Would the world be better off with no pet dogs or no Muslims? Peter Burrows – elburropete@gmail.com On the path to declaring the religion of Islam a Terrorist Organization
Would the world be better off with no pet dogs or no Muslims? If the Muslims continue to gain power around the world, eventually there will be, in fact, a world with no pet dogs. So, if you support Muslims or the religion of Islam for any reason, you’ve answered the question, whether you know it or not.
I have long thought that the way to roll back the spread of Islam is to publicize Islam’s divine commands concerning music and dogs, especially dogs. The non-Muslims who defend Islam do so not because they know anything about Islam. They don’t. They think they are defending a persecuted minority and upholding that poor, oppressed minority’s Constitutional rights, to boot.
In short, Islam’s defenders are being emotional, not rational. The best, maybe the only way to fight emotional reasoning is with competing emotions, especially if those emotions can be supported by facts. For example, most people have never met a Muslim, but most people have owned and loved a dog — or two, or three. If those people knew that Islam condemns Muslims who have pet dogs, and that Islam condones killing pet dogs, maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to defend Muslims. Maybe they wouldn’t defend them at all.
The problem is that very few people know that little fact about Islam. Enter Rep. Randy Fine, R-FL He recently proposed a bill, “Protecting Puppies from Sharia Act,” Sharia being Islamic law. The law would prohibit federal funding for state or local governments that ban dog ownership, especially where it’s argued that keeping dogs as pets violates Islamic law. The bill asserts such bans infringe upon the right to own pets.
What Rep. Fine didn’t do, and should have done, was to detail some recent examples of Muslim treatment of dogs, show a few pictures of dogs abused by Muslims, perhaps even a You Tube video or two. I think a picture of a puppy whose ears have been cut off by a devout Muslim will change quite a few minds about Islam. Of course, Islam’s defenders will point out that the majority of Muslims don’t torture dogs, and while that is true, nowhere are there ANY Muslims actively opposing other Muslims’ appalling treatment of dogs, and that is unacceptable.
Here are a few relevant links for Rep. Fine, et al. The first two are from the wonderful lady at Bare Naked Islam.
iawpc.org/morocco-dog-campaign/
rairfoundation.com/netherlands-rat-poison-laced-dog-food-found-park/
themedialine.org/mideast-daily-news/mayor-of-hebron-offers-about-5-for-every-stray-dog-killed/
www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-713409\
Next, Rep. Fine should detail the Sharia laws that apply to dogs, and emphasize that these are Allah’s laws incumbent on every Muslim, forever, no exceptions. Muslims cannot cherry-pick from the Sharia tree: willfully disobeying any Sharia law is to become an apostate, an offense Sharia punishes with death.
Ironically, I would recommend he not quote the best known canonical text, The Reliance of the Traveller (sic), A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law because it’s not descriptive enough. On page 87 all it says is that it is unlawful to kill “a trained hunting dog or other useful animal,” which is correctly interpreted to mean it is lawful to kill any dog that isn’t a trained hunting dog or a “useful” dog.
It would be better to quote Muhammad. Verse 4:80 in the Koran says that to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah, and what did Muhammad/Allah say about dogs? For that we have to go to the hadith of Islam, which are collections of what people remember Muhammad saying and doing. These are analogous to Christian Gospels, and Sunnis have six, the two most authoritative being the “Gospels” of 9th-century Persian scholar Muhammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, (810–870 AD), and those of Imam Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi, (818-884AD).
Muslim call these two collections Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, sahih meaning most authenticated, with a status almost equal to the Koran. In practice, anyone adhering to what is in either of these two collections is in compliance with Sharia law, even if not explicitly codified. For example, in the “Gospel” of Muslim, Muhammad is quoted as saying, “Were not dogs a species of creature, I should demand that they all be killed; but kill every black one.” (Sahih Muslim 16:2839) Thus, even a “trained hunting dog,” if black, will be killed by a devout Muslim.
Other sharia concerning dogs from the Sahih “Gospels”:
“Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” — Sahih Muslim 3811
“Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.” — Sahih Muslim 551
Muhammas’s hatred of dogs is explained by this “Gospel”: Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, ‘We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.’” — Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50
It seems Muhammad was visiting a house in which there was a puppy. As all us dog lovers know, wherever there is a puppy, that puppy is almost always the center of attention. Now, I can’t prove it, but I think the narcissistic Muhammad was very offended that in this house HE wasn’t the center of attention. After all, he was Allah’s Messenger. It says so right there in the Koran, which is Allah’s word that Allah dictated to the angel Gabriel, who then dictated the message to Muhammad, who then declared himself to be Allah’s Messenger. (If you detect any circular reasoning there, you are obviously a racist.)
If Rep. Fine does this, he will be providing a much-needed sharia lesson to the public, something neither the media nor the Trump Administration will do.
Lastly, I think Rep. Fine is doing the right thing by focusing on a specific Sharia doctrine rather than attempting to ban Sharia in its entirety, as a consortium of over 40 Republicans in the House has proposed. This will be seen as redundant, since the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, declares the Constitution and federal laws made in accordance with it to be “the supreme Law of the Land.”
However, the Constitution’s First Amendment also protects freedom of religion, and when religious doctrine conflicts with the “supreme Law of the Land,” which part of the Constitution prevails? In Reynolds v. United States, a Supreme Court case decided in 1878, it was ruled that religious doctrine, in this case polygamy in the LDS Church, was NOT a defense against criminal indictment.
In an earlier case, Watson v. Jones (1871) regarding adjudications of church property disputes, the court ruled that in the absence of any overriding authority, such disputes should be left to the church’s bylaws or congregation. In writing for the court, Justice Miller noted that the protection of religious liberty was not absolute because people were not entitled to “violate the laws of morality and property” or to “infringe personal rights.”
Thus, if passed, I think the puppy law will survive any Constitutional challenge. Hopefully, it will also attract a great deal of criticism from Muslims and the defenders of Islam, which in turn will acquaint more and more people with what Islam really is. In this way, Muslims themselves will start to turn people against Islam, one dog owner at a time.
silvercityburro 