How most muslims treat dogs: Fatwas are just fine against dogs

Most know how I feel about dogs and if you do not well then here it is; I am a dog lover! I have been owned by several awesome dogs throughout my life and would be lost without such incredible, boundless love that we receive from dogs. In all honesty I would rather be in the company of most dogs than a lot of the people I know. Dogs do not judge you, their expectations are few, most do not hold grudges, nor do they scheme and plot against us except maybe to sucker us out of an extra cookie, dinner or another walk. AJ maybe the best dog ever that I have had the complete pleasure to live with.

Just in case you may not have noticed our editor here is AJ and he is a great editor. The content here he could care less about unless it infringes on his walks, meals or stalking grasshoppers, which is his latest hobby. He has gotten quite adept at this and will actually smack the bushes in our yard with his paws to flush the hoppers out where he can pounce on them. He really seems to enjoy them as a snack and that is fine with me as we have way too many hoppers this year. My wife is not very pleased with this but I told her in the wild dogs eat lots of bugs, so why not AJ. He has extremely strong pack instincts and is part Coon hound. It is pretty entertaining watching a 60 lb. dog hop around and pounce on grasshoppers. If I had any technical skills I would record a video and post it up but no such luck there. 

AJ is editor because he is A DOG and muslims generally hate dogs as they considered 'unclean'. I will take AJ any day as friend and companion over most muslims I have met. If that offends you, too bad. Maybe you better stop reading before I really offend you or others. And no, I do not apologize for what I just stated.

Back to the subject of this post.

Dogs are considered 'unclean' in islam and sharia. Funny thing about that is once one becomes a student of islam and reads some of things muhammad said, demanded and approved of, those things of islam make dogs look really, really good by comparison.

What follows is quite sickening on how dogs are treated under islam and by most muslims. This is a two part post so be sure to read it all. This is just ONE example of how and why muslims and islam will never be able to assimilate in American society and culture. islam is not a religion but a perverse political ideology to rule and control people from the cradle to the grave. How much more proof is needed?


AJ: The Editor of Patriot's Corner
Canine Cruelty By Our 'Afghan Allies'
By Andrew G. Bostom

The Australian (hat tip Religion of Peace) has a moving report on the humane efforts of Australian Federal Police officer Narelle Jensz to rescue Afghan dogs -- viewed as "unclean" in Islam, and therefore wantonly brutalized by local Muslims.

In her 10-month tour, the 37-year-old has treated countless dogs and successfully adopted 15 Afghan strays out to returned coalition soldiers across the world, many of whom have testified to the rehumanising impact of their animal companions.

The following extracts from "The Life of Wylie," an Afghan mutt rescued by Jensz, are prototypical of the cruelty our Afghan Muslim allies mete out to innocent dogs, especially those of Kandahar, as the Australian relates,

....many of whom despise dogs only marginally less than they do coalition soldiers


Wylie, the Afghan mutt, was rescued in February by a convoy of British soldiers on patrol in a Kandahar bazaar, where a dog-fighting crowd was beating the smaller dog with lumps of wood to force the last fight out of him.

That beating turned out to be the least horrific brutality this resilient canine would suffer over the following weeks, and months:

Remarkably he did but his torments were far from over.

Two weeks later Jensz received another call. Local dog fighters had cut off Wylie's ears and had scalped him in the process, before using the same homemade knife to cut his muzzle wide open from his nose to under his eye. He was patched up again by Jensz and a team of Australian Defence Force doctors only to return from his perilous forays outside the base with new injuries -- a stab wound to the chest and a savagely docked tail.

Then, horrifically, one day he limped back to the camp after Kandahar locals -- many of whom despise dogs only marginally less than they do coalition soldiers -- had tried to sever his penis. Three times Jensz and ADF doctors had to restitch the wound. "Once we stitched for 90 minutes without anaesthetic," she said. "I can't fathom how much pain he must have been in but he just lay there motionless, looking up at us. He didn't bite or growl once."

Wylie's refusal to submit became legendary around the Kandahar base.

But when he was grabbed again by local thugs and thrown under a passing car it seemed his luck had finally run out. "It was the first time I felt defeated because Wylie had become a symbol of Kandahar," Jensz said. "So many soldiers identified with him but I just couldn't work out how to keep this dog alive. That was the day I decided I had to take him with me."

With the help of a British and a US soldiers' animal companion fund, Wylie was evacuated to London via Kabul six weeks ago to begin the long road of quarantine hurdles that Jensz hopes will eventually bring him to Australia and her wildlife rescue property just outside Canberra.

The compassionate Jensz's eyewitness narrative is (or certainly should be) a cautionary tale recalls the ugly irredentism British historian Mary Boyce recorded in the early 1960s. Boyce, Professor Emeritus of Iranian Studies and a pre-eminent scholar of Zoroastrianism, spent a 12-month sabbatical in 1963-64 living in the Zoroastrian community of Iran (mostly in Sharifabad, on the northern Yazdi plain). During a lecture series given at Oxford in 1975, she noted how the Iranian ancestors of the Zoroastrians had a devoted working relationship (i.e., herding livestock) with dogs when they lived a nomadic existence on the Asian steppes. This sustained contact evolved over generations such that dogs became "a part in (Zoroastrian) religious beliefs and practices...which in due course became a part of the heritage of Zoroastrianism." Boyce then provided an historical overview of the deliberate, wanton cruelty of Iranian Muslims toward dogs in Iran, including a personal eyewitness account:

