More Antics from Wahabi Clerics
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12909
Printed Date: 18 April 2024 at 6:30pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: More Antics from Wahabi Clerics
Posted By: Andalus
Subject: More Antics from Wahabi Clerics
Date Posted: 01 August 2008 at 10:37pm
http://www.startribune.com/world/26145829.html?page=1&c=y - http://www.startribune.com/world/26145829.html?page=1&c=ySaudi religious police ban dog walking, sales of dogs and cats, fearing men use them to flirtBy DONNA ABU-NASR , Associated Press Last update: July 31, 2008 - 1:26 PM RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Every single man knows: Walking a dog in the park is a sure babe magnet. Saudi Arabia's Islamic religious police, in their zeal to keep the sexes apart, want to make sure the technique doesn't catch on here. The solution: Ban selling dogs and cats as pets, as well as walking them in public. The prohibition went into effect Wednesday in the capital, Riyadh, and authorities in the city say they will strictly enforce it � unlike previous bans in the cities of Mecca and Jiddah, which have been ignored and failed to stop pet sales. Violators found outside with their pets will have their beloved poodles and other furry companions confiscated by agents of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the official name of the religious police, tasked with enforcing Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic code. The commission's general manager, Othman al-Othman, said the ban was ordered because of what he called "the rising of phenomenon of men using cats and dogs to make passes at women and pester families" as well as "violating proper behavior in public squares and malls." "If a man is caught with a pet, the pet will be immediately confiscated and the man will be forced to sign a document pledging not to repeat the act," al-Othman told the Al-Hayat newspaper. "If he does, he will be referred to authorities." The ban does not address women. The Saudi-owned Al-Hayat announced the ban in its Wednesday edition, saying it was ordered by the acting governor of Riyadh province, Prince Sattam, based on an edit from the Council of Senior Islamic Scholars and several religious police reports of pet owners harassing women and families. Commission authorities often do not formally announce to the public new rules that they intend to implement. Officials from the commission and Riyadh city government could not be reached for comment Thursday, which is a weekend day in Saudi Arabia. The English-language Arab News reported on the ban Thursday. So far, the prohibition did not appear to have any effect in Riyadh. It's extremely rare, anyway, to see anyone in the capital walking a dog � much less carrying a cat in public � despite the authorities' claims of flirtatious young men luring girls with their pets in malls. Salesmen at a couple of Riyadh pet stores said Thursday they did not receive any orders from the commission banning the sale of pets. Cats and dogs were still on display. "I didn't hear of the ban," said Yasser al-Abdullah, a 28-year-old Saudi nurse, who was at one pet store with his 3-month-old collie, Joe. Al-Abdullah, who also owns an 8-month-old Labrador, said a couple of Western friends had been told to get off the streets by the religious police for walking their dogs. "I won't allow the commission to take my dogs from me," he said. The religious police prowl streets and malls throughout the kingdom, ensuring unmarried men and women do not mix, confronting women they feel are not properly covered or urging men to go to prayers. They also often make attempts to plug the few holes in the strict gender segregation that innovations bring. In 2004, for example, they tried to ban cameras on cell phones, fearing that men and women would exchange pictures of each other � though the prohibition was quickly revoked. There was no word whether commission authorities intend to expand the dog and cat ban beyond the capital. The prohibition may be more of an attempt to curb the owning of pets, which conservative Saudis view as a sign of corrupting Western influence, like the fast food, shorts, jeans and pop music that have become more common in the kingdom. Although it has never been common to own pets in the Arab world, it's becoming increasingly fashionable among the upper class in Saudi Arabia and other countries such as Egypt. In Islamic tradition, dogs are shunned as unclean and dangerous, though they are kept for hunting and guarding. In large cities around the Middle East, stray dogs are considered pests. The ban on cats is more puzzling, since there's no similar disdain for them in Islamic tradition. One of the Prophet Muhammad's closest companions was given the name Abu Huraira, Arabic for "the father of the kitten," because he always carried a kitten with him and a number of traditional stories of the prophet show Muhammad encouraging people to treat cats well. One of the Prophet Muhammad's closest companions was given the name Abu Huraira, Arabic for "the father of the kitten," because he always carried a kitten with him and a number of traditional stories of the prophet show Muhammad encouraging people to treat cats well. ------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Replies:
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 02 August 2008 at 7:55am
Untrue.
