Islam and dogs
What’s the deal with Islam and dogs? It’s this: Dogs are viewed as unclean. More importantly, Mohammed didn’t like them – as in wanted them dead.
Although there is nothing written in the Quran about dogs, Mohammed’s thoughts on all things canine can be found throughout the Hadith (a collection of direct quotes from Mohammed on a range of issues that was compiled after his death).
Mohammed warned angels not to enter any home that had a dog. He also ordered that dogs be killed and that none be spared, with a specific directive to kill all black dogs. (More information can be found here, here, and here.)
That doesn’t mean that all Muslims hate dogs, just as all Muslims don’t do or not do anything. (To hear an excellent take down by Jamie Glazov of the “not all Muslims do that” argument, see here.) But enough Muslims seem to hate dogs and enough act on that hatred to reveal a hideous pattern of mistreatment and abuse. Dogs are also used to assert supremacy, as you will see in the examples noted below.
An increasingly common way Muslims assert supremacy around dog-related issues is when Muslim cab drivers and bus drivers deny service to disabled people with service dogs. One person was told to throw the dog in the trunk or get out of his cab. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples.) There are also situations where people who have a dog as a companion animal are refused service. (See here and here.)
But Muslims refusing service to people with dogs is just the tip of the iceberg.
In the UK, handlers with dogs who sniff out explosives in settings like airports, railways stations, and bus terminals have been taught to tread lightly and be aware of “cultural sensitivities.” That, of course, is code for don’t offend Muslims. Also in the UK, police dogs must wear special booties when entering Muslim homes so as not to offend. In addition, Muslim prisoners are given fresh sheets and clothes after dogs search their cells. The dogs are also not allowed to have any direct contact with prisoners’ Qurans.
Dogs are offensive.
In Scotland, after the police department sent out postcards with their new telephone number on it that featured an adorable puppy sitting on a police officer’s hat, the Muslim community reacted with (wait for it): outrage. The response to this response (wait for it): apology. And I quote: “We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.” Heaven forbid anyone make a move without seeking advice from the “diversity advisor!”
Offense and outrage. As when Muslims in Mumbai had a fit when a dog that is part of Obama’s security detail arrived with name tags identifying him as “Khan.” Giving a dog a Muslim name was seen as incitement.
Offense, outrage, and incitement.
When a young Muslim girl in Malaysia was photographed cuddling a puppy at an adoption fair, the picture went viral and the response was swift. Muslims in Malaysia are prohibited from having any contact with dogs because they are considered haram (forbidden).
In a town in Spain where Muslims comprise 20% of the population, large numbers of dogs have been found poisoned. (Mass poisoning of dogs is also taking place in Turkey.) And when non-Muslim residents took their dogs for walks, they were often harassed by Muslims. It got so bad they needed protection. Without enough police to keep them safe, they formed escort patrols so people would not have to walk their dogs alone. Meanwhile, Muslims in the town pressed for regulation of dogs in public spaces and a complete ban on public transportation because the presence of dogs offended them and they claimed it violated their religious freedom.
Offended = Dhimmis must make accommodations.
In Canada, a man was arrested for walking his dog in a public park near where Muslims were having a pro-Palestinian-Jew-hating Al-Quds Day rally. Sometime afterwards the man received a threatening call: “We’re going to kill you, you dirty Jew.”
Offended, outraged, incited, and threatening.
Of course there is a simple dhimmi solution to all of this: Ban dogs. Which is precisely what a Muslim politician in the Netherlands wanted to do when he proposed banning all dogs at The Hague.
Canine jihad.
Islamic supremacy.
If it offends Islam, no one should be able to do it. There is no coexist, no live and let live, no getting along. Because Islam is a totalitarian ideology. And it targets every living thing.
With unbelievable savagery.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/islam_and_dogs.html#ixzz3p5evxenz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Although there is nothing written in the Quran about dogs, Mohammed’s thoughts on all things canine can be found throughout the Hadith (a collection of direct quotes from Mohammed on a range of issues that was compiled after his death).
Mohammed warned angels not to enter any home that had a dog. He also ordered that dogs be killed and that none be spared, with a specific directive to kill all black dogs. (More information can be found here, here, and here.)
