Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Imagine how difficult it must be to be a secularized Muslim in Britain. The vocal leaders of your religion are actually taking the position that puppies -- puppies -- are so offensive that it is outrageous that the government should use them as a prop in a public service advertisement. How do you explain that to the Judeo-Christians you meet at cocktail parties?
If you cloak your opinions in non-Christian religious terms you can apparently get away with saying the most horrendous things about Jews, gays, or women, but only an unreconstructed asshat denounces puppies. Whatever you think the founding prophet of your religion meant to say, there is just no way he was against fuzzy, floppy-eared puppies. Can you imagine people standing around under a palm tree in Medina early in the 8th century listening to the "Big M" preach, and then he denounces puppies, and they all continue to take him seriously? Of course you can't because it didn't freaking happen. Until somebody shows me the Sura that specifically denounces puppies -- not mangy old dogs, which can be gross, but literally puppies -- I'm calling bullshit. Allah made puppies simultaneously ultra-cute and so unclean that a photograph of one is offensive? Even Allah would not be such a churl.
My theory is that the complaining imams are sitting around laughing until it hurts about this latest capitulation to their "anger," wondering how they are ever going to top this one.
MORE: Leona Helmsley (of all people) stretches her gnarled hand from the grave and smacks the Muslim puppy-haters upside the head.
It appears that Muhammad did not like dogs but even he made allowances for dogs used for hunting and protection. A police dog that is in training to protect and serve seems to fall under this allowance. Perhaps the imams are ignorant of this aspect of their own religion.
Muslims didn't decide that dogs were "unclean" until after the Pedophile Prophet's descent to Hell.
It began with the conquest of Persia, where the religion was Zoroastrianism. In Zoroastrianism, the dog is revered.
Muslims promptly declared the dog "unclean" to help quash the Zoroastrian religion.
Note that corpses are (ritually) unclean in Islam, yet it doesn't stop the Palestinians from publishing books worth of dead people allegedly killed by the Israelis. Apparently this "picture of unclean thing is unclean" principle has exceptions.
The problem is Islam. The whole bunch of them are nothing but a bunch of cat lovers and dog haters. It's like a whole society of whiny, clinging, poetry-reading single women disdaining dogs and doting over kitty. Wusses
If you're interested in issue of dogs in Islam you might begin with this brief discussion by Khaled abu el-Fadel, who also has a much more detailed chapter on this in his book The search for beauty in Islam. Another brief discussion is here.
Mohammed, who Muslims worship even though they deny it (he's the "perfect man" and "never did anything wrong") hated Dogs.
He ordered them killed whenever he saw one, exceptions for working dogs who were to be shown no affection whatever and considered "unclean."
Muslims HATE dogs, and really hate most animals. They are cruel beyond belief.
Yes, Muslims here will be demanding dogs be put to death because they object. That's just how Muslims are. Because IT IS in the Koran (Mohammed ordering his followers to kill dogs which he said were "unclean.")
"Because IT IS in the Koran (Mohammed ordering his followers to kill dogs which he said were "unclean.")"
Actually, no. The Quran is the literal word of God as spoken to Muhammad, not the word of Muhammad as spoken to Muslims. The talk of unclean dogs is from the Hadith.
"The Quran is the literal word of God as spoken to Muhammad, not the word of Muhammad as spoken to Muslims."
That is what pious Muslims claim. That claim is not what observers unencumbered by belief or fear of a fatwa would accept.
Even Muslim historians admit that the text was not written contemporaneously and that the written text as we know it was assembled from the memories of his contemporaries at a later date.
Nonbelievers may rightly wonder if the written text as we know it has any connection at all with the historical person of Mohamed.
Interesting that he suggests that the Jewish lobby is strong because Muslims are weak. But most preposterous is his shoot-the-messenger assertion that "Western propaganda" has damaged the image of Islam. Osama bin Laden has damaged the image of Islam.