Top Menu

‘Jihad’ against Cadbury’s? The only threats of violence are against Muslims

Cadbury-Malaysia

‘Jihad’ against Cadbury’s? The only threats of violence are against Muslims

The Daily Mail and Telegraph have both run stories, originating in the Malay Mail, about the indignation expressed at a press conference yesterday by some Muslim leaders in Malaysia over allegations that Cadbury’s chocolate has been found to contain traces of porcine DNA.

The Mail headed its report: “Jihad declared on Cadbury by Malaysian Muslims after pork DNA batches”. The Telegraph originally went with the more neutral “Islamic groups angry at Cadbury Malaysia after two batches found to contain pork DNA”, before deciding this wasn’t hard-hitting enough and amending it to “Malaysian Muslim groups call for jihad on Cadbury after pork traces found in chocolate”.

The shock-horror element in both of these reports is achieved by translating jihad as “holy war” rather than the more accurate term “struggle”, in order to suggest that Cadbury’s has been threatened with violence. There was in fact a single Muslim spokesperson at the press conference, one Ustaz Masridzi Sat, who spoke about declaring jihad, and I very much doubt that physical attacks on chocolate factories were what he had in mind.

Also, another leading Malaysian Muslim, Dr Asri Zainul Abidin, has come out with a balanced statement arguing that people are quite entitled to protest against the contamination of their food but it’s necessary to get things in proportion, and there are more serious issues than pork-tainted chocolate for Muslims to take up in Malaysia. Needless to say, although this is from the same source as the original report, you can guarantee the right-wing press in the UK won’t be telling its readers about that.

While it would appear that nobody is in fact proposing to attack Cadbury, press coverage of this story has predictably provoked actual calls for violence … against Muslims. On the English Defence League’s Facebook page, along with the usual Islamophobic abuse, one supporter has responded to the Mail‘s report by posting a call to “Burn all the rag heads”.

, , , , , ,

    • Anonymous

      I’ve heard about chocolate rain, but this is just ridiculous

    • sasboy

      Malaysians don’t want pork in their chocolate. Nothing “extremist” about that.

    • Iman

      Another stupid example of not to trust the media .

    • Yausari

      Yeah, what we really need to worry about is ourselves. I don’t believe we’re easily provoked. But negative remarks about Muslims are. Don’t give em squat. They’re so addicted, they resort to lying. Like this, for instance. And when that happens, they’ll be backfired, rest assured.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      I have the feeling that if that is the best the right has to offer we’ve got nothing to worry about.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      That’s what they want you to think.

    • Anonymous

      Well that’s one way to sell newspapers It like they’re not even trying anymore

    • Reynardine

      …….

    • JD

      Reminds me of Der Stürmer that ran obscene material such as anti-Semitic caricatures and propaganda-like accusations of Blood libel against Jews,[1] sexually explicit, anti-Catholic, anti-communist, anti-capitalist and anti-“reactionary” propaganda

      History repeats it self

    • JD

      Reminds me of Der Stürmer that ran obscene material such as anti-Semitic caricatures and propaganda-like accusations of Blood libel against Jews,[1] sexually explicit, anti-Catholic, anti-communist, anti-capitalist and anti-“reactionary” propaganda

      History repeats it self

    • Yausari

      I don’t think this was intentional. Nobody is plotting to get us Tanveer.

    • Reynardine

      It is.

      Since lard is more saturated than cocoa butter, some moron might have decided it would make a dandy chocolate for hot climates. In fact, companies like Iberia and Cortes manage to make chocolate for sale in tropical countries that doesn’t have anything in it but chocolate, cocoa butter, sugar, and sometimes a little salt or vanilla.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      You laugh and palm your face now, my dear, but what will you do when we lose the Food Front?

    • Yausari

      ehehhehheh… ahahahah… ehem… ahah hahaha…. facepalm* I’m sorry. I can’t keep a straight face

    • Just_Stopping_By

      It wasn’t pork. It was “porcine DNA.” (Read the Malay Mail article and you will see that the only reference to pork is a generic one, while all the references to Cadbury refer to porcine DNA.)

      My guess is that the chocolate was supposed to be kept separate from products made using lard, but there was some accidental mixing of different batches of chocolate (some with lard mixed into the batches that were supposed to be halal) or perhaps use of the same equipment for the two types of batches without proper cleaning between uses.

      Another error we see is in the article title and once within the article: the company is called Cadbury, not Cadbury’s. Sigh.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      It’s a strictly need to know basis. What with Britain First starting the offensive against our mosque strongholds, we need to be careful. There may be double agents in our midst. The G-had against Cadbury will take place. Soon.

    • Yausari

      Nobody called for attack. I didn’t get the memo. Did anyone get it? I don’t think so…

    • mindy1

      Ummm chocolate jihad*homer drool* but seriously the haters need to get a LIFE.

    • Tanveer ¯_(ツ)_/¯ Khan

      Why exactly were there traces of pork on the chocolate?

Powered by Loon Watchers