That doesn’t mean that all Muslims hate dogs, just as all Muslims don’t do or not do anything. (To hear an excellent take down by Jamie Glazov of the “not all Muslims do that” argument, see here.) But enough Muslims seem to hate dogs and enough act on that hatred to reveal a hideous pattern of mistreatment and abuse. Dogs are also used to assert supremacy, as you will see in the examples noted below.
An increasingly common way Muslims assert supremacy around dog-related issues is when Muslim cab drivers and bus drivers deny service to disabled people with service dogs. One person was told to throw the dog in the trunk or get out of his cab. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples.) There are also situations where people who have a dog as a companion animal are refused service. (See here and here.)
But Muslims refusing service to people with dogs is just the tip of the iceberg.
In the UK, handlers with dogs who sniff out explosives in settings like airports, railways stations, and bus terminals have been taught to tread lightly and be aware of “cultural sensitivities.” That, of course, is code for don’t offend Muslims. Also in the UK, police dogs must wear special booties when entering Muslim homes so as not to offend. In addition, Muslim prisoners are given fresh sheets and clothes after dogs search their cells. The dogs are also not allowed to have any direct contact with prisoners’ Qurans.
Dogs are offensive.
In Scotland, after the police department sent out postcards with their new telephone number on it that featured an adorable puppy sitting on a police officer’s hat, the Muslim community reacted with (wait for it): outrage. The response to this response (wait for it): apology. And I quote: “We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.” Heaven forbid anyone make a move without seeking advice from the “diversity advisor!”
Offense and outrage. As when Muslims in Mumbai had a fit when a dog that is part of Obama’s security detail arrived with name tags identifying him as “Khan.” Giving a dog a Muslim name was seen as incitement.
Offense, outrage, and incitement.
When a young Muslim girl in Malaysia was photographed cuddling a puppy at an adoption fair, the picture went viral and the response was swift. Muslims in Malaysia are prohibited from having any contact with dogs because they are considered haram (forbidden).
In a town in Spain where Muslims comprise 20% of the population, large numbers of dogs have been found poisoned. (Mass poisoning of dogs is also taking place in Turkey.) And when non-Muslim residents took their dogs for walks, they were often harassed by Muslims. It got so bad they needed protection. Without enough police to keep them safe, they formed escort patrols so people would not have to walk their dogs alone. Meanwhile, Muslims in the town pressed for regulation of dogs in public spaces and a complete ban on public transportation because the presence of dogs offended them and they claimed it violated their religious freedom.
Offended = Dhimmis must make accommodations.
In Canada, a man was arrested for walking his dog in a public park near where Muslims were having a pro-Palestinian-Jew-hating Al-Quds Day rally. Sometime afterwards the man received a threatening call: “We’re going to kill you, you dirty Jew.”
Offended, outraged, incited, and threatening.
Of course there is a simple dhimmi solution to all of this: Ban dogs. Which is precisely what a Muslim politician in the Netherlands wanted to do when he proposed banning all dogs at The Hague.
Canine jihad.
Islamic supremacy.
If it offends Islam, no one should be able to do it. There is no coexist, no live and let live, no getting along. Because Islam is a totalitarian ideology. And it targets every living thing.
With unbelievable savagery.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/islam_and_dogs.html#ixzz3p5evxenz
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
We need to be watchful and protect our religious liberty and rights from those who would take it all away from us
So Muslims DO kick puppies...
I'm not worried. My dogs are regularly groomed and very clean.
I know people that literally would die, or kill for their dogs. Seriously, their dogs are their family, and touch an emotional chord unlike any thing else in their lives. I am not kiddin', they would take a life if they felt their dogs were being threatened, and wouldn't even think twice about it.
I know people that literally would die, or kill for their dogs.
I would. If there is a speeding car coming down the street and I can only save my dog or an idiot in the street, I'll save my dog first even if I might die in the attempt.
Yup Randy, they are a member of our families.
I agree. There is still a place in my heart for every dog that has been in my life. I have a Shih-Tzu now named Harry who is almost 13 and another named Sally who is almost 11. I know I won't have them much longer and am already trying to prepare myself for their loss, but it's still very, very difficult to think of not to have them to hold. Harry is especially slow and grey and nearly blind, so I give him extra love and attention. He sleeps a lot more then the other dogs, so I have a feeling that one time he just won't wake up. It's a painful thought.
I've never eaten dog but one time a dog took a bite out of me !