 In Islamic tradition, dogs are shunned as unclean and dangerous,Not really . . . otherwise keeping Dogs would not have been allowed in Islam . . . Dogs arent unclean, their Saliva is. Pigs are unclean. Niether are they considered 'dangerous' -
though they are kept for hunting and guarding. In large cities around the Middle East, stray dogs are considered pests.stray dogs are considered pests all over the world. . . not just in the M.E - which is why there are SPCAs and euthanasia laws all over the world. But noooo, its just the middle-east.
------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 02 August 2008 at 10:09am
Actually it is true when one views the statement within the proper context. Pet ownership is, without a doubt, a "western" phenomena, the greater audience of the statement is western, who is a part of the pet ownership "phenomena", the statement, though general, must also be seen within the scope of the subject of the article, which is walking dogs. In the west, if you ask someone if they are a pet owner, this is usually taken to be a pet as in a cat or dog. Of course not excluding birds and fish, but the predominate nature of pet ownersip is "dogs and cats". Compared to the west, the Arab world is not commonly a part of the "pet owner" phenomena. This statement does not mean that "no Arab owns an animal", it means that "predominantly", it is not a part of the culture, which is true.
The article lightly elaborates on general cases where dogs are allowed (which agrees in general with the fiqh of the four schools), which would answer your objection to "other keeping dogs would not have been allowed in Islam". In fact, the article brushed on rulings from the Hanafi school of fiqh, and I think Maliki (no specific quotes).
Keep in mind that the article was not about the fiqh of having a dog, so I am not sure why you feel the article must have specified bewteen the over technical notion of "saliva as unclean" vs "dog is unclean". The generallity of the article was sufficient for the point being made.
Stray dogs have given the impression of "dogs are dangerous" since the methods for control are either non existant, or non enforced.
Unfamiliarty of a thing breeds fear. (Islamaphobia in the west)
Once again you must be able to identify the context of the wording, and understand what the article is and is not. If you want to be overly technical about such a simplistic, and accurate point, then consider this:
1) stray dogs in the west
2) stray dogs in the middle east
If you want to say that they are pests in both cases,
then why not further elaborate since this is what you expect of the article?
Obviously "pests" in both cases will have some common ground, but the "attributes" that predominate in both cases, will render your attempt to overly analyze (for the sake of objection) too general and not accurate.
In the west, the strays are, for the greater part. viewed as problems that came about through the irresponsibility of an "ex" owner, or an owner who shuns responsibility. The strays are seen as a part of a "cycle of suffering" which can be treated in a numner of ways, other than just killing them.
1) birth control, through spading an neuturing (prevention), much of time offered at extremely redueced rates and even free for the poor
2) law enforcement to stop abuse, prevent furture strays through law enforcement
3) special laws to prosecute those who abuse, neglect, cause suffering (an they are actually enforced)
4) adoption programs
5) animal pounds going non lethal (this is the way the "dog pound" operates in my city)
At one time, in classical Islamic civilization, there used to be similar attitudes that the west now has toward animals. So what the west is now doing was once done by Muslims.
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: mariyah
Date Posted: 02 August 2008 at 4:48pm
|
Asalaamu alaikum:
I am sorry if I seem to be spamming, I think I just posted this same hadith in another thread regarding animals. Let the Wahabis do as they will, I am not worried about them:
 Abu Hurayra (r) reported that the Messenger of Allah, (PBUH), said: "While a man was walking on his way he became extremely thirsty. He found a well, he went down into it to drink water. Upon leaving it, he saw a dog which was panting out of thirst. His tongue was lolling out and he was eating moist earth from extreme thirst. The man thought to himself: 'This dog is extremely thirsty as I was.' So he descended into the well, filled up his leather sock with water, and holding it in his teeth, climebd up and quenced the thirst of the dog. Allah appreciated his action and forgave his sins." The Companions asked: "Shall we be rewarded for showing kindness to the animals also?" He said, "A reward is given in connection with every living creature." (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) ------------- "Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile. |
Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 03 August 2008 at 7:38pm
On some level that is true and perhaps in the context of the article it is true. But pet ownership has no bounderies, it occurs in all corners of the world, so I don't believe it is a western phenomena solely. Cat ownership was a big thing in acient egypt as they worshipped the cats, and that area hasn't been classed as western.
