Who Needs Due Process? Senate Passes Spy Bill

[TQ]

One view:


Dogs and Islam and Prayer

By Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Posted: 13 Jamad-u-Thani 1423, 22 August 2002

Q.) I am a 15 year old Muslim American and my mother is buying a dog. I heard that if I touch the dog, I cannot pray. Is this true? What should I do?

A.) All creatures are the creation of Allah Taãla and do deserve the recognition of being a creation of the Almighty. As much as Muslims detest even the sight of pigs - it is the creation of Allah Taãla - and because Allah has placed life into it, we cannot inflict pain nor torture the pig.

Similarly Allah Taãla created the dog from among His creation. This does not mean that we should love the dog. It is perhaps the indoctrination of the Western culture that 'The dog is Man's best Friend'. The theory that 'dogs are very dependent on Human affection' is a myth - again culture and custom has helped to develop this unnatural behavior.

Allah Taãla the Creator of this Universe - having created the dog would surely have known that the dog requires Human affection and love to exist in this world. Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) would have advised us to keep dogs as pets. On the contrary, we are instructed not to keep dogs as pets and 'love' them as exemplified by the non-Muslims. Remember our life is structured and bound by the Shariah i.e. The Noble Qurãn and the beautiful example of Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Consider these Ahaadith:

Sayyidna Abu Talha (Radhiyallaahu Ánhu) reports that Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, "Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or an animate picture. (Sahih Bukhari Hadith no. 2986)

Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallaahu Ánhuma) reports from Sayyidna Maimoona (Radhiyallaahu Ánha) that once Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) became sad; and said that Jibra'eel (Álayhis Salaam) promised to meet him at night but did not turn up. "By Allah what has kept him back," said the Prophet (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Then he realised a puppy was under his bed. He ordered that the puppy be removed and the area be sprinkled with water. In the afternoon when Jibra'eel (Álayhi Salaam) came, Rasulullah (Sallallaaahu Álayhi Wasallam) enquired as to the delay. Jibra'eel (Álayhi

Salaam) said that we, the group of Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or pictures. (Sahih Muslim Hadith no.3928)

In the light of these Ahaadith and other narrations it is not permissible to keep dogs as pets. The household is deprived of the Mercy of Allah Taãla.

However, Jurists have stated that it is permissible to keep a dog for security purposes, farming and hunting.

The saliva of a dog is Najis (impure). If it touches the clothes or body, that portion also becomes impure and must be washed. And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best.

[TQ]

And another:


Dogs!
Are they dirty prohibited animals?

It is traditional among Muslims all over the world to regard the dog as a dirty animal that when touched would void your wudu (ablution) and give you nagasah (dirty impurity!

Sadly, this concept comes from fabricated hadith which claims that the prophet ordered the killing of dogs and gave numerous hadith that prohibit the keeping of dogs except for hunting and guarding, due to their dirty status!

However, by studying the Quran we find no such claims. Nowhere in the Quran are dogs prohibited. Consequently, we must dismiss all these hadith that fabricate lies against the prophet.

1- God tells us in the Quran about the story of the dwellers of the Cave (Surah 18)......in verse 13 God tells us that they were good believers and that God guided them.

In verse 18 God tells us that they had their dog with them.

Now if dogs are prohibited and dirty, would God speak of those dwellers of the Cave (who had a dog) as good believers?

2- In 5:4 God tells us that it is OK to eat what the trained dogs catch (dogs are used in hunting)..........if dogs are dirty would God say that it is OK to eat what they catch with their mouths?

3- There is not ONE verse in the Quran where God says that dogs are dirty or that they are prohibited to keep.

4- Is it logical that God would create an animal to be man's best friend and serve him in many ways, and then prohibit such an animal?

[TQ]

Now, of course, if we reverse the word "God"...

[TQ]

I sure hope no one calls a Salmon Rushdie down on me because of this...

[TQ]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

There is conservatism and there is just plain scary.

There is also liberalism and we'll just hope it all works out.
Yo, Neville...how did your meeting go with Adolph? Wow, that good, huh? Peace in our what did you say?

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

There is also liberalism and we'll just hope it all works out.
Yo, Neville...how did your meeting go with Adolph? Wow, that good, huh? Peace in our what did you say?

Yeah, well, Neville Chamberlain was a conservative, so there you go.

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by TQ

I sure hope no one calls a Salmon Rushdie down on me because of this...

