As I understand it, the prophet Mohammed did not like dogs, and in the Hadith (which are second- or third-hand reports of things the prophet supposedly said) he says it is permissible in Islam to have dogs for functional, working purposes - like guarding flocks, seeing eye dogs, watchdogs, etc. - but they are fundamentally unclean beasts, that no pure person would ever want to have unnecessary contact with. The desert monotheisms are big on cleanliness, so any animal that gleefully rolls in the feces of other animals is viscerally repugnant to many practitioners.
That´s something I don´t understand. God created everything under the sky. I know that God´s enemy cannot create anything. So, God, deliberated, created a filthy and impure animal?
Taking that philosophy to the extreme are the Aghoris, Saiva ascetics who don’t believe anything is unclean, that everything is permissible, and even compulsory for one who is truly enlightened. Alcohol, drugs, coprophagia, cannibalism,… an Aghori will partake of all these ritually. The only thing forbidden to them is actually harming anyone or anything - their cannibalism is of already dead bodies in the charnel grounds of Varanasi, which they roast and eat. Their very name means “not fearful”, and they attempt to be as welcoming as it is possible to be in unkempt matted locks wearing rags (or nothing at all) and feasting on a corpse while sitting on another to meditate…
I appreciate the author’s arguments on allowing dogs in the home as a good thing, but when she has to seriously ponder, as an adult human, if wild dogs’ saliva is impure, but domestic dogs’ isn’t, the inevitable “the more I read about any religion, the more I wonder how anyone takes that crap seriously” comes into play.
You Islamophobe. You can only say that kind of thing about Christianity.
Uh, let’s not even go there. That kind of Fox News imaginary persecution crap doesn’t really pass muster. I can say that kind of thing about any religion, and I do.
If there’s any difference, it’s that there’s a LOT more places, in the US at least, I’d be at risk of getting my head kicked in scoffing at some ridiculous Christian belief than I would scoffing at one of some other religion’s ridiculous beliefs. (But that’s typically the way it goes regarding whichever delusional belief is predominant in a given country.)
Actually it may not “pass muster” with you, but I’ve never been called out for taking the piss out of Christians online. But been called lots of names for saying the same about Muslims.
I’m not a believer, so you can put your assumptions about persecution complexes away.
“Our series is steering clear of religion and preachiness because that shit is lame and turns people off…”
So, a series of articles about Islam but not about religion. The more you don’t know…
I think this is a case of people having a completely sensible idea about the world and being clever enough not have it damaged by the filter of their religion. If you read the linked article about the nuances of having a dog, the woman in question takes a sensible, practical view of “impurity” anyway - Muslim’s change diapers so it’s not as though you can’t have unclean things or handle unclean things.
The bit about angels not entering houses where there are dogs is… uh… well I don’t know what to do with that.
Of course back in reality I would imagine that domestic dogs who have been eating kibble actually do generally have cleaner mouths than wild dogs who probably eat carrion at least some of the time (not that this really has anything to do with anything).
The only baseless assumptions were the ones you made in your first comment. Do I really need to make a list of places you can go on the web where anti-christian comments would result in you being called names but anti-Islam comments are practically the norm? Venue matters.
Your statement regarding your own beliefs holds about as much water as when someone called out for a bigoted comment then protests that they have black friends so they can’t be racist. I mean—“You Islamophobe. You can only say that kind of thing about Christianity”??? That sounds EXACTLY like something Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. etc. or their followers would have said. And I’m not supposed to make assumptions about you sharing their “war on Christianity” delusions? Please.
Maybe It is more than a simple religion.
And to me. Ugh. Big smelly things that shed hair and skin flakes.
SMART!
Duuuude…I just noticed that “dog” spelled backwards is “god”!
Does it follow that angels = cats?
(I actually looked into that one; according to some imams, it only applies to prophets, not ordinary dog-lovers.)
That’s what the article said. On the other hand, if an actual prophet wanted a dog, couldn’t they just say, “Nope, I can have a dog, God said so”? I mean, they’re the prophet and we’re not, right?
Angels usually have wings. So a cat could attack an angel! You know, cats love hunting birds.
Nope, it doesn’t work that way. Allah told me. But here’s your winged cat:
[14] His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
[15] And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
[16] And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Watch out for that sword-tongue, cat!
Mohammed (pbuh) is said to have cut the sleeve from his garment rather than disturb a sleeping cat.