As for the article I understand the issue of people using animals especially the cutie ones, to flirt with or pick up the opposite gender, so i can see why the saudis are doing what they are doing even thou its a silly thing to do. Because you can use a baby for the same thing, so are the saudis going to ban taking out your baby brother or sister or cousin to the park or shopping ??
 Anyway i myself don't agree with using animals or babies as a way of grabbing attention of the opposite gender. It's not my game anyway.
-------------  ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:23am
Not really. Like Angel correctly mentioned, 'Pets' are not a western 'phenomenon'. A majority of the Pets today were first domesticated in Eastern parts of the world. Now, I'm not sure what exactly we are referring to by 'west' and 'east' , but generally speaking.
Cats for example are said to have been domesticated by the Egyptians. Parrots, Dogs, Cats, other Birds etc etc all have been owned by Muslims/Non-westerners for ages and ages and ages. Infact ppl even kept wild animals as 'pets'.
All the West has done is 'commercialise' Pet-Ownership. (not commenting on the good/bad of it) True, not many Muslims grant thier pets the 'status' of kids/inheritors, but they love thier pets all the same. You wont hear of muslims leaving wealth to thier Pooch, but that doesnt mean Pet Ownership is a western phenomenon!
I find this to be very untrue. . . Infact westerners of all ppl have a wide-coverage of the word 'pets' - everything from rats and spiders to cats and dogs. All loved equally like dogs and cats. The average westerner does not consider tge predominate nature of pet-ownership to be dogs and cats. . . but a wide wide range of pets.
I can think of numerous 'Pets' that are specifically attached to the Arab culture . . . Salukis (Dogs) , Hounds, Eagles, Horses etc etc. To name a few. They are/were also fond of other animals/pets such as other birds, cats, etc.
I'm aware of that. I do not feel that the article should have specified anything . . . However, since I know that many non-muslims may come across this, I just wished to point something out, and make it clear i.e. misconception abt Dogs bieng unclean. It was just a POI for non-muslims thats all.
------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 6:01am
Hi angel!
1) The article was about dogs. Cat's are well placed as strongly accepted animals of ownership by hadith but does not really have any meaning to the context of the topic.
2) Ancient Egyptian ideas also have little to add to the article (goes out of the scope in many ways)
Well, for me it is not understandable because there are already rulings on the topic of mixing with the opposite sex. The point is that the wahabis get "silly" and over legislate to the point of absurdity. You cannot control human behavior through a series of nit picky laws.
 ------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 6:25am
Hi!
Topics of what the anciet egyptians did is off topic and bears not weight in the point of the discussion. If you really want to believe that pet ownership in the midle east is equivalent to that of the west, then go in peace with your belief. If my explanation has not convinced you, then nothing will. The two ideas, pet ownership in the west vs the Muslim world is facutally very different, as the societal view of pets is very different. No one is saying that a Muslim has a different degree of love, or that wild animals are held captive, etc, etc. This is completely off topic from the thread. (by the way, capturing a wild animal and holding it completely abuses the idea of pet ownership, and has no resembelence to the idea of pet ownership).
You did not read my last statement, "of course not excluding birds and fish, but the predominate nature of pet ownership is dogs and cats". Your view deems to disregard my final statement, and it also assumes a black and white view of absolutes. Things are seen according to their predominating attribues. Pet ownership is predominatly "dogs and cats". The relevant context is that of the article, "dog ownership". The article is not about the history of cat domestication in Egypt, or the interest of spiders as pets, or how the Chinese had crikets as pets.
