More Antics from Wahabi Clerics |
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Author | ||||||
Angela
Senior Member Joined: 11 July 2005 Status: Offline Points: 2555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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. |
||||||
Andalus
Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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/ |
||||||
Andalus
Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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/ |
||||||
Chrysalis
Senior Member Joined: 25 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2033 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
Edited by Chrysalis - 05 August 2008 at 11:24am |
||||||
"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."
|
||||||
Angel
Senior Member Joined: 03 July 2001 Status: Offline Points: 6641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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 ~
|
||||||
mariyah
Senior Member Joined: 29 March 2006 Status: Offline Points: 1283 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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) Edited by mariyah - 02 August 2008 at 4:52pm |
||||||
"Every good deed is charity whether you come to your brother's assistance or just greet him with a smile.
|
||||||
Andalus
Moderator Group Joined: 12 October 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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/ |
||||||
Chrysalis
Senior Member Joined: 25 November 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2033 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
Edited by Chrysalis - 02 August 2008 at 7:56am |
||||
"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."
|
||||||
Post Reply | Page <123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |