to being halal nor are there any overt tactics employed to attract Muslim customers.
In a post tinged with more than a smidgen of envy, the latest victim to fall foul of Halal Inquiry’s radar is the popular Jonker88 restaurant in Melaka.
Noting that the long lines outside the restaurant included many Muslims diners, the poster sarcastically asked if the food was tasty and delicious given that the eatery does NOT possess halal certification from JAKIM.
Having received previous enquiry on the topic, the establishment has openly stated that its menu only featured chicken and fish dishes.
But this did not stop the site admin from casting aspersions with the pointed observation: “The world of the kitchen is full of ambiguities.”
The post has thus far generated 1.8K likes, 442 comments and 460 shares, denoting that many presumably Muslims do take the topic very seriously.
Many asked to spread the word to ensure more Muslim diners were aware, especially visitors from outstation/abroad, so as not to deceived by “tudung-clad Indonesian waitresses”.
After all, there were plenty of Muslim-owned restaurants to visit, counselled one helpful tourist guide.
A few questioned the slaughter practices/supplier for the (chicken) meat served at these places as well as “the use of wine as flavour enhancer” with one declaring too many Muslim foodies turn a blind eye to.
Some commenters had insulting words for Muslims who ate at such places that did not have halal certification.
To hammer home the point, the site posted another set of images, this time by purportedly highlighting the presence of a Taoist altar inside the restaurant.
Some used this as more evidence of Muslims behaving “weirdly” due to their dietary habits. One commenter took the opportunity embellish with his own brand of superstitions – “witchcraft to attract patronship”.
Yes, the choice is ultimately in the hands of the consumer. As many highlighted, they would not step into a shop that is not halal certified.
However, such blatant attempts targeting and running down non-Muslim businesses by hiding behind the veil of alerting Muslims on availability of halal certification should be called out for what it is.
It is unethical. Why? Because many Muslim-owned eateries, too, do NOT possess halal certification and would most certainly struggle to get them based on hygiene issues alone.
One also cannot continuously cast aspersions unto non-Muslim businesses for displaying items of worship or having an altar at their premises.
Again, the question is whether only religious items belonging to one religion are allowed to be displayed?
Scratch deeper and it’s obvious that this goes beyond issues of halal certification. It’s about economic prosperity, distribution of wealth and even societal harmony.
After all, what could be more galling than peoples of different faiths enjoying a meal together in a non-halal restaurant. – Focus Malaysia
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.