The lawsuit alleged that Ahmed bought a chicken sandwich in September 2011 at a Dearborn McDonald's but found it wasn't halal — meaning it didn't meet Islamic requirements for preparing food. Islam forbids consumption of pork, and God's name must be invoked before an animal providing meat for consumption is slaughtered.
Since when is McDonald's obliged to follow shariah? If an islamic customer wants halal, they can go to a known source of halal. If there is a large enough demand for islamic fast-food, some one can actually go about founding a muslim fast-food chain which can be patronized by those interested in access to halal foods.
Muslims can practice their religion all they want ... but they have NO RIGHT to tell McDonald's, Wendy's, or any other chain how to process or present their product.
I agree, McDonald's has no obligation to provide special food for Muslims. However, they apparently agreed to accommodate the large Muslim population that resides in Detroit. I'm guessing they did this as a respectful gesture (second) and for the $$$$$ money (first).
McDonald's and other fast food chains have altered their menus to reflect differing international tastes in some of their restaurants around the world. Are they doing this for the simple act of kindness and accommodation? No! There's a buck to be made, and any road to achieve that goal is acceptable. When you are the largest restaurant chain in the world, how much more profit and how many more customers do you need? Is it worth all the extra effort to change your product just to appease a very small group or are you just being greedy?
Well, McDonald's decided to go for the extra profit and got caught not living up to the terms of their agreement. Now they are having to pay the penalty. I'd like to be able to ask the executives if it was worth it.
Upon reading the article, I saw the circumstances of the Dearborn McDonald's where this incident occurred and I see Ahmed's side of it. Question, though: did the McDonald's itself ADVERTISE that its chicken products were halal? Was it on the menu or was this an unstated understanding between that particular franchise and its customers?
And while we're at it, should we also mention that halal butchering procedures are, for what I understand, utterly barbaric and cruel to the animals, by comparison with modern-day butchering practices? Seems I just did.
The two stores in question did advertise that their chicken products were halal. (An unstated understanding wouldn't/shouldn't have led to a lawsuit and settlement!)
The locations advertise that they exclusively sell halal Chicken McNuggets and McChicken sandwiches and they have to get those products from an approved halal provider, Dakallah said. He said there was no evidence of problems on the production side, but he alleges that the Dearborn location on Ford Road sold non-halal products when it ran out of halal.
Where to start? So many people to dislike, and not enougth time to dislike them individually. Maby, McDonald's board of directors and an even number of the offended party can settle the issue in a Hunger Games format. I would consider oppening an account with Pay per View.
Bad joke. Clearly McDonalds is in the wrong here. I think the award should be on par with a severe food alergy settlement with false advertisement. I'm sure there is a precident (most likely involving McDonalds).
A food allergy? At least that's something real. Certainly, McDonald's was culpable for the hot coffee incident of some years ago, but that was a real event with all-too-real consequences. Here we're talking about magic words said over a carcass, with no other serious or meaningful difference between that and an ordinary butcher job. This is a court case which begs money over Nothing Substantial in terms of harm.
The real tragedy is that there is virtually no doubt that Ahmed will get the reward.
I understand that the request is silly. But what McDonalds was advertising was an observable action. They didn't deliver. It doesn't matter if what one is promising seems silly, once a promise is made, I expect some integrity. At the very least, the manager could have informed the customers that the desired product wasn't available. But, he did have a substitute available. Under those conditions, I see no foul.
McDonald's shouldn't have advertised that they prepared the food according to "Islamic Law" - that's where they went wrong. I am wondering - why cater to that religion?
That's the bottom line.
If you advertise a product as something, and it's not, there should be consequences. The devil is in the details.
At the bottom prompts another issue - If fries are advertizedas vegetarian, but are not, the same rules should apply. But in the US, should people have a right to expect for the vegetables to be vegetarian, regardless of Ads? Where to draw a line in a complex society and complex agri-industrial complex? Probably best for another thread.
You are right about it being tough to figure things out in a complex agri-industrial industry to insure that things contain what they are advertised as containing. Food fraud is up by 60% this year.
If it is just a blessing that is missed on the prepared food, there are no harmful effects. If it contains ingredients you are trying to avoid or trying to include in your diet there may be real consequences. I wonder what would upset the religious diet more- lack of a blessing or a triple dose of sodium in an advertised no sodium product.