This is a strawman argument, I never stated that no animals were owned as pets in the Arab world. Furthermore, horse racing, camel racing, falcons for hunting, rasing camels for moving belongings across the desert is not exactly "pet ownership". In fact, this firthers my point that the view of pet ownership in the Arab world is one of "usefulness", and not simply to have animals around fro pleasure, unless you are some welath and desire to raise horses and camels and falcons for sport. But hardly the case of "pet ownership" within the context of the article.
The article is not about sport or animals used for sport.
You are trying to make a disctinction without a difference. "Dogs are not unclean, oh no...it is just their saliva". Well, that makes things all better! Can the two be seperated? Your disctinction is through a legal technical point, which the article does not go into because it is out of its context. The legal technical point you have brought up does not change the view that dogs are see as unclean. In fact, there are sahih hadiths that discuss the absent of angels from a home where dogs live. The Hanafi and I believe Maliki (not sure about the other schools of fiqh) allow for animals (dogs) with purpose (guard dog, shepard, hunting, etc). So keep in mind that trying to alleviate your fears of outside readers by telling them that it is not the dog, just the saliva, is like saying that the dog does not leave tracks, it is the paws of the dog that leave tracks.
Dogs have their purpose in Islam, and Islamic teaching is one of compassion for all animals, but it is not the same as one views in the west. Not of matter of one is better than the other, just a matter os difference.
Take care Sr! ------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 1:55pm
|
I think you would more want to look at historical context versus cultural. Go back to pre-600AD and "pet ownership" was not in the same mentality. We have pets for pleasure and joy. But, domestic animals of any kind had their Function. In Egypt, the Cat was worshiped because it killed the rats that ate the wheat, brought disease and destroyed property. They also killed snakes. That's why almost every Egyptian family had a cat. (Ancient Egypt is one of my former obsessions.) Secondly, for the shepherd, the dog was a valuable ally. They kept away the wolves and jackals and help to herd the goats, sheep, cattle. The Horse was invaluable transportation, same with the camel. The Cow brought meat and milk. People usually didn't have fish and birds as pets, except hunting falcons etc. In todays society, so much of our life has moved from our early agricultural existence. Wolves are no longer a threat to our sheep and goats. Rats are controlled by traps, poison and refuse practices. Muhammed (pbuh) would not have forbidden the ownership of valuable domestic animals like dogs for protection and cats for pest control. But, dogs eat wierd things....at least all the ones I've ever owned have needed the occasional bath after getting into something they shouldn't have. I can imagine some of the things my beagle rolled in would definitely kill any wudu one might have performed. This prohibition from these clerics is just non-sense. They want to prevent anything western from disrupting their perceived Utopia. Unfortunately, one of two things are going to happen. The information and learning of the new generations will eventually put the clerics back in their place as scholars of the Quran and advisors instead of tyrants. Or, the Last Days will arrive and God will sort it all out. Either way, its really not for us to judge. Until the Saudis demand a change, nothing will. That's the problem with Western politics. |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 12 September 2008 at 8:26pm
Thank you for the contribution. My only comment is that the historical conext is irrelevant and has no bearing on the article. The Saudi clerics have boxed themselves, and their people, into a self made prison with petty laws and irrational statutes. It is not just about western politics, it is the Saudi regime that is the result of western politics, and now they will leave a mark on Islamic history that will be a stain. ------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 13 September 2008 at 8:22am
|
Will just adderess the issue of : dog saliva bieng unclean, is the same as the dog bieng unclean . . .
I'm not splitting hairs, but yes, the distinction needs to made. Because unfort, a lot of muslims think that touching a dog renders them unclean, etc. There are countries, where muslims cite Islam as the reason why they are not allowed to work as dog-catchers (just an e.g)!! You dont even have to physically touch a dog to be a dog-handler!
Touching a dog/petting it doesnt not render one unclean . . . however, if the saliva comes into contact with a utensil, or the body, that needs to be 'cleansed'.