"In Canada, a man was arrested for walking his dog in a public park near where Muslims were having a pro-Palestinian-Jew-hating Al-Quds Day rally. Sometime afterwards the man received a threatening call: “We’re going to kill you, you dirty Jew.”"
This happened in Toronto. As a Canadian I am embarrassed and ashamed that my country is becoming sharia-compliant, bowing and pandering to Islamists.
Canada: Man arrested for walking dog near Muslims in public park
This is sharia folks. via Blazing Cat Fur: Arrested for walking my dog… .
I would think that dog shit has many uses ... You don't even need to bring the dog with you .
What do cops use in Canada instead of drug sniffing dogs ? Or is this "restriction" only for islamic public events ?
Canada uses drug-sniffing and explosives sniffing dogs, Petey. Canada is hardly a third world country.
Buzz ,
My point in asking that question was to explore what they do in Canada if they suspect drugs in a crowd at an islamic public event . Got it ?
Sorry, Petey, I misunderstood. I didn't think they used dogs in crowd situations. Sense of smell is good enough. Usually they're found at airports, train stations and ports of entry. Then I suppose they are also used in warranted home/building inspections. Using a dog in a crowd situation would probably provoke problems.
Maybe they should "provoke problems" . Just a thought ...
Using dogs in a Muslim crowd would sure as hell provoke problems. If it's your intention to provoke problems, run a pig through the crowd.
I just took another look at the photos of the crowd in front of the Ontario government parliament building (I've been there many times, not for rallies), and noticed that it is a policeman (not dressed in riot gear) holding the dog, - a mistake for that particular crowd, I'd say.
Why do you think it is that this is the only minority that gets such a privilege ?
It's not a question of privilege - it's a question of keeping the peace.
That's kind of sad that law enforcement should be asked to respond differently to situations based on the make up of the people they are assigned to protect. If a dog has a legitimate law enforcement role in drug or bomb detection or as a part of a K-9 unit it should be used. It's not like the dog is being served up to be eaten or is going to touch anyone not having bomb or drugs on them or isn't running from and hiding from the police. The mere sight of them on patrol causing a reaction is simply irrational.
That's kind of sad that law enforcement should be asked to respond differently to situations based on the make up of the people they are assigned to protect. If a dog has a legitimate law enforcement role in drug or bomb detection or as a part of a K-9 unit it should be used. It's not like the dog is being served up to be eaten or is going to touch anyone not having bomb or drugs on them or isn't running from and hiding from the police. The mere sight of them on patrol causing a reaction is simply irrational.
I think the Muslim against over dogs is being exaggerated. In Islam, as in the Old Testament, dogs are considered unclean. Although they are not to be kept in houses (and all Muslims clearly don't adhere to that), they have always been accepted and used by Muslims as service/working animals such as herding, hunting, and guarding. Using a dog for police work is really no different than the traditional ways in which dogs have been acceptably used. I think police should take care not take a dog into a Muslim's home or get the dog's saliva on a Muslim's person/clothing but, otherwise, it doesn't violate the Koran (even if some Muslim extremists say it does).
The whole purpose of this thread is to insult and bash Muslims, that is always clear here.
Anyone who can't see that isn't really looking.
Ah, the wannabe great mind reader and diviner of others intent has spoken and is yet again wrong as is almost always the case.
The whole purpose of this thread is to insult and bash Muslims, that is always clear here.
Oh I don't think there is any doubt about that and anyone here who says otherwise is lying out of their ass and they know it.
I think the Muslim against over dogs is being exaggerated.
Here's a direct quote from the article :
Muslims in Malaysia are prohibited from having any contact with dogs because they are considered haram (forbidden).
Here's a direct quote from the article :
Muslims in Malaysia are prohibited from having any contact with dogs because they are considered haram (forbidden).
I'm aware that some Muslims think otherwise and said so. However, Muslims in Indonesia are no more the spokesman for Islam than the Hillbillies in West Virginia are for Christianity when they say the Bible endorses playing with poisonous snakes. Muslims have always been permitted to use dogs as service animals (even in the time of Muhammad) whether the Malaysians know it or not.
Perhaps you can explain why Canadian authorities felt it necessary to arrest a man for walking his dog near the islamic festival ?
