Iran bans pet ads, brands dogs "unclean"

It is obvious who is unclean here!!! Not the dogs!!!

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared

And many in the Islamic world love death and killing more than they love their wives and kids.

So if kuffars, dogs and pigs are unclean, why did Allah who is omnipotent and omniscient create them in the first place? And why doesn't he exterminate the kuffars (especially the Jooooooooooooooooooooooz) himself instead of relying on sexually frustrated, inbred retards?

Perhaps it's one of those Bi-la kayf or Bi-la kaifa features which fill the numerous gaps in what passes for Islamic 'theology': http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/tawhid-or-tawheed-versus-christian.html

hello together
i´m from austria. today i found in the mainstream media an article that dogs will be forbidden in council houses in vienna, because they are annoying the muslim society. so we don´t have to go to iran to find horrible things like this. our goverment is dhimmitude par exellence. it´s disgusting beyond words. soon vienna is dead, it is invaded by turkish an arabs, a horrible sight. the vienna you know from former trips to europe doesn´t exist anylonger. the smelling of civil war in the air get stronger from week to week......
here the link to the article: http://twurl.nl/xy1wly

thank you very much robert for the work you are doing. your name and work is mentioned on daily basis in our community.

we will never surrender, never ever...

best regards from kalifat austrianistan former austria

haTikwa

The real reason that Mahoundians don't like dogs is because dog spelled backwards is Allah...

We had the most moist and tender bar-b-que PORK RIBS last evening. Slow cooked for hours. Potato salad and baked beans too. Husband drank a beer. We listened to a CD of BIG BAND MUSIC from the 40's... cool! All was VERY nice.

We gave the PORK bones to the neighbors 2 big BLACK Dogs. Who licked my husband's hand in gratitude!

Yesterday afternoon, we saw a BIG ADVERTISEMENT in the newspaper for a sale at the PET STORE went there to buy fish food for the goldfish and cat litter for our old cat.

We used the convertible and I let my hair blow in the wind as we drove by the river!

DEAR GOD, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE BORN IN THE USA AND NOT....... iran.

Sick, sick, sick.

I'll take the mangiest flea-bag mutt any day over you, evil "Ayatoolah." Tool.

It's un-American to hate dogs. You don't let a people in who disparage dogs as "evil." Crazy, absolute insanity. The Muslim obsession with dogs as "unclean" is pathetic. As Jaladhi above said, "It is obvious who is unclean here!!! Not the dogs!!!"

Hussein is never photographed with his dog. Unlike all of the former (non-Muslim) dog-owning presidents.

My black, indoor-dwelling dog barks every time a Muslim (or anyone else) walks past the house. She's my never-fail alarm. I think I should upgrade her food.

Dogs are cleaner than sharia.

Dogs unclean? Really? We're a military family that just returned to our home a few weeks ago. Our property manager had rented it to a Muslim family 3+ years ago and the place was a disgusting mess when they left. Even the professional cleaning service was not able to completely rid the place of the grime and smell. For the first time since we bought the home, there are roaches. There was also an estimated $4,000-$5,000 worth of damage. Believe it or not, the guy is actually a doctor. I know of no Western doctors who would allow their toddler to chew on the walls, but perhaps drywall is used for teething in Pakistan. We are now awaiting their response to the claim that was recently mailed to them demanding payment for damages, etc., although our property manager believes we can only ask for $2,600. Again, they consider dogs unclean? Give me a break.

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared....

Quoth the Ayatollah Khomeini:

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.” - from Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh"

"More than their wives."

There's something to be said there about people who live in glass houses...

The famous Hadith in which Muhammad says that he will not enter a house that has either "dogs or statues" (or "pictures" -- that is, anything that depicts the human form, in two or three dimensions) is the source of this hatred of dogs. But what is the source of this Hadith? Why, in a single Hadith, yoked together, are "dogs" and "depictions of the human form"? This is a puzzlement to which I suggested an answer in the article I put up here, "On Dogs and Statutes in Islam." My claim is this: the statues (and pictures) had to do with the practice of Christians, with their depictions and statutes of Jesus, Mary, various saints. The dogs had to do with Zoroastrians, who in Persia, the land conquered by Muslim Arabs imposing the "gift" of Islam -- which which so many non-blessings flow - wanted to clearly differentiate themselves from the indigenous Zoroastrians. The Zoroastrians were known for their near-worship of dogs. By concocting this Hadith, which no doubt dates from after the Muslim conquest of Sassanid Persia, and having it assigned a high rank as to "authenticity," some Muslims in one fell swoop provided a way to both distinguish themselves from, and to limit contact with, and to encourage contempt for, both Christians and Zoroastrians. Not bad for one Hadith's work.

