Old Persian Saying: “It only takes one stray dog to ruin the saffron water for a whole village.”
“Salahuddin mosque are bracing for protests today (Sept 14) as part of “Walk Your Dog in Front of a Mosque Day.”
The event is being organized by supporters of a man who claims Muslim protestors kicked his English mastiff, Cupcake, during an anti-Israel rally last month.
While claiming that they wanted to draw attention to Muslim attitudes toward dogs, the organizers’ Facebook page is replete with hostilities. One man wrote that he would throw protestors into a “lake of fire” and shoot their dogs, and the event has been promoted on a white supremacist website,.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/islam-on-dogs-can-you-be-_n_1885580.html
According to Islaamic Sharee’ah, it is not permitted to keep a dog except within narrowly-defined limits, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained: “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.” According to another report: “. . . unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, 2322)
Dogs are extremely naajis (impure, unclean). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a dog drinks from the vessel of any one of you, let him wash it seven times” (reported by Muslim, no. 279). According to another report: “. . . and clean it the eighth time with earth.” (Saheeh Muslim, no. 280).
It is forbidden in Islaam to sell a dog and to receive payment for it, as is reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari from Abu Mas’oud al-Ansaari: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade (accepting) the price of a dog. (al-Fath, no. 2237)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us not to resemble dogs by placing our forearms on the ground during sujood (prostration), as in reported in the hadeeth narrated by Anas ibn Maalik, according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do sujood properly; none of you should spread his forearms like a dog does.” (al-Bukhaari, Fath, no. 822).
Whoever keeps a dog in his house is denied the blessing of the angels’ presence in his house, as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3225). https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081223090814AAKGBdK
Muhammad made strange and harsh statements about dogs and these edicts affect dogs in a tragic way. His teachings may have come from cultural bias, Pagan concepts, or his own imagination, but wherever they came from they led to the cruel treatment of dogs.
None of the statements regarding dogs are found in the Quran but they abound in the various collections of traditions (hadith). These traditions are a primary foundation of Islamic theology and are the basis of many Islamic laws. They render dogs as “impure” and worse. Per Muhammad’s orders most dogs were to be killed and all dogs of a specific color (black) had to be killed.
Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God and as such his word was to be obeyed. With the teeth of Islam biting worldwide it is vital that Muhammad’s teachings be scrutinized to determine if he were a nut or a prophet. http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dogs.htm
Shaytan as a “whisperer”
In Islamic theology, Shaytan and his minions are “whisperers,” who whisper into the chests of men and women, urging them to commit sin. This is where the desire to sin comes from, according to Islam.
They are from both men and jinn.
The Quran provides a supplication for mankind, aimed at fighting the tempting of Satan and his minions:
Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind,
The King (or Ruler) of Mankind,
The God (or judge) of Mankind,-
From the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper),-
(The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind,-
Among Jinn and among men.
JEWISH ATTITUDES TOWARDS DOGS
It is important to remember that the Jewish people repeatedly escaped from the Persians and were repeatedly recaptured and re-educated by the Persians.
Jewish people are very good at concealing the fact that dogs are not part of the definition but they are a part of the connotation, this is known and concealed.
“But he kept telling her, “First let the children be filled. It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the puppies.” Mark 7:27
Jesus here uses the term “little dogs” to lessen the insult to the gentiles.
DOGS IN THE HINDU RELIGION
Dogs have a major religious significance among the Hindus in Nepal also in India particularly in Mithlanchal, North Bengal and Sikkim. The dogs are worshipped as a part of a five-day Tihar festival that falls roughly in November every year. In Hinduism, it is believed that dogs guard the doors of Heaven and Hell. This is a day when the dog is worshipped by applying tika (the holy vermilion dot), incense sticks and garlanded generally with marigold flower.Sarama, the female dog of the gods, is described as the mother of all dogs.
The dog (Shvan) is also the vahana or mount of the Hindu god Bhairava. Yudhisthira had approached heaven with his dog, therefore among many Hindus, the common belief exists that caring for dogs can also pave way to heaven. ~WIKIPEDIA
REMEMBER TO THAT THERE WAS A BLACK DOG CULT OF INDIA ABOUT WHICH STILL LITTLE IS KNOWN.
