Court says ‘Bite me!’ Muslim inmates do NOT have the right to halal meals in Ohio Prisons

Two Muslim inmates sued (paid for by US taxpayers) the Ohio prison system  for denying them meals prepared according to Islamic law, even though all pork products had been removed fro prison menus.

ABNA (H/T Ann L)  The state argued that providing the meals, known as halal, could bankrupt the state’s food service system because thousands of inmates have declared themselves Muslim.

Abdul Awkal, death row Muslim

Death row inmate Abdul Awkal argued in his lawsuit that the prison system’s failure to provide halal meals was a restraint on his religious freedoms.

Awkal — joined by a second Muslim inmate Cornelius Causey, 35, serving 15 years to life — said the vegetarian and non-pork options offered by the prison system weren’t good enough. The inmates said a non-pork meat option must be prepared in a specific fashion to conform to Islamic beliefs, such as butchering an animal by slitting its throat and draining its blood.

Ohio argued that it provides both non-pork and vegetarian meals to Muslims and says the courts have sided with this practice. The state also says that providing halal meals could hurt Ohio financially, given the current budget situation.

“Once one Muslim’s request for a Halal diet is granted (or ordered to be granted), all other declared Muslims will want the same accommodation,” Assistant Attorney General Ryan Dolan argued in a 16 December court filing.

About 200 inmates identify themselves as Jewish out of a system of about 50,000 inmates, according to the state. By contrast, Ohio prisons have nearly 2,500 Muslim inmates, the state says. “Additionally, it is fair to assume that many inmates would convert to Islam if they receive what is perceived to be a better diet,” the state said.

The inmates argued they have only two inadequate options: vegetarian meals, or meals with non-pork meat that violates their religious beliefs.

“Jewish inmates, who have similar dietary needs, are not forced to make such a choice,” the Muslim prisoners argued. Attorneys for the two inmates argued that the state was exaggerating the cost.