| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
UPDATE June 27, 9:39AM PDT: It looks as if the dogs will be sniffing around Muslims after all. Muslims objected, but their objections were overruled. See "Muslims will be searched by sniffer dogs despite religious objections, say police," from the Daily Mail, June 27.
------
Britain just keeps outdoing itself for nutty manifestations of dhimmitude. In an age when terrorists are most likely to be Muslim, and these dogs are supposed to be helping find terrorists, the dogs won't touch Muslims. Dogs, after all, are unclean.
"Sniffer Dogs Offend Muslims," by Tom Whitehead in the Daily Express, June 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers – after complaints that it is against the suspects’ religion.A report for the Transport Department has raised the prospect that the animals should only touch passengers’ luggage because it is considered “more acceptable”.
In the Muslim faith, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”. But banning them from touching passengers would severely restrict their ability to do their job. The report follows trials of station security measures in the wake of the 2005 London suicide bomb attacks. In one trial, some female Muslims said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was tantamount to being forced to strip.
British Transport Police last night insisted it would still use sniffer dogs – which are trained to detect explosives – with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers would remain aware of “cultural sensitivities”.
Critics said the complaints were just the latest example of minority religions trying to force their rules and morals on British society.
Well, duh, as the great philosopher once said.
Posted by Robert at June 27, 2008 11:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
You can only feel sorry for the dogs,having to suffer close proximity to these morons. Allow me to speak for our four-legged friends and point out that it is offensive to their species to force them to sniff Muslims.
Posted by: johndoe![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2008 11:21 AM
"UK: Police dogs trained to sniff out terrorists won't touch Muslims -- it offends them"
If I were a dog I know I will be deeply offended if I had to touch an imitater of uswa-hasana, al-insan, al kamil. They think koranic hygiene is the way to go, and one does not fully understand the meaning of "Stench" unless one has been around a believer who has lived his life the koranic way.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 27, 2008 11:34 AM
Muslims: "We really don't like your little country here, we'd like you to move out"
Posted by: Sounder at June 27, 2008 11:40 AM
Let me guess....left-handed people are going to be the next to go...because it is offensive to Muslims to even see someone....use their left hand for something else than what they are used to.
Posted by: V.I.N.C.E.N.T. at June 27, 2008 12:21 PM
We're (kafir, unbelievers) in the same ritually unclean category as dogs.
If you English would please be so kind as to kill yourselves.
Posted by: Beagle at June 27, 2008 12:34 PM
"Police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers – after complaints that it is against the suspects’ religion."
The next step on this road to insanity is clear. All police & intelligence actions aimed at uncovering terrorist plots will be suspended b/c stopping jihadist activities is against their religion.
Posted by: sheik yer booty at June 27, 2008 12:38 PM
Speaking of uswa-hasana, al-insan, al kamil, why are Muslims boarding airplanes, to begin with? Mohammed didn't fly. Nor did he read, write, drive a car, use a computer, fire a gun... the list is endless.
Muslims complain about the Rest of Humanity taking passages of the Qur'an "out of context", but it looks to me as if Muslims pick and choose which attributes of Mohammed they want to emulate.
Posted by: Abscedere at June 27, 2008 12:42 PM
my faith condemns suicide and is a mud-lim want to blow itself up it offends ME o if a dog can stop there bs i say the hell with them
Posted by: crusader at June 27, 2008 12:43 PM
Solution: Use police trained sniffer pigs...I understand they are smarter than a dog, with equal or better olfactory senses. Problem Solved!
Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at June 27, 2008 12:46 PM
And I mean the gigantic, Iowa, corn-fed hogs that weigh 900 pounds or more. Or trained razorbacks from Arkansas, with giant tusks protruding!
Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at June 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Solution: no sniff, no ride.
We like dogs in the West.
We built our civilization with their partnership and joy.
You don't like our dogs, then you may need to go.
Mecca is nice this time of year.
Why don't all Mohammedan canine objectors just return to a cozy Muslim land?
No dogs loose there.