How could I possibly explain that without knowledge of more facts? Was the man just peaceably walking by the crowd (It IS a public place), or did he deliberately try to provoke? The police did not book him, they just got him out of there (perhaps for his own safety) and then let him go. Did the police cuff him because he was resisting? There are too many things we don't know in order to answer that question, Petey.
How do you feel about this?
Sometime afterwards the man received a threatening call: “We’re going to kill you, you dirty Jew.”
A phone call? Was the man known by anyone at the demonstration? Did the man record that call as proof of a threat, or is what he reported the truth? Just too many unknowns here.
"Perhaps you can explain why Canadian authorities felt it necessary to arrest a man for walking his dog near the islamic festival ?"
Aha! Check out this line in the article I posted in a comment. "Well I was assaulted and returned the favor in kind." Returned the favour in kind? He was involved in a fight, and maybe the cops saw him hit someone - that would be reason enough to have arrested and cuffed him.
Obviously that article was in an American publication because of the "American" spelling of "favour".
Sorry Buzz ,
That question was not directed to you . And "1ofmany" decided to avoid an answer .
I have seen elsewhere that when posting a response to another, the writer puts "@" front of the addressed person's name first. i.e. "@ Buzz of the Orient:" Then there's no confusion. Due to the fact that on this site the comments go into a weird order it might be an idea for us to start doing that.
That question was not directed to you . And "1ofmany" decided to avoid an answer .
I thought the question (why the Canadians arrested a man for walking his dog) was rhetorical. The man decided to deliberately walk his large dog into a crowd of Muslims at an al-Quds event. Some people objected to the dog touching them (as he knew would happen) but he obviously intended to upset people because he later made no apology and said that he should be able to walk his dog in public whenever he chooses. He claims he was arrested for offending Islam but the police say it was because he was inciting a riot. The same thing would likely happen if he strolled into a MLK event wearing a KKK t-shirt and swinging a noose. Authorities often draw a line between free speech (including freedom of movement) and inciting a riot.
The same thing would likely happen if he strolled into a MLK event wearing a KKK t-shirt and swinging a noose.
Apparently it would have been OK to walk a dog in Malaysia ... no incitement there . Why is there incitement in Canada but not in Malaysia ?
Apparently it would have been OK to walk a dog in Malaysia ... no incitement there . Why is there incitement in Canada but not in Malaysia ?
Walking a dog and walking a dog through a crowd of Muslims are two different things. The latter might be a problem anywhere but a non-Muslim doing it at a Muslim event (coming in contact with Muslims) is likely to spark a fight. The guy who walked the dog knew it, the police knew it, and you know it.
You are not 1ofmany on this issue . You are all alone & very confused .
You are not 1ofmany on this issue . You are all alone & very confused.
If the "many" see it as you do, then I proudly stand alone as one.
If the "many" see it as you do, then I proudly stand alone as one.
You're still very confused ...
Perhaps you can explain why Canadian authorities felt it necessary to arrest a man for walking his dog near the islamic festival ?
And maybe you can explain these Malaysian police dogs.
The Saudis have no problem with working dogs.
Using a dog in a crowd situation would probably provoke problems.
It brings back too many memories when Bull Conner had his officers release viscous German Shepherds on a crowd protesting for the right to vote freely. In all crowd control situations, no matter the race or religion of the protesters or members of the crowd using dogs is always a bad idea. Always. They are the worst weapon a law enforcement agencies can use in any kind of crowd or crowd control for any reason, even to sniff for drugs or explosives. That is just a poor excuse to use them on Muslims. The obvious goal of using them is to make the Muslims angry, so why do it? The only answer is they were hoping to provoke the Muslims to break the law.
We are constantly told by the left that Muslims are soft and cuddly, and that any fears of sharia are ridiculous. Is the left ignorant or complicit in these lies.?
We are also constantly told by the right that Christians are soft and cuddly.
Does my little News Talkers group really worry you that much?
Worry? Lol, not in the least bit. It's just hilarious looking at your members, giving Jesus the finger.
Listen Hal, you know, I'm not sitting beside him, but I do have a seat up close to the front and God told me he use to cut fingers off, heck he use to cut hands off and Bruce is just giving you the finger to show you how far he has come over the years. LOL
Don't worry..... neither this one or the atheist group seem to be blowing the doors down to get in or out.
They are, especially in comparison to the Islamacists.
