Last Friday the Times published a story claiming that "senior Muslim figures" had expressed shock that a number of Walkers crisp products had contained alcohol. The fact was "discovered" by one Besharat Rehman, the owner of a halal supermarket in Bradford, and taken up by the Eastern Eye.
Well, I am surprised that anyone didn't know that popular commercial food products contain alcohol, since its use as a solvent in food colourings and flavourings has been known of for years. There is a difference in opinion over the issue, with some scholars (particularly Shafi'is, a minority school of thought in the UK but common in south-east Asia, east Africa and parts of the Arab world) regarding alcohol, or ethanol, as impure on the basis of being the common denominator in wine, beer etc., which are themselves impure. Others disagree and regard only purpose-made alcoholic intoxicants to be impure. The chemical alcohol actually occurs naturally, including in fruit.
The bottom line is that if you consider alcohol impure, you simply should not eat commercial processed foods, end of story. (A few companies, like the Thornton's chocolate company, states on the packet when a product is alcohol-free.) However, rumours about alcohol in small quantities in various commercial food products go round all the time, and when product labels state the presence of "flavourings", the likelihood is that a solvent has been used, either in their preparation or in their extraction from source. That the Times have made this into news reflects another attempt to throw mud at ordinary Muslims (a point I tried to make on this Times blog entry, but they haven't got round to moderating it yet, nearly a full day after I submitted it).
Elizabeth Poole's research points to themes that lead to journalists judging a "Muslim" story newsworthy. I think this one made The Times because it was newsworthy on three counts - it was an "oversensitive Muslim" story; an "Aren't they a funny lot (exotic 'other')" story; and recently gaining ground, a "Sharia story" (Sharia being a monolithic rule book which all Muslims obey without question).
This is one of those stories where the perception of something becomes a dogmatic rule. The whole issue lacks a sensible understanding and is pushed forward as an example of the eccentricities of Muslims by the enlightened Muslim-haters with the help of dogmatic Muslims. It is good to make a stand against the pitiful oppressors but sometimes I get the feeling that we should use our Intelligence with the guidance of the Quran rather than separating things into black and white dogmas.
My understanding is that alcohol was prohibited in Islam as some people would come to prayers intoxicated.
Eating walkers crisps with trace amounts of alcohol wouldn't lead to such a state I would have thought. As a result I cannot see why it would be an issue. I would welcome some feedback on this.
The "news" story to me sounds like one shopkeeper who decides he wants to show the world that he understands something and wants to be acknowledged for it without thinking of the ramifications. Then you get the "free" press jumping all over it.
The intelligent, enlightened reporters at the Times, Daily Mail and Daily Express who hold their freedom of speech as an idol, seem to only print their own free views and suppress, omit or ignore the views of many non-white, non-Xenophobic, non-Zionist, non-Christianist, non-Islamophobic people. That by their definition must be freedom of speech.