I will re-post that "On Dogs and Statues" below.

Fitzgerald: On dogs and statues in Islam

A recent story in the Reading Evening Mail describes a 71-year-old blind Englishman and cancer sufferer who was asked to get off a bus because of the hysterical reaction to his seeing-eye dog by some Muslims on the bus:

A driver told a blind cancer sufferer to get off his bus when a woman and her children became hysterical at the sight of his guide dog. George Herridge, 71, told how the mum flew into a rage and shouted at him in a foreign language. A passenger explained she wanted him to get off the bus during the incident on May 20.

Mr Herridge, from Tern Close, Tilehurst, said: “Her child was kicking and screaming and someone off the bus told me her child was frightened of my dog. The driver said, ‘Look mate, can’t you get off? I stood my ground. I had not done anything, my dog had not done anything and I was getting off the bus for no one.”

And a day after the latest bus incident a lady began screaming “I don’t like dirty dogs” at Mr Herridge at the Royal Berkshire Hospital.

A week earlier he faced further animosity from a couple at Asda in The Meadway, he said.

He is unsure what has provoked outbursts but said he thinks some have come from Asian people and that it may be due to religious or cultural differences.

Drivers have been re-instructed to convey the blind and the bus company has sought advice from the Royal National Institute for the Blind and hopes to speak with Muslim leaders. As part of a Muslim Council of Britain project, Mufti Zubair Butt, Shar’ia advisor to Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS, admitted Muslims “require some education” on guide dogs.”

Readers of Jihad Watch are familiar with many similar cases. For example, there are those Somali cab drivers in Minneapolis who refused to pick up blind passengers with seeing-eye dogs.

One needs to know exactly what is going on in all of these cases.

One thing is the extreme reaction that often characterizes Muslims in the Western, Infidel lands when they are being asked merely to accept what is a matter of course in those lands -- such as the use of seeing-eye dogs. But for Muslims this does not provoke quiet distaste, but rather a kind of hysteria.

The second is the aggression in Muslim behavior, and demands. For it is clear that in no case was there any attempt to simply get out of the way of the seeing-eye dog; rather, it was the 71-year-old Mr. Herridge who was being asked to leave. And the woman who began shouting at Mr. Herridge, when he was at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, that “I don’t like dirty dogs,” was clearly committing an act of aggression against an elderly blind man. For she might not have liked “dirty dogs,” but she had no need to shout at the blind man who required his dog, and who had a perfect right to his dog, and in whose country this woman had been allowed to settle, though she appears intent on not accommodating herself, but in behaving outrageously toward the indigenes, even the most helpless and vulnerable among them. And when she shouts “I don’t like dirty dogs,” she is attacking Mr. Herridge himself, for she is denouncing his sole source of succor and solace.

Ibn Warraq once told me that while both Jews and Muslims do not eat pork, Jews are completely relaxed about it. No Jew would run rushing out of a restaurant screaming if he happened to discover that pork was on the menu. But Muslims would, and do. And it is the same with dogs. The hatred of dogs is not rational. It is simply based on the slavish acceptance of Muhammad’s strictures, in a well-known Hadith, in which he is reported to have said: “I will not enter a house in which there are statues and dogs.”

This is a strange, and even mysterious coupling of two items deemed haram: “statues and dogs.” Why, one may ask? I think I know the reason. Statues, of course, were to be found in homes of Christians, and if those statues are clearly declared to be haram, and if Muslims are told that Muhammad, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) will not enter a house with statues, then no Muslim would do so either. That would be one bright line to distinguish Muslims from the Christians whose lands they conquered, and it would be one way to impose on those Muslims the duty not to become too friendly with Christians, not to enter their houses where there might still be statuary. And if Christians, in order to allow the members of the ruling Muslim class, to enter their houses, which might for those Christians be a desirable thing (they would need to curry favor with the Muslims who now ruled over them) they might find themselves more willing to themselves do away with statues and icons of every kind.