Muhammed said to kill dogs - big deal. Some people believe that the god of Abraham once murdered the world.
It's interesting that this comment draws dislikes. Denial much? It's an obvious fact that there are people, even right here on NT, that proudly admit they believe that the entire earth was once flooded to the highest mountain tops as a purposeful act of God, and that every human in every corner of the planet deserved to be a part of the massive death count that ensued.
Some people believe that the god of Abraham once murdered the world.
Your interpretation does not allow for any reasonable way of looking at things . I'd explain what I mean but you are only interested in your narrow POV . Why don't you put up a hate pieces against Santa Claus while your here ...
So there's a reasonable way of looking at the actions of the most prolific mass murderer if human history? (provided you believe in this bunk)
So, Petey - since you can square that circle, why don't you give us your reasonable explanation of Adolf Hitler too?
So there's a reasonable way of looking at the actions of the most prolific mass murderer if human history? (provided you believe in this bunk)
Your meaningless interpretation continues to expand . Putting the idea into the mind of Noah to save a few animals amounts to a prediction , not an act of destruction . DUH !
God drowned every man, woman, child, animal, bird and plant on the planet, except for a handful from every corner of the earth that somehow managed to find and get on a boat - and it was not an act of destruction ... got it.
That is your extremely harsh interpretation of things . You seem to favor the SoB model of god favored by muslims rather than the more enlightened model based on the Judeo/Christian concepts . Did you have an unhappy childhood ?
Oh, thanks for the heads up - I totally forgot to mention how snuffing out every life on earth because a few middle easterners were misbehaving is a very enlightening solution. Totally infallible too.
So you DID have an unhappy childhood ... it shows !
Thank you Dr. Coober - I think we've made a real breakthrough today!
Glad to have helped Hal !
All humanity had an opportunity to repent and they had an opportunity to hear the message about the flood. Noah preached it for 120 years as he was building the Ark. Humans who lived full lives then lived about 900 years. There were only a few generations from Adam and Eve to the flood.
" All humanity had an opportunity to repent and they had an opportunity to hear the message about the flood. Noah preached it for 120 years as he was building the Ark. Humans who lived full lives then lived about 900 years. There were only a few generations from Adam and Eve to the flood."
Feeling that all who believe in the Genesis account of our origins and early history are all off does not change the reality that it is the way it was.
We're not concerned with biblical history, we're concerned with NOW. This is the 21st century, and civilized people need to protect themselves from primitive circumstances.
Both the New Testament and the Koran are based on the Old Testament and all three incorporate a common view of dogs. If you want to understand Islam's view of dogs, you need only read how dogs are seen in the Bible. Dogs were scavengers, running wild in the streets. They ate whatever they could find including dead bodies. Although dogs were useful, they were universally despised. "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly" -- Proverbs 26:11. The "dogs came and licked his sores" (highlighting the foulness of the dog, not praising it for being helpful) -- Luke 16:19-31. Then there's Revelation 22:15, comparing dogs to sorcerers, the sexually immoral, murderers, and idolaters. Philippians 3.2 compares dogs to evildoers and cautions the righteous to look out for those who mutilate the flesh. Considering that dogs will eat feces, vomit, dead bodies, lick the sores of the diseased as well as lick each others asses so it's not really a surprise that they are despised in the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The more orthodox the Muslim, the more likely it is that he will find dogs offensive.
The fact that this thread has gone on for one week just tells me there is anti-Muslim bias on this site.
In any case, here is the way the general knowledge web site , about .com, describes Muslims relationship to dogs.
How Muslims Really Feel About Dogs
By Huda
Islam teaches its followers to be merciful to all creatures , and all form of animal cruelty is forbidden. Why then, do many Muslims seems to have such a problem with dogs?
Unclean
Most Muslim scholars agree that the saliva of a dog is ritually impure, and that contact with a dog's saliva requires one to wash seven times. This ruling comes from the hadith:
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "If a dog licks the vessel of any one of you, let him throw away whatever was in it and wash it seven times." (Reported by Muslim)It is to be noted, however, that one of the major Islamic schools of thought (Maliki) indicates that its not a matter of ritual cleanliness, but simply a common-sense method way to prevent the spread of disease.