“Anubis (/əˈnuːbəs/ or /əˈnjuːbəs/; Ancient Greek: Ἄνουβις) is the Greek name for a jackal-headed godassociated with mummification and the afterlife in ancient Egyptian religion. According to the Akkadian transcription in the Amarna letters, Anubis’ name was vocalized in Egyptian as Anapa. The oldest known mention of Anubis is in theOld Kingdom pyramid texts, where he is associated with the burial of the pharaoh. At this time, Anubis was the most important god of the dead but he was replaced during the Middle Kingdom by Osiris.
He takes names in connection with his funerary role, such as He who is upon his mountain, which underscores his importance as a protector of the deceased and their tombs,” ~wikipedia
IN ANCIENT GREECE
Origin of the Cynic name ~WIKIPEDIA
The name Cynic derives from Ancient Greek κυνικός (kynikos), meaning “dog-like”, and κύων (kyôn), meaning “dog” (genitive: kynos). One explanation offered in ancient times for why the Cynics were called dogs was because the first Cynic, Antisthenes, taught in the Cynosarges gymnasium at Athens. The word Cynosargesmeans the place of the white dog. It seems certain, however, that the word dog was also thrown at the first Cynics as an insult for their shameless rejection of conventional manners, and their decision to live on the streets. Diogenes, in particular, was referred to as the Dog, a distinction he seems to have revelled in, stating that “other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them.” Later Cynics also sought to turn the word to their advantage, as a later commentator explained:
There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between its friends and enemies. So do they recognize as friends those who are suited to philosophy, and receive them kindly, while those unfitted they drive away, like dogs, by barking at them.
ATTITUDES ON DOGS IN ROME
I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models. Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded. People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win. So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns. When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.
The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples. What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt. Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.
So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them. So what does this mean for the near future? Society is about to get a divorce? No, much much worse. The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust. And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science. And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet. If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly. I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.
Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric. What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist. He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science. What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion. He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good. And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields. What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.
This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t. Socrates was accused of being an atheist. So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful? Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government. There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is. Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego. He wants to be worshiped. He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.
When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.
“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail. Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent. You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights. They are amoral systems. Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new. What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.
Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists. It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it. Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right? If you survive or succeed you are the fittest. Evolution works!
But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.
“Since Hitchens evidently dosen’t take himself seriously, there’s no reason for anyone to…” Noam Chomsky
How many of you know that Noam Chomsky was the mentor to Christopher Hitchens? I will say this about Hitchens, I respect him for his honest portrayal in “THE RIGHTS OF MAN” of Thomas Paine. In a way Hitchens kind of falsifies his own perspective in describing the journey of Paine from vehement atheist to deist. Paine helped in the French Revolution and he was almost killed in the French Revolution by Atheists, he was saved by an accident as a matter of fact. You see, Paine was sitting in his prison cell with the door open, the stupid person that was to mark the door for the order in which he was to be executed painted the number on the inside of the door, and then the door was closed later, since he was to be executed he might try to abscond, so it would be prudent to close the fucking door. But when they started chopping off everyone’s heads they got to him and his door didn’t have a number and for some reason Thomas Paine, like the chicken shit he was didn’t tell him, “HEY GUISE, I AM NUMBER 13, ITS IN HERE IF YOU WANT TO SEE!”So the dickless wonder survived and came to the united states and realized that a modicrum of grace was needed in the American revolution, he blamed the godlessness of the atheists in France for the violence of the revolution over there and wanted to prevent a repeat in the good old United States.
Hitchens hints at a subject that I myself have discovered. There is no way to use science to make a positive rational assertion for why human beings should have inalienable rights, likewise there is no way to use evolution to do the same. In fact it is quite possible to use both to do the opposite. The only way that you can make a positive rational assertion for why human beings should have inalienable rights is if you posit god in some form. You have to assume some authority some universal law to which all people are beholding and then you can have human rights.