But why the warning against dogs? It is likely, I have suggested before at Jihad Watch and am suggesting again right now, that because dogs were prized by Zoroastrians, and treated with great affection and reverence, Muslims would want especially to distance themselves from the same practice, even to hold up dogs as objects of hysterical hatred. In so doing, they would again, as with Christians and statuary, clearly distinguish the superior Muslims and their practices from those of the inferior non-Muslims, in this case represented by Zoroastrians.

In Europe, Muslims have already been reported as vandalizing statues. For Islam makes an exception for statuary that has been so vandalized as to have become an object not of veneration but of comical contempt. Then they can be endured. More than thirty years ago, in Beverly Hills, one of the many Al-Saud princelings bought an estate, and on that estate there were many statues. He didn’t destroy the statues, but he painted them grotesque colors, bright blues and greens. And stories were written about this, and pictures taken, and visitors came to gawk. But the great mystery that was never really asked, so certainly not answered was -- “Why?” Why did he do it? No one among the reporters covering the story had any idea that statuary was banned in Islam, but that vandalized statuary could remain, as long as it could not possibly be an object of respect or veneration. The ignorance displayed in that small case had no important consequences, unlike the ignorance of Islam that so many among our rulers, among those who claim to understand the world (and that includes Islam), display. They claim to be able to protect and even instruct us, and yet do not know the first thing about Islam. It is extraordinary, and maddening, and frustrating, and they never seem to think they should be embarrassed by this colossal mental lapsus, nor do anything to remedy it.

It was recently reported that in the heavily Islamic municipalities in Turkey, stray dogs are being hunted, tortured, and killed by the hundreds, and that “at least two of the dogs had been sexually abused.” Western newspapers reported that “there is a myth among pious Muslims that dogs are unclean.” But this is nonsense. There is no “myth.” There is simply the Hadith of Muhammad saying he would not enter a house with dogs, and another that says that one’s prayer is invalidated if a dog or a woman passes in front of the man doing the praying. And that means that dogs are haram, forbidden, and that must mean, to most Muslims, that they are “najis” or “unclean.” Why call it a “myth” and not a teaching derived from the Sunna (that is, from the Hadith that form much of the written record of the Sunna)?

Muslim attitudes toward dogs, and the fiendish cruelty with which, in Muslim Iran, Zoroastrians and their dogs are treated, have been described by the leading historian of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce. Here is a description, by Andrew Bostom, of Mary Boyce and what she found when she spent a sabbatical year living in a Zoroastrian community in Iran:

Mary 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 Muslims and their children towards 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."

So if you seek an explanation for Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis refusing to pick up blind American passengers with their seeing-eye dogs, or why in England 71-year-old Mr. Herridge was asked to leave a bus because a Muslim child became hysterical, and his mother, instead of calming him, or taking herself and her child off the bus, apparently encouraged the driver to insist that Mr. Herridge get off, you need not wonder or think it is based on some “myth” that “some Muslims” believe. Hatred of dogs as “unclean” is standard in Islam. And it comes in part from a Hadith that, at the same time, has led to the banning, in Islam, of all statuary. Hence that Hadith not only spells trouble for all dogs, and dog-owners, in the Infidel world, beginning but not ending with the blind and their seeing-eye dogs, but it also spells trouble for the statuary all over Western Europe. For what happened to the Bamiyan Buddhas, and hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of other statues destroyed over 1350 years of Muslim rule? And all because someone somewhere along the isnad-chain decided that Muhammad had denounced dogs and statues, and that of course was done in order to distinguish Muslims from, and to encourage their hatred for, statue-loving Christians and dog-loving Zoroastrians.

Would that those in power began to study Islam, began to ponder what the ideology of Islam, its politics and geopolitics, its Muslim and Arab supremacism, really means for the world’s Infidels, their art, their science, their freedoms, their statues -- and even their dogs.

[Posted by Hugh on June 11, 2009]

For those of a Carolus-Egger, he of "Latinitas," inclincation, here is a Latin translation of the same piece. And if you teach Latin, why not have your charges take a look too. It might be useful to your students in more ways than one.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/51069/sec_id/51069

Never trust anyone who doesn't like dogs.