Just cranks.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 27, 2008 12:51 PM
Didn't muhammad say dogs used for hunting were okay?
And isn't this a HUNT FOR Jihadis?
C'mon infidels! Wise up. The Jihadis are playing us for fools.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl at June 27, 2008 1:00 PM
The trial by the British Transport Police (BTP) on all rail passengers travelling through the station prompted complaints from some Muslims who said their religion did not allow direct contact with dogs.
--from the article at the Daily Mail to which a link is given in the "Update" above
Their religion? Do tell.
Yes, do tell the long-suffering Infidels of Great Britain that the reason dogs are regarded with such contempt and hatred is because Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, once was reported to have said (check the endlessly tedious solemn rigmarole about the particular isnad-chain in question for yourself -- it was good enough, apparently, for al-Bukhari and Muslim) that he wouldn't enter a house that had either a dog or a statue in it. There go dogs, as domestic pets. And there go Europe's statuary too, which has already been under Muslim assault as very thinly reported, here and there -- you see, as long as the statues are vandalized, and so no longer worthy of respect, they become okay. That's why, thirty years ago, some Al-Saud princeling at his new estate in Beverly Hills attracted all kinds of attention for having painted the statues he found on the estate, lining the drive, garish colors -- bright greens and blues. Oh, it was all very funny, and people mocked his taste, but not a single reporter knew a thing about Islam, so not a single reporter knew that what the Al-Saud princelet had done was simply conform to Islam. How, after all, could he afford -- given the source of his wealth -- to do otherwise?
No, dogs are verboten.
Well, then, shall we Infidels give up using sniffer dogs, as we have always used before, at a time when the presence of Muslims makes the security situation even more, and increasingly, and permanently, dire in the countries of Western Europe? No and no.
And besides, there is an argument that Muslims themselves make to justify keeping dogs when they are not being used as domestic pets but are being used for guard duty. Look it up yourself, and you'll find what has been written by Muslim clerics to justify this practice. And of course the dogs in question, the sniffer dogs, are being used precisely in that manner.
Of course, such an argument doesn't have to be presented. Solicitude for Muslims, even pretend solicitude, doesn't have to be displayed. But en passant one could say it this way:
1) Yes, we understand why Muslims do not cherish dogs as we in Great Britain do. They do not, but rather hate and fear with them with what many of us would regard as an irrational and primitive hate, because Muhammad, the man whose every word they think must be obeyed, once said he would not enter a house where there were "dogs and statues." Well, Muslims will have to explain the bit about not entering a house where there are "statues" -- would that include museums of art, for example? and if so, would they object to school visits by their children to such museums, or to the study, in school, of art which included the study of such statues? But about the dogs, well we know that in fact Muslims have made exceptions for dogs used for guard duty, for protection not domestic delight, and it is obvious that that is precisely the use of the sniffer dogs here.
OR:
(Dryly) We have used sniffer dogs in the past, and found their work most satisfactory. We shall, of course, continue to use them for police work in any ways that we determine are useful. In the detection of drugs, and now of bombs, which has over the past few years suddenly become a major concern of our security services, as of the security services of all the countries of Western Europe, they have been most useful and we expect their use to continue, and possibly increase, on busses, on trains, at airports, everywhere that we determine that their use is mandated by concerns for the safety of the British public.
Posted by: Hugh at June 27, 2008 1:09 PM
By using "them" in the headline, it's not clear if it's the dogs who are offended. Someone is making mischief in the land!
Posted by: Beagle at June 27, 2008 1:21 PM
I guess next time something or someone goes "boom", we will know the reason why.
Posted by: Ladywolfnl at June 27, 2008 1:54 PM
Don't like the dogs, eh? Well how about a strip search and full body cavity examination?
In today's world where so many architectural and infrastructure modifications are made to accommodate Moslem pratices, surely one more can be added: that of an examination room dedicated to the search for contraband substances. Put one in every station. Label them prominently. Make it clear that they will be used. In fact have a light shining prominently above the door when the room is in use so that passers-by can gawk at whatever wretch may be leaving the room.