In Sharifabad the dogs distinguished clearly between Moslem and Zoroastrian, and were prepared to go...full of hope, into a crowded Zoroastrian assembly, or to fall asleep trustfully in a Zoroastrian lane, but would flee as before Satan from a group of Moslem boys...The evidence points...to Moslem hostility to these animals having been deliberately fostered in the first place in Iran, as a point of opposition to the old (pre-Islamic jihad conquest) faith (i.e., Zoroastrianism) there. Certainly in the Yazdi area...Moslems found a double satisfaction in tormenting dogs, since they were thereby both afflicting an unclean creature and causing distress to the infidel who cherished him. There are grim...stories from the time (i.e., into the latter half of the 19th century) when the annual poll-tax (jizya) was exacted, of the tax gatherer tying a Zoroastrian and a dog together, and flogging both alternately until the money was somehow forthcoming, or death released them. I myself was spared any worse sight than that of a young Moslem girl...standing over a litter of two-week old puppies, and suddenly kicking one as hard as she could with her shod foot. The puppy screamed with pain, but at my angry intervention she merely said blankly, "But it's unclean." In Sharifabad I was told by distressed Zoroastrian children of worse things: a litter of puppies cut to pieces with a spade-edge, and a dog's head laid open with the same implement; and occasionally the air was made hideous with the cries of some tormented animal. Such wanton cruelties on the Moslems' part added not a little to the tension between the communities.


Here is the follow up article from yesterday at American Thinker.

Mainstream American Muslim Jurisprudence on Dogs

By Andrew Bostom

In follow-up to the wrenching story related yesterday about Wiley, a cruelly brutalized Afghan mutt -- treated in accord with doctrinal and historical Islamic attitudes towards dogs -- I discovered the fatwas (reproduced below) on dogs and dog ownership, from the mainstream American Muslim font of Islamic "jurisprudence," the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA).

The AMJA mission statement maintains:

[The AMJA was] founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. ... AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation's laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.

A report in The Muslim Observer published October 21, 2010, highlighting AMJA's "seventh annual American conference of imams," confirms the organization's mainstream acceptance as by the American Muslim community. Thus AMJA and its recent "training" conference for American imams were described in these banal terms:

The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia's Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American-because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA's American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield's Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that "the event was the 7th annual imam workshop." Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is "a fiqh council basically," with "scholars who live abroad and inside the U.S.; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the U.S. - fatwa are based on life in the U.S."

AMJA's recent fatwas regarding dog ownership reiterate two of the canonical hadith I mentioned in a previous blog, before reaching their inevitable conclusions at the end of the "rulings": dogs are "impure," and cannot be kept simply as loving pets within a household, even puppies. Fortunately, I found no ruling issued which sanctioned the wanton killing of "mere" pet dogs in North America (as per this canonical hadith: Volume 4, Book 54, Number 540: Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: 'Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.')-yet.

It only remains to mention to you that the Prophet said: "Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding, livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day." Thus, keeping dogs in houses for fun and company is not part of Islamic civilization but whoever needs them for protection or guarding a house or a farm or hunting then that is fine while being careful not to let the saliva of dogs touch you. As for the purity of dogs saliva then it is a matter of dispute; the Maliki scholars consider it pure because it was allowed for to us use them to hunt and still we were not commanded to wash the place of the dog's bite while the majority of scholars view it that it is impure because of the hadeeth of the Prophet : "If the dog licks in your vessel then wash it seven times; one of which should be with soil." And the view of the majority is the safest. And Allaah, most high, knows best.

Question: Why are Muslims not allowed to have dogs for pets when the Prophet (pbuh) was said to have a puppy? Also, he was said to have patted a dog on the head and made salah (prayed) near a dog. Also, my wife and I have a dog, and we had the dog before we became Muslim. What should we do?

Fatwa: It is not true that the Prophet had a puppy or that it has been recorded that he petted a dog as far as I know. On the contrary, when the Prophet found that his grandson Al-Hasan had brought a puppy into the Prophet's house, the Prophet refused to enter the house until the puppy had been removed. Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both him and his father) reported: "Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: 'Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.'" [Reported in Sahih Muslim] Also, the Prophet said: "Whoever keeps a dog as a pet, except for the purpose of guarding cattle or hunting, will lose a qiraat (a huge portion of the reward from his good deeds) daily." [Reported in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim] So, my advice to you, brother, is that, if you are keeping this dog to guard the house, you should actually keep it outside the house (in the backyard, for example). Otherwise, you should give it up. (And note also that it is not permissible to sell dogs.)

Question: i have a quick question : i wanted to get a puppy and i live in a townhouse ,and i was wondering if i could put it in the basement ( no one prays there, but sometimes guests are over ) is it halal or haraam ?

Fatwa: Alhamdu Lillah. Owning domestic dogs (pets) living with people in their residence is not allowed in Islam. The Prophet SAAW permitted people who need so to own dogs but not to allow dogs living in the same house with people. Excuses for having dogs include guarding cattle and for hunting. In many Ahadeeth, the Prophet SAAW indicated that angels do not enter a house that has a dog in it, and that the reward of people gets reduced when they have dogs living with them.

2 Comments - Share Yours!:

Findalis said...

Look at how a people treat animals to see if they are a civilized people or not.

In the case of Muslims, their treatment of their animals, whether it is farm animals, pets or strays is terrible. They have no love for their pets. They refuse to care for their farm animals, and like the case of Wylie dogs are beaten and tortured to death.

This is the sign of a barbaric people who should have been put to sleep (it is a mercy) instead of being propped up by the military.

Andrew Corsi said...

Interestingly the Muslims do not even consider how they treat Jewish people in this article about pets. They consider Jewish people to be monkeys and monkeys are also pets. So therefore they probably don't want Jews in their houses for the same reason. Yet when they murder Jews they are called heroes. This proves that when a Muslim kills a pet, he is a hero.