They don't like dogs, but are not shy about ordering tigers.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/thailand.tiger/index.html?hpt=T2

Bizarro-World strikes back at the poor dog.

Which is strange, considering Arabic script is from right to left.
(thanks to duh_swami)

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared....

Many people in the West treat their dogs better than muslims treat their wives and children.

Slightly OT, let's not forget the plight of the salamander because of muhammad's ignorance:

Killing salamanders with one blow brings more reward than killing them with two blows. This was narrated in Saheeh Muslim via Khaalid ibn ‘Abd-Allaah from Suhayl ibn Abi Saalih from his father from Abu Hurayrah, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever kills a salamander with one blow will have such and such hasanah (good deeds); whoever kills it with the second blow will have such and such hasanah, less than the first; and whoever kills it with three blows will have such and such hasanah – less that the second.”

Najis Things

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/najisthings.html

The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.

I will be honored to intervene between a follower of Mo (the insane camel) and his intent to be cruel to one of my dogs. Want to join your degenerate master, the insane camel, in hell? The line forms at the edge of my driveway.

RSI

dogs have always been considered un clean. prior to the revuolution, before 1979 there were not many dog owners. how ever after the revolution as form of protest against the ayatollahs people started to having dogs. i guess this protest grew to big with the douche bags running the country!

Robert Spencer calls the reader's attention to this important related fact:

"Note also that just as unclean as dogs are unbelievers."

And the word "unbelievers" links to what should be an infamous list by the supposedly "moderate" Islamic Ayatollah named Sistani, in which he lists various things that are "unclean" for Muslims -- and puts in the same category, for example, dog hairs and Unbelievers (i.e., non-Muslims).

Well, someone may try to counter-argue, "Ayatollah Sistani is a Shiite, only Shiites compare non-Muslims and dogs as both being unclean..."

The only problem with that counter-argument is that the Koran itself calls Unbelievers "unclean" -- see verse 9:28:

"O Believers! Only the idolaters are unclean!"

Someone may then try to counter-argue that this only refers to "idolaters" or "idol-worshippers" (or "pagans" as one translator, Yusuf Ali, has it). However, the Arabic word in this regard is al-mushrikoon -- which literally translates as "those who practice shirk".

And what is "shirk"? Shirk is the belief in polytheism, which in Islam is anything that compromises the strict monotheism that Allah is the only God. Another way Muslims formulate this is by saying that Shirk is "associating Allah with partners" -- i.e., setting up other beings or sources as being also divine in one way or another. (Thus, Muslims consider that all laws should be directly divine -- should come only from Allah and from His Prophet, Mohammed, who is the supreme interpreter of Allah in Islam -- and thus any system on Earth that uses human laws, such as the U.S. Constitution, is in in effect practicing Shirk, for such a system is setting up Man as a source of laws: and as such it is thus an abomination.)

Thus, Koran 5:17 defines as a Kafir (i.e., Unbeliever) anyone who believes that God is the Christ, son of Mary; and the three verses after 9:28 (the one I cited above) clarifies that both Christians and Jews are these "idolaters" -- for according to Koran 9:30:

The Jews say, "Ezra (Ozair) is a son of God"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is a son of God." Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the saying of the Infidels of old! Allah do battle with them! How are they misguided!

And the immediately preceding verse clarifies that it is not just Allah who will "do battle" with these practitioners of Shirk, but also Allah's faithful, the Believers: In that verse, Allah tells his followers:

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given [but who] believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Messenger [Mohammed] have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

The Arabic word used for "do battle with" and "make war upon" (also translated as "fight against") is Qatiloo -- which literally means "kill" and so it means to "fight" not in the figurative sense in which someone might say "Fight against City Hall!" but in the literal military (or paramilitary) sense necessarily including killing.

It is verse 9:31 which finally ties together the association of these Unbelievers mentioned -- these Jews and Christians -- as specifically practitioners of Shirk, and adds that not only are Jews erecting "Uzair" as a divinity alongside God, and Christians erecting Christ as a divinity alongside God, but both are also erecting their own priests and monks as "lords rather than God", and specifically refers to Jews and Christians here as yushrikoon (in Arabic, cognate with the aforementioned mushrikoon -- the critical particle there being the "shrik" which in Arabic is the grammatical mutation for "shirk", with the "-oon" ending simply being the plural form).