- Christopher Hitchens – The Party (believervsnonbelievers.wordpress.com)
- Christopher Hitchens is not a liar (3quarksdaily.com)
- Christopher Hitchens on mortality (maphead.wordpress.com)
- Remembering Christopher Hitchens (hitchensamiswrites.wordpress.com)
- The Resurrection of Brian Griffin (ignosticatheist.wordpress.com)
- What Hitchens got wrong: Abolishing religion won’t fix anything (salon.com)
- Zacharias and Hitchens Offer Clarity (sealedministries.wordpress.com)
- Christopher Hitchens faces posthumous ‘prosecution’ in new book (3quarksdaily.com)
- A dose of reality about Christopher Hitchens, RIP… (insightscoop.typepad.com)
I don’t hate the guy, I hate what he is doing and why he is doing it. First of all let me explain something to you…
There are things that as a scientist Dawkins can’t say, because science has a praxis and he can’t say anything that isn’t provable and peer reviewable. So he can’t speak with the authority of science and say that he is absolutely certain that god doesn’t exist, but that is his conceit.
I know how emotional antitheists are so let me just say I am not a theist, I am a deist, I believe in god as the faculty of reason in man. Before the misotheists turn into raging poop throwing monsters and do something stupid.
Going back to this concept of what can and cannot be said, Dawkins cannot knowingly make a logical fallacy, but apparently he can invite his disciples to do it. And lets make no mistake, they are disciples.
He uses the Scarlett Letter as a tacit conflation of the relationship between religion and science, feminizing science and inviting his histrionic cult to feel victimized, persecuted, and ostracized by religion. So you see, he is making a covert emotional appeal and he is not trying to indoctrinate his congregation to understand logic or debate. He is perfectly ok with them making logical errors as long as they are in his own favor.
Earlier in his career Dawkins was much more animated in his interviews, flashing microexpressions of contempt and disgust until he went on Bill Maher with Neil De Grasse Tyson who reminded him assuming he knew it in the first place that science is done analytically, not emotionally. So when he was screaming with his face like he was beheading a gorgon he was misrepresenting science and acting like a fool. Which brings up a salient point.
Dawkins is also trying to conflate religious thinking with insanity. That is the hidden subject in the “the god delusion“, which yes, I have read. Belief is required in knowledge to. In order for it to be knowledge it has to be justified, true, and believed, and you can try to tell me that the justified, true, and believed rubric isn’t used anymore but let me ask you this, When was the last time you tried to walk through a wall? You believe the wall is solid, you don’t keep trying to prove it to yourself, belief shapes our world. You believe in scientific authority so you listen to it and obey it.
Secondly, am I delusional if I believe that god is the faculty of reason in man? Lets see how Richard Dawkins sets up his defence and offence in his arguments.
Hmmm, it seems I have lost the debate before it even began because I have to argue for the stupidest religious people in order to win and all he has to do is humiliate the stupidest religious people, which brings us to our next case in point…..
I feel like I slam dunked that one. Lets move on.
Ouch! Kind of a one sided victory. I feel like I am having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Dawkins would lose a debate with me, badly. As a matter of fact, he has lost debates, and there are people that he refuses to debate because he knows he will lose. I heard a female british philosophy professor say it succinctly, and I can’t remember her name, “whether god exists or not is a question for philosophy not for science.” and yes she was speaking specifically about Dawkins. Dawkins is not a smart man, he is a greedy stupid man, he is trying to set himself up as a rockstar of science as a martyr for science, he is in relationship with his legacy and he is turning science into a religion. He is evangelizing and proselytizing science. Science wasn’t meant for stupid people, stop selling it to them. Science is for the people that are logical and rational and come to it. It isn’t for the cheer leaders of science.
Dawkins is the smartest man that stupid antitheists and misotheists are capable of understanding. He is not considered smart in any other part of the world. There are over 10 french philosophers that would rip him to shreds, and we don’t even have to go out of our way to find someone much smarter than Dawkins. The problem is that the smartest person they are capable of sympathising with is the authority. But you forgot to factor something into your interpretations and judgments, the fact that you are a complete imbecile. You can’t evaluate a person that is much much smarter than you which is why Noam Chomsky doesn’t have a huge american following….
- What’s wrong with Richard Dawkins? (lifesitenews.com)
- Richard Dawkins outraged after airport security confiscates jar of honey, says “Bin Laden has won” (salon.com)
- Richard Dawkins calls Twitter users idiots as he continues rant about confiscated honey (metro.co.uk)
- Richard Dawkins Perplexed by High Number of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners (algemeiner.com)
- Richard Dawkins Talks Religion, Science, and Why He Thinks Obama’s an Atheist with Bill Maher (mediaite.com)
- Q&A: Richard Dawkins discusses evolution, religion and his fans | Los Angeles Times (richarddawkins.net)