Humiliation only if need be, but cooperation above all. And the sound of a rubber glove snapping may be enough to get that cooperation.
Posted by: Chatillon at June 27, 2008 1:56 PM
I said awhile back that the Brits. would not wake up to the Muslim threat until their dogs and pubs are gone. See, the dogs are already on the way out.
Posted by: mindy at June 27, 2008 2:04 PM
Memo to moslems:
If it weren't for YOU, there'd be no NEED for sniffer dogs and body scanners.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at June 27, 2008 4:24 PM
from above:In the Muslim faith, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”.
Zombie dogs walk among us, or, Dog is Allah spelled backwards.
Is there any animal that Islam thinks is 'spiritually' clean? That would be idol worship, would it not? A spiritually clean chicken for instance should be revered, with mosques built for its worship. Muslims tease Hindu's about their attitudes about cows, while there is some evidence that Mohammad had a high appreciation of them (cows) himself. How can you tell? There may be such a thing as a spiritually advanced chicken, but I could never pick it out of a crowd.
Same thing about good muslims, I know they exist, but I never could pick one out of a crowd...
A good dog I can spot in two minutes or less...
at June 27, 2008 9:25 PM
A warehouse we were renting was bought by Muslims - Saudi oil money at work - and we had a Friday afternoon visit by the new landlord, in his pajamas and just after mosque. Our Maltese poodle, who was just trying to say hello, had him jumping around like a clown. We thought he was afraid of this tiny dog. I told him the dog won't bite but, of course, that didn't stop him jumping every time the dog turned in his direction. We didn't know he was afraid the dog would touch and contaminate him, and not bite him, until he told us it was to do with his religion.
After he left we all had a big laugh at his expense, but were puzzled as to why someone would think that a dogs touch was dirty.
at June 28, 2008 2:58 AM
Koreans eat dogs, they can't be all that bad if Koreans eat them.
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at June 28, 2008 3:57 AM
Dogs guard. Thieves and robbers don't like them. Simple.
Posted by: Hedgehog at June 28, 2008 9:28 AM
The next time a mosque caves in from an earthquake or bomb blast, don't use sniffing dogs to search for survivors.
That way no suffering person trapped under debris will be offended.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at June 28, 2008 3:06 PM
Islam must be too restrictive an ideology: dogs are delicious entrees in certain parts of the world. In ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur,the Northern-most part of the provinces in the Philippines, for example, canines are dishes whose bones are comparable to chicken, thus mistaken for chicken, and as Adobo, or Dinuguan, are incomparable dishes. If only dogs were available for food, will followers of the Islam ideology eat the dog dish for survival or would they rather die?
People ate people under hunger duress, haven't they? Why not dogs?
Posted by: lolojay at June 29, 2008 12:44 AM
Forget about the sniffer dogs, the Danes have developed a much better system, check it out I think you will all agree.
http://hodja.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fred_16.jpg
at June 29, 2008 8:06 AM
Holger Dansker - If it works in Daneland, then it should work everywhere. The only problem I can see is finding a pig willing to go along with this.
Posted by: tanstaafl at June 29, 2008 8:35 PM
Hedgehog -
I suspect you've nailed the REAL reason for Islam's (or, shall we say, Mohammed's) aversion to dogs.
Think about it. Kill the dogs - especially, prevent the dhimmis from keeping dogs - and you can steal, housebreak, and so on, with impunity.
The ban on church bells may have had the same underlying motivation.
Bat Yeor, I think, observes that the ban on church bells, in the Rules for Dhimmis, took away from dhimmi communities in the Islamosphere their chief means of raising the alarm, if threatened with attack by the Muslims. It wasn't just about stifling the dhimmis' religion; it was about preventing dhimmi Christian communities from communicating with, or defending, or warning, each other.
One must consider, too, whether at bottom the ban on any dhimmi building being built higher than a Muslim's house, basically amounts to an aide-de-plunder.
If the mosque is higher than everything else, or if dhimmis are forced to build their houses lower than that of their Muslim neighbour, we've got the same principle in operation as Bentham's panopticon.