Now, let's get back to the "unclean" part -- back to verse 9:28, which calls these practitioners of Shirk "unclean".

The Arabic for "unclean" in that verse is najasun, which in another grammatical mutation is spelled najis (the same form used by Ayatollah Sistani). Various translators of the Koran use "unclean" for verse 9:28, or "impure" or "polluted" -- but these translations do not fully capture the Arabic sense of najis, and rather seem to be trying to clean it up (pun intended).

A consultation of an English-Arabic dictionary, clarifies that full sense. Under the entry "najis", we see the following:

najis -- "Dirty, filthy, nasty" [from] najas -- "Dirtiness, filth, dung".

(We may safely say that the writer of this Arabic-English dictionary, Joseph Catafago writing in 1873, used "dung" in the polite sense for what we in the year 2010 would call shit.)

I.e., to the Muslim following the Koran, all people who do not follow Islam -- and who reject the sole supreme divinity of Allah as necessarily reflected in his laws -- are filthy, are shit.

It's bad enough that Muslims consider dogs to be filthy shit. If that's all they believed, we could consider Muslims the followers of an odd and silly, but harmless, cult. When, however, we learn that they also consider us -- we non-Muslims -- to be filthy shit and as such that we should be fought and killed as spiritual vermin; and when we read daily in the news of Muslims in various parts of the globe putting this pathological truculence into practice, then we can no longer underestimate the dangerously fanatical puritanism of this ideology.

_______________________________________

For English translations of the Koran, see:

http://www.quranbrowser.com/

I guess Salukis are no longer considered a sacred gift from Allah.

The Ayatollah sanctioned, temporary marriage whore houses at the pilgimmage sites are clean and pure. These women are blessed to be valued above those filthy mongrel mutts.

And the word "unbelievers" links to what should be an infamous list by the supposedly "moderate" Islamic Ayatollah named Sistani, in which he lists various things that are "unclean" for Muslims -- and puts in the same category, for example, dog hairs and Unbelievers (i.e., non-Muslims).

And this is the same Sistani whose life was saved by a heart bypass operation carried out by, infidels. And this wicked old scumbag had the gall to scowl at nurses whilst in England. Why didn't we say 'No' to that ungrateful pig and let him have the operation in a Muslim country.

I wonder if Dogs feel the same way about Muslims? My Dogs always howl at the Crescent Moon.

Eleanor: Your satire on dogs was hilarious. Thanks for sharing.

The Grand Ayatollah's The Little Green Book is a source of never ceasing wonder to me.

And I am slowly reading through Hugh's Latin version of his comment above. My Latin is somewhat rusty now, but it's as much fun as "Asterix Gallus".

DOGS are BEAUTIFUL souls ...............a true friend of man ...........no wonder hated by islam ............bloody bunch of iranian idiots ...still licking the feet of their Arabian masters who screwed their country,culture,religion and people ..........is this it ???? .......your ancestors will are spitting on you bunch of Arab slaves .....reclaim your glory .........and the honor of your Zorastraian culture ...............FREE yourselves......

In a multicultural society we must reach out and extend the hand of friendship to our neighbours with islamic beliefs. I will teach my dog to extend a paw (the left paw of course) to them.

The Muslim prophet did like cats, I must say that in his favor.

He liked cats and his wives, a beautiful camel, the head of an enemy chopped of, non-threatening things.

Wow. I don't even have to say a thing.

The Muslim prophet treated his wives much the same way I treated my Siamese cat: with smiling indulgence towards her antics. I don't quite know why it is so, it's more of an impression.

Dogs have an innate sense of right and wrong, i.e., they can sense evil. No wonder that muhammed banned them as they would immediately have picked up on satan's hand stirring the islamic pot.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

For some reason I feel compelled to (almost) quote Ronald Reagan on this one. For me, a dog lover and veterinarian, it seems appropriate. "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to say I have just signed legislation that outlaws Iran forever. The bombing begins in 5 minutes".

My dogs, however, consider Islam unclean.

I trust their loyalty and honesty more than any maniacal pedophile's vicious rantings.