Would the Quran allow an 'unclean' animal to hunt, catch and bring FOOD to you???
And true, about the hadith, which is why the majority of muslims, who keep dogs, keep them outside thier house, and not inside.
Yes, the article is not about the history of pet-ownership , nor about the cleanliness vs uncleanliness of Dogs, but the topic came up, and thus was discussed. Thats how threads work, thats why they are called 'threads'. It was a good opportunity to discuss a relevant subject.
Regards, Br ------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Angela
Date Posted: 17 September 2008 at 4:06am
Well, one article I read on why the Clerics wanted to ban pets was that young men were using them as ways of attracting women?  These laws have gotten such that there is a subculture of rebellion forming. The NY Times did an article on "dating" in Saudi Arabia and what lengths people go to in order to avoid the religious police and yet live normal lives. (Okay, its what I would consider normal, admittedly, that might not be everyone's definition.) One thing I've learned is that when you restrict freedoms to the point where people feel stifled they will rebel and when they do they will swing in the exact opposite direction. For the sake of their children, they need to back off and teach instead of order. |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 31 December 2008 at 10:43pm
I will break the issue down further.
Careful handing out legal rulings, Maliki fiqh, which does not consider dogs or their slaiva impure (I personally follow Maliki fiqh), while Shaffi scholars have a strong argument that the dog, its fur and its saliva is impure, and Hanafi scholars have argued that the fur is pure but the saliva is impure, which the Hanbalis also follow. The Middle East is predominantly Shaffi and Hanbali, both of which consider the saliva to be impure, but even in the case of saliva impure but fur pure, it would be nearly impossible to control the situation so that wudu would not have to be frequently made. So I am back to my original statement, that trying to use a legal idea to split hairs is just nit picking. Even as a Maliki, going along with the legal repsect held between madhabs, I still make wudu after touching a dog, fur or saliva.
So to say that a dog is not impure. just the saliva is over simplfying the legal aspect you are delving into.
Careful rendering Islamic legal rulings. You are oversimplfying as a way to split hairs.
[s. If the moisture from a dog (or dry dog hair) affects one�s person, clothes or place of prayer, one�s prayer would be invalid, until he purified them, see Reliance of the Traveller, e14.1(14), e14.7 and f4.0.]
This is directly from my book.
Sure it would and that is a different matter.
Actually, a thread works when the topic is coherent and not dragged down with obfuscations like jutristic details that have no regard to the topic of the article. Hence, it was "splitting hairs". When a thread becomes obfuscated, and hits minor points that do not have any real bearing on the subject, the thread looses its point.
Trying to wrangle with "it is not the dog just the saliva" added nothing to the topic nor did it prove anything wrong with the article.
If this breaks further into the legal matters of dogs and purity, I will move the topic into another section.
Finally, I ask you with sincerity to refrain from making rash statements with religous legal rulings without first looking them up.
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 31 December 2008 at 10:46pm
We are on the same page!
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 01 January 2009 at 8:49am
If you could kindly explain what you mean. . .
------------- "O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young." |
Posted By: Andalus
Date Posted: 01 January 2009 at 10:25am
It is a different matter making it irrelevant. In other words it is a non sequitur (one does not follow from the other).
------------- A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah http://www.sunnipath.com http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/ http://www.pt-go.com/ |
Posted By: Talib_Asadullah
Date Posted: 08 January 2009 at 7:53am
|
Im familar with this fatawa. But if I may, I have question. Can anybody really define what a so called "Wahhabi" is? Do any of you actually define this as a sect in Islam? Why cant they just be Muslims? Or do you see them as people who hold beliefs that nullify their Islam? From my brief and incomplete study of "wahhabism", Ive deduced that "wahhabism" was just a movement in the 17-18th century. Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab(rahimullah) didnt introduce any innovation into the aqeedah of Ahl-us-Sunnah-wal-Jamaah. Please show me if I am wrong. Assalamu alaikum. ------------- Al-Qur'an was-Sunnah |