There are several other hadith , however, which warn of consequences for dog-owners:
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat (a unit of measurement), unless it is a dog for farming or herding." In another report, it is said: "... unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting." (Reported by al-Bukhaari) The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or an animate picture." (Reported by Bukhari)Many Muslims base the prohibition against keeping a dog in one's home, except for the case of working or service dogs, on these traditions.
Companion Animals
Other Muslims argue that dogs are loyal creatures that are deserving of our care and companionship. They cite the story in the Quran (Surah 18) about a group of believers who sought shelter in a cave and were protected by their canine companion who was "outstretched in their midst."
Also in the Quran , it is specifically mentioned that any prey caught by hunting dogs may be eaten -- without any need for further purification. Naturally, the prey of a hunting dog comes into contact with the saliva of the dog; however this does not render the meat "impure."
"They consult you concerning what is lawful for them; say, Lawful for you are all good things, including what trained dogs and falcons catch for you. You train them according God's teachings. You may eat what they catch for you, and mention God's name thereupon. You shall observe God. God is most efficient in reckoning." -Quran 5:4There are also stories in Islamic tradition that tell of people who were forgiven their past sins through the mercy they showed towards a dog.
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that." The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "A man felt very thirsty while he was on the way, there he came across a well. He went down the well, quenched his thirst and came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. He said to himself, "This dog is suffering from thirst as I did." So, he went down the well again and filled his shoe with water and watered it. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him. (Reported by Bukhari)In another point of Islamic history, the Muslim army came across a female dog and her puppies while on a march. The Prophet, peace be upon him, posted a soldier nearby her with the orders that the mother and puppies must not be disturbed.
Based on these teachings, many people find that it is a matter of faith to be kind towards dogs, and that dogs can even be beneficial in the lives of human beings. Service animals, such as guide dogs or epilepsy dogs, are important companions to Muslims with disabilities . Working animals, such as guard dogs, hunting or herding dogs are useful and hard-working animals who have earned their place at their owner's side.
Middle Road of Mercy
It is a fundamental tenet of Islam that everything is permissible, except those things that have been explicitly banned. Based on this, most Muslims would agree that it is permissible to have a dog for the purpose of security, hunting, farming, or service to the disabled.
Many Muslims strike a middle ground about dogs -- allowing them for the purposes listed, but ensuring that the animals have their own space which does not overlap with human living spaces. Many would ensure that the dog is kept outdoors as much as possible, and at the very least is not allowed in areas where Muslims in the home pray. For hygienic reasons, when an individual comes into contact with dog saliva, one needs to wash.
Owning a pet is a huge responsibility, that Muslims will need to answer for on the Day of Judgment . Those who choose to have a dog must recognize the duty they undertake to provide food, shelter, training, exercise, and medical care for the animal. That said, most Muslims recognize that pets are not our "children," nor are they humans. One should keep things in perspective.
We must not let our misunderstandings about dogs lead us to neglect, mistreat, or harm them. The Quran describes pious people who had a dog living among them, and dogs are loyal and intelligent creatures that make excellent work and service animals. One must only be careful not to come into contact with the dog's saliva, and to keep its living area clean and away from any areas used for prayer.
Lack of Familiarity
In many countries, dogs are not commonly kept as pets. For some people, their only exposure to dogs may be packs of dogs that wander the streets or rural areas in packs. People who do not grow up around friendly dogs may develop a natural fear of them. They are not familiar with a dog's cues and behaviors, so a rambunctious animal that runs towards them is seen as aggressive, not playful.
Many Muslims who seem to "hate" dogs are really, therefore, simply afraid of them. They may make excuses ("I'm allergic") or emphasize the religious "uncleanliness" of dogs simply in order to avoid interacting with them.
@Johnrussell: Considering this was in the article you posted:
"Service animals, such as guide dogs or epilepsy dogs, are important companions to Muslims with disabilities. Working animals, such as guard dogs, hunting or herding dogs are useful and hard-working animals who have earned their place at their owner's side."
Don't you think it might be overzealous of bus and taxi drivers to refuse guide dogs of disabled persons? It is the law in Canada that those dogs cannot be excluded.
This is just an observation and a question to you, so PLEASE do not label it Islamophobia.
I don't like the actions of murderers either. I supposed I have a bias.
To go right along with the anti christian, anti republican, anti jewish, anti business, anti police biases prevalent on the site.
Don't forget anti-atheist....