Hang the ayatollahs and pet the pooches.

this may come as a surprise, but Muslims don't like people either...

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared....

I know what the Grand Ayatollah means. Just the other day I was sitting on the sofa when my lovely bride called out sweetly from the kitchen, "What do you want for supper, sweetheart--beef, chicken, or pork?"

I replied, "Thanks, love. I think I'll have the chicken," but she shot back, "Not you, dip shit. You're having leftover casserole. I was talking to the dog."

:)

As others have noted, I submit that some dogs, at least, are excellent judges of character and human motivation. I know mine are. The last time I had a jihadi sympathizer near me, ol' Griswald clearly let Abdul know what he thought of him.

The fact that Muslims don't like dogs, and that for dogs the feeling is mutual, is exactly why dogs are truly man's best friends.

Mullah Obama, since you have kissed the hand of King Abdullah, the symbol of true Islam, we have come to realise that the light of Islam has penetrated your body, and you are now directed to the correct path of Islam.

Some points which prove this are: ...

read the article on http://www.fozoolemahaleh.com/en/2010/08/27/mullah-obama-welcomes-you-to-the-world-of-islam/

Of course, this is meant to be a joke, but is it really?
President Obama has on numerous occasions shown that he is a friend of Islam. This article will shed a light on the true nature of "Mullah Obama".
Article also available in Farsi here http://www.fozoolemahaleh.com/2010/08/27/%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%8C-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AF%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared....

I'm sure Dhimmis love their dogs more than they love the Grand Ayatollah-that's for sure. For most Dhimmis, life is a series of dogs.

The overwhelming majority of dogs are wonderful gifts from Gd to humans. I love dogs. Does that make me a bad person?

To all iranians anf Farsi speakers, check out this fantastic new political blog http://www.fozoolemahaleh.com/

It's in Farsi and in English, and it's one of the fastest growing blog in iran, with lots of interaction from readers.

It has articles who denounce the Iranian political regime and gives very good insight on the political climate in Iran.
No compromise, straight talk!! Check it out http://www.fozoolemahaleh.com/

Thank you Jihadwatch for all the great work, it's fantastic to see that you keep growing. You are a voice that needs to be heard.

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared....

While Moslems are notorious for their love of their wives and children. Or more accurately: their love of beating their wives and killing their children.

Muslims are taught to despise dogs and not to keep them as pets (though as we see from the Hadith quoted with the article, Mohammed grudgingly admitted that a dog might be kept for hunting, and to guard the herds...thus allowing a restricted zone where the normal human affinity for dogs, might be expressed).

Hugh has pointed out that this particular pathology may have been inculcated in order to differentiate Muslims from Zoroastrians.

But, of course, since there is virtually no known human group on earth today, nor indeed historically, that exhibits or has exhibited the same degree of hostility toward dogs as Islam does, the sharia ban on the keeping of pet dogs and the general hatred and fear of dogs that is taught not only by the hadith Mr Spencer cited above, but by others, sets Muslims over against all other humans.

One could argue that it is indeed one of the most deeply alien, inhuman and antihuman rules in the sharia (together with the sharia condemnation of virtually all music, and of all representational art, and of all sculpture).

Muslims are supposed to despise and be cruel to dogs and not keep them as pets; Muslims are supposed to make no music and draw no pictures of living beings. That is what sharia, strictly observed, would require.

Sharia, if observed to the letter, kills the soul.

Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared....

Since when did muslims start loving their wives? Love is not part of the islamic marriage equation; women are sold to their husbands by their 'guardians', which could be their fathers, brothers, or other male relatives. Their first and foremost duty is to be available 24 hours a day to provide sexual pleasure to their husbands. They are expected to perform the usual domestic chores, cook, and bear children until they reach menopause. If hubby decides to take an additional wife or three additional wives, his decision must be accepted graciously and without complaint.

I've got some news for the Grand Ayatollah: People in the West don't sell their nine year old daughters to 50 year old lechers in marriage. People in the West marry for love, but muslim men are actually encouraged not to become too fond of their wives because women are deficient, evil, seductive, and might lead them astray and cause them to neglect their duties to allah. Muslim women are chattel, owned by one man or another all their lives and created for providing sexual pleasure to men and for bearing their children, who by the way, belong entirely to the man.