Fatwas are so 1980's... And you can always trot out weird religious edicts, regardless of religion. Like that one in the bible that says you shouldn't trim your beard. There are a whole lot of Christians who skip that part of Leviticus...

Oh, and Koreans eat dogs. I hear it's tasty, too.

[Rick_EE]

Just for the record kONGO, I wasn't advocating his position, I was explaining it. I always believe that it is good to try and understand peoples' motivations.

One of the real problems we have here in America is neither side wants to try and understand the other. That is why we had those statements earlier using the word "mystified". People seem to think that if anyone comes to an opinion that is different from their own, they must be blindly following someone and did not come to that conclusion by thinking.

[k0NG0]

Yeah, it wasn't directed at you in any way, just a counterpoint to that particular world view you described.

[ctal]

Originally Posted by Rick_EE

One of the real problems we have here in America is neither side wants to try and understand the other

You raise an excellent point, Rick, but I would put it a little bit differently. Although many people do not want to try and understand the other side, I would place greater emphasis on each side typically not stating their own case to the other side, in a clear and persuasive manner. As I said in post 15 of this thread:

Originally Posted by ctal

While as I say there is some validity to some of what has been said in this thread on the security/control ("right wing") side of the issue, ad hominem sarcasm and insults will not help persuade others who don't fully share the same views. The problem with threads like these is that people tend not to focus on the specifics of specific legislation, but rather, as Tam rightfully implies, to just rant in a general kind of way.

A case in point where each side presented in a constructive manner is the gun control thread about a month ago. Despite TQ and I being, in an overall sense, at considerably different points on the political spectrum, after some good discussion and clarification of each side's position, the thread ended with each of us just about completely agreeing with each other. And in this thread, when TQ took the time to clearly and fully summarize his positions, in post 25, once again I pretty much found myself in complete agreement (in fact his position on marriage-related issues is probably to the left of mine!).

Politicians are sensitive to the mindset of their constituents. If Americans are polarized and antagonistic towards each other about social and political issues, politicians will tend to be also. And the result will be legislation and policy that is the result of political maneuvering, rather than intelligent thinking. That will only change if people have the mindset to try to make their case to the other side in a logical and persuasive way, that allows common ground to be found.

Regards,

-- Al

[XJ.]

Originally Posted by TQ

I have had a Springfield XD 9mm sitting on my nightstand for the last year. At no point has it picked itself up and began firing.

Lol! Great line

Reminds me of the scene in Black Hawk Down, where "Hoot" (Eric Bana) flicks his trigger finger and says 'this is my safety'.

[TQ]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

Yeah, well, Neville Chamberlain was a conservative, so there you go.

Nixon is often mistaken as conservative just because he was a Republican. Domestically he was about as liberal as you can get.

Chamberlain was succeeded by Winston Churchill, another conservative, but one with clearer vision than his predecessor.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Wikipedia:

"Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the war. However, Chamberlain and the rest of the War Cabinet disagreed, and the operation was delayed until the successful German invasion of Norway."

[TQ]

Originally Posted by XJ.

Lol! Great line

Reminds me of the scene in Black Hawk Down, where "Hoot" (Eric Bana) flicks his trigger finger and says 'this is my safety'.

Heh...that's a good one.

We've been watching Director's cut of "Troy" the last couple of nights and Bana is wonderful as Hector.

I've been very moved by "Troy". I'd have to say it's the greatest "anti-war"
film I have ever seen, primarily because it's told from the warrior's point of view and is a right bloody tragedy.
It may well occupy a spot in my top ten favorite films of all time when we finish it tomorrow night.

[ctal]

My nomination for "most powerful" anti-war film of all time: "Paths of Glory" (about World War I) from 1957, starring Kirk Douglas and directed by Stanley Kubrick (of "2001" fame).

-- Al

Edit: "Paths of Glory" should not be confused with "Tunes of Glory," from 1960, with Sir Alec Guinness.

Edit No. 2: Interesting sentence in the Wikipedia page on "Paths of Glory":

Stanley Kubrick has been quoted as saying that he never interpreted the movie as "anti-war". He instead characterized Paths of Glory as "anti-authoritarian ignorance".

[ctal]

P.S: Honorable mention to "La Grande Illusion" ("Grand Illusion"), also about WWI, from 1937 and directed by Jean Renoir (son of the artist Renoir).

-- Al