Note this passage from Napier Malcolm's [Five Years in Persia] account of the appallingly malevolent regulations to which dhimmis were subjected in Persia in the late 19th century. I have added running notes.
"Then the houses of both the Parsis [Zoroastrians] and the Jews, with the surrounding walls, had to be built so low, THAT THE TOP COULD BE REACHED BY A MUSULMAN WITH HIS HAND EXTENDED; they might, however, dig down below the level of the road
{note that all of this looks like it is consciously designed, with a purely malevolent will worthy of the Nazis, to render the dhimmi households totally defenceless against any Muslim rapist, robber or lynch-mob who cares to attack - dda]
"The walls had to be splashed with white around the door
{yeah, right: so the Muslim lynch mob can find the doors easier in the dark - dda}
Double doors, the common form of Persian door, were forbidden; also rooms containing three or more windows.
{Again: think of this in terms of pogroms and urban warfare: it is designed to make the dhimmi house difficult to defend, and also to make it harder for its inhabitants to escape - fewer windows = fewer exits in case of the house being fired or invaded}.
'Bad-girs [air shafts, for cooling and ventilation] were still forbidden to Parsis while we were in Yezd. {This, in modern terms, would amount to forbidding the use of air conditioners to non-Muslims, while permitting it for Muslims; it bespeaks a mean-mindedness, a malevolent will, that withers the mind}.
'Upper rooms were also forbidden.'
{Probably, again, to make it harder for dhimmis to defend their homes, if the Muslims attacked - dda}." [See Andrew Bostom, Legacy of Jihad, pp. 111-112, excerpt from William Napier's 'Five Years in Persia'}.
When I read stuff like this, I'm afraid that I am overwhelmed by a strong desire to vomit; it bespeaks such a sadistic, nasty, petty and ultimately contemptible Will-to-Power, pursued to the absolute limit against helpless populations. It is saturated with the same mindset that drove Nazi concentration-camp guards to multiply cruel humiliations upon their victims.
Make no mistake: the Muslim whingeings and wailings about kafir use of sniffer dogs are caused by the fact that those guard dogs, those sniffer dogs, are capable of preventing the jihadis from carrying out their divine mission to spread terror amongst the kafir.
Note to the police: whenever you raid the mosque; ESPECIALLY when you raid the mosque, or the suspected jihadi household; take those trained police dogs, those enormous Alsations, and USE THEM TO ARREST, if necessary. The crassest cultural INsensitivity is called for, when you are dealing with a culture that worships sadistic domination and the Will to Power, that has practised, for a thousand years, a withering contempt for the Other.
I can think of no better way to avenge those thousands upon thousands of terrified dhimmis, who had to live tremblingly in their defenceless houses inside the Islamosphere, without even a dog to bark or bite, without even a church bell to sound the alarm, than the spectacle of a jihad-inciting imam cowering and gibbering with a couple of huge drooling Alsations gripping his wrists and ankles.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 30, 2008 12:42 AM
Cry havoc! and let loose the Dogs of war.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 30, 2008 12:43 AM
A further thought. Rather than fewer sniffer dogs; more. At every airport, bus station, train station.
But the idea of sniffer pigs, raised by 'no more ham', also has its merits; not least, because some kafir do have asthma which can be triggered by dog dander. It may be that where that is a consideration, as for example in confined spaces such as an airport passenger lounge, trained sniffer pigs would be a better option. Pigs can be house-trained just as well as dogs.
If it weren't for international quarantine laws, I could see a case for air marshals on board planes being attended by a trained guard dog or guard pig, so as to further discourage wannabe hijackers.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 30, 2008 12:54 AM
Think about it. Kill the dogs - especially, prevent the dhimmis from keeping dogs - and you can steal, housebreak, and so on, with impunity.
If we did not have the damn mohammedans in our countries we wouldn't have to worry about it. Keep the dogs and get rid of the mohammedans and the politicals who let them in.
Enjoy the Sharia
Have a Nice Jihad
Give Old Rover A Bone
at July 3, 2008 9:48 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)