Dogs are lovable and muslims aren't supposed to love anything or anyone but allah and his alter ego, muhammad. Anything that provides pleasure (except sexual pleasure for men) is forbidden in islam. That is the only way to keep muslims faithful, devout, and focused on the big reward---paradise.

Dogs are such wonderful pets, and they can bring so much Happiness & Joy to a family!

We had a Rottie named "Jubilee" when our 4 children were younger, and she blessed our family with 8 adorable pups (that we found loving homes for); and caring for her 8 Babies was one of the most enriching and joyful experiences that we shared together as a family!

I found this photo on Google Images, and it reminded me of our sweet lil' Rottie's ...enjoy!

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/art/RottweilerPupArt.jpg

Dogs are "unclean"? ...hey nothing a little soap 'n water can't fix, lol ...

Dogs are not only enjoyable as pets. They are also useful as herder animals on farms, or as service animals, such as guides for the blind and people with other health issues. So, I wonder how many people in Muslim countries must suffer even more hardships than they would normally do, because of the prohibition on dogs.

Ah, Western women and their pets, marrying dogs and donkeys .

"Many people in the West love their dogs more than their wives and children," the Grand Ayatollah declared.

At last - something on which we can agree with a Grand Ayatollah! LOL. Next he'll be telling us that many Irishmen prefer a pint of Guinness to an hour-long Mass.

I read recently that in India, Kerala I think, that dogs are used by some Muslims to "practice" beheading.

The topic of Islamic animal abuse is still in its infancy in the West -- even more so than general knowledge about Islam. The spearhead of "Islamology" remains mostly within the orbit of the still inchoate anti-Islam movement (either in autodidactic piecing together stuff now, or in reviving classical scholars who studied Islam in centuries past before the "Great Inhibition", as Hugh Fitzgerald terms PC MC, set in). So far, however, it seems that most of the attention, understandably, has been on other areas -- such as jihad, supremacism, honor killings, wife abuse, FGM, slavery, etc. (And as for the mainstream, I don't suppose PETA would care to devote a little of its budget to helping Brigitte Bardot man the bastions virtually alone in this regard.)

This one article I found is interesting, and probably provides a glimpse at the tip of an iceberg. Note that the author hastens to assure the reader that:

"Please note: this is not a westerner carelessly criticising an Asian country. All the information comes from the mouths of Pakistani people living in Pakistan."

And some of his remarks, as the reader shall see, indicate a typical myopia to the Islam factor in the problem he is decrying.

Here follows his full article (see the link at bottom for his references). Bold emphases and comments in square brackets added by me:

________________________________________

The persecuted animals in Pakistan find themselves in a country where animal welfare is an "alien concept"1. Where there is a lack of human rights there is no chance of there being organised animal welfare and that would seem to be the situation in Pakistan. I am concerned for all the animals in Pakistan both wild and domesticated but, of course, I focus on cats that sadly have found themselves living in this country.

What happened to Pakistan? Their immediate neighbour India has purebred cats. One of my website's most valued visitors is from Mumbai and he lives with purebred Persians (see one of his posts). And I have been reminded that commercially produced cat food is readily available in India. The government of India is more stable and the laws more likely to be enforced it seems to me. [Might it also have something to do with the kind of society Islam produces?] Although in respect of the tiger in India things could be improved (see for example Indian Bengal Tiger Reserves).

What of the animal protection laws in Pakistan? There are some but none as far as I can see are enforced or if they are it is to a very low standard. The central animal protection legislation of the country was drawn up by the British during the time of the British Empire. [Those damn British! Always ruining everything!] It extended to the whole of "British India" (i.e. before the creation of the state of Pakistan). I am talking about the The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1890 (Act). Yes 1890! It was amended in 1937 and in 1961 (under the Agriculture Department of West Pakistan).

This Act concerns domestic animals, which at the time it was enacted meant working animals. A petition2 was set up to amend, extend and update this Act. The target was 1000 votes and 396 were obtained indicating a apathy to animal welfare. According to a lawyer in Pakistan this Act is the only law designed to protect animals in Pakistan but it does nothing for the persecuted animals in Pakistan. It is an Act crying out to be repealed and rewritten along the lines of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in the UK as one example. Swedish laws are also very good. It is not difficult in a technical sense to draft effective animal protection laws. The obstacle is apathy and a disregard for the welfare of animals. [And would Islam have anything to do with this?]

...

Andaleeb Rizvi of the Daily Times (a Pakistani newspaper based in Pakistan)3 bemoans the fact that the Act is very limited in its ambit and that there has never been any prosecutions regarding animal cruelty to stray animals in Pakistan.

She also notes, amongst other acts of cruelty, the careless, cruel and for the perpetrators enjoyable treatment dished out to the feral cats of Pakistan that involves throwing stones at them, cutting off their tails and/or ears and poisoning them; plain obnoxious animal cruelty, which can lead to general cruelty.

[So much for Mohammed's "love of cats"...]

In Pakistan there are daily major breaches of what would be animal protection legislation of the basic kind (if it was in place in the country) and it goes on unabated with a complete disregard for the welfare of other animals.

Sindh (one of the four provinces of Pakistan) has the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1972, which apparently applies to wild animals but not feral cats and dogs. The Local Government Ordinance 2001 concerns stray animals (e.g. feral and stray cats) but this legislation is concerned with protecting the public form the stray animals not the other way around. And although under item 9 section 2(c) animal shelters can be built none have in the 8 years that the legislation has been in force4. Note: there is one animal shelter in Pakistan [One animal shelter in the entire country!]

...

Taking care of stray animals in Karachi usually involves killing the animals. Clauses 428 and 429 of the Pakistan Penal Code are not concerned with the protection of animals but the protection of people who suffer loss meaning the loss of possessions such as animals. The Pakistan Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) and Edhi Foundation are concerned with animal welfare but are hampered by a lack of funding and an unsupportive government.

What is the answer? The problem is a deeply rooted cultural matter. [If it's "cultural" why are Indians more progressive in this regard? Might it have something to do with Islam...?] There is corruption in Pakistan. People work on the basis of promoting self interest. Animals are well down the list of priorities. Wealth, education and honest government are the keys. [And restricting Islamic values might help, too]

As to wild animals, there are wildlife conservation projects but I cannot find any laws or the enforcement of laws that protects what was once abundant wildlife. Wild cats found in Pakistan include:

* Asian Leopard cat (northern Pakistan)
* Sand Cat (small part of western Pakistan)
* Jungle Cat

These cats are vulnerable in Pakistan. They are some of the persecuted animals of Pakistan.

http://www.pictures-of-cats.org/the-persecuted-animals-in-pakistan.html

Hugh wrote:

The hatred of dogs is not rational. It is simply based on the slavish acceptance of Muhammad’s strictures, in a well-known Hadith, in which he is reported to have said: “I will not enter a house in which there are statues and dogs.”
...............

Hugh—I've read this piece of yours before, and it is excellent.

One very small correction—it is not Muhammad himself who is supposed to have said “I will not enter a house in which there are statues and dogs”, but the "Angel Jibreel", who responded with the above when he failed to keep an appointment with "The Prophet".

It seems that Muhammed had a small puppy under his bed, which kept the demonic "Angel Jibreel" away.

He responded to this news by first killing the puppy, then went on a murderous spree with his "companions", killing every dog he could find. The slaughter only came to an end when the more influential clans in the area became alarmed, and were able to get an exception out of Muhammed that would spare working dogs.

I think you are almost certainly correct, Hugh, that these prohibitions were meant as specific slaps against Christians and Zoroastrians—but they certainly affect the civilized West with its large contingent of animal lovers.

For myself, I like to keep pets—including rescue cats—and large amounts of paintings, etchings, posters, prints, small sculptures and fine photography around for my own pleasure.

It is also very useful for keeping those vicious Mohammedan "angels" at bay.

I am so relieved by the Iranian ban. I always feared that in the heat of the moment people objecting to Islamic Jihaddi Terrorism may be inclined to compare the self proclaimed Prophet to a dog, and that would be unberably insulting ... to my dogs.

I am so relieved by the Iranian ban. I always feared that in the heat of the moment people objecting to Islamic Jihaddi Terrorism may be inclined to compare the self proclaimed Prophet to a dog, and that comparison would be unbearably insulting ... to my dogs.