"Muslims Should be Put Under Surveillance"

The sane folks know just how crazy Peter King is. This is par for the course from him and he's had a hard-on for the anti-muslim fervor for some time. This is no worse than what he said after 9/11 or the Fort Hood shootings.

@ Eupraxia: There are tons of non-Muslim countries that violate basic human rights... China, South Africa, Myanmar, 25+ African countries, etc.

Disgraceful statement if I may be honest.

As for Islamic Law, there is not a single country to which actually implement an IN CONTEXT Islamic Law, but a rehashed, warped and disproportionate version to which suits their autocratic needs and implementations. Sad.

Is it true Muslims aren't "allowed" to own dogs?


*Don't bring up Muslims that own dogs because I'm well aware anyone can own anything if they want to. I'm just wondering if that's something that's written somewhere that you are not supposed to own one.

Not "owned" just that having a dog in your own residence is extremely frowned upon, but you can keep dogs for other uses

From the things that the prophet Muhammad said (PBUH) in his lifetime, that the saliva of dogs was regarded as a filthy substance that should be avoided and which required extreme care to wash off. The prohet instructed people to wash plates licked by dogs with water many times as well as with dry sand (or dust) before they could be reused. Dogs were treated as filthy because of this

But alongside with this, are many hadiths that call for showing kindness to animals in general, including dogs, and the permissibility of keeping dogs for hunting, guarding, etc. It’s further reported that some of the Prophet’s companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, were in the habit of keeping animals for farming purposes or even for fun and pleasure.

So to clarify this confusion, we need to interpret those hadiths in the light of the Qur’an. The Qur'an makes it clear that there is no harm in eating animals grabbed by hunting dogs.

There is a hadith where the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Muhammad (pbuh) and didn't come on time. The Prophet (pbuh) found a stray dog in the room and put it out of the house. After, the angel appeared and when the Prophet (pbuh) asked about his being late, advised that he could not enter on account of the dog in the house.

So, Muslims almost never keep a dog in the house, since we WANT angels to come in, as they pray for us, etc.

ACMRox wrote:
1. Traditional Islam most definitely fits in the modern world, and in fact is better than most(fact) if not all (opinion) modern governments. History has proven this time, and time again. You really need to read up on Islamic history.

This is the exact reason why it's a problem. It shouldn't even be a government. It should be a religion.

El Shaarawy wrote:Not "owned" just that having a dog in your own residence is extremely frowned upon, but you can keep dogs for other uses

From the things that the prophet Muhammad said (PBUH) in his lifetime, that the saliva of dogs was regarded as a filthy substance that should be avoided and which required extreme care to wash off. The prohet instructed people to wash plates licked by dogs with water many times as well as with dry sand (or dust) before they could be reused. Dogs were treated as filthy because of this

But alongside with this, are many hadiths that call for showing kindness to animals in general, including dogs, and the permissibility of keeping dogs for hunting, guarding, etc. It’s further reported that some of the Prophet’s companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, were in the habit of keeping animals for farming purposes or even for fun and pleasure.

So to clarify this confusion, we need to interpret those hadiths in the light of the Qur’an. The Qur'an makes it clear that there is no harm in eating animals grabbed by hunting dogs.

There is a hadith where the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Muhammad (pbuh) and didn't come on time. The Prophet (pbuh) found a stray dog in the room and put it out of the house. After, the angel appeared and when the Prophet (pbuh) asked about his being late, advised that he could not enter on account of the dog in the house.

So, Muslims almost never keep a dog in the house, since we WANT angels to come in, as they pray for us, etc.

Ah thanks for the insight!

VivaStPauli wrote:

ACMRox wrote:
1. Traditional Islam most definitely fits in the modern world, and in fact is better than most(fact) if not all (opinion) modern governments. History has proven this time, and time again. You really need to read up on Islamic history.

This is the exact reason why it's a problem. It shouldn't even be a government. It should be a religion.

Why?

ACMRox wrote:
1. Traditional Islam most definitely fits in the modern world, and in fact is better than most(fact) if not all (opinion) modern governments. History has proven this time, and time again. You really need to read up on Islamic history.

Traditional Islam has failed in the modern world (and if you don't consider countries under Sharia law traditional Islam then provide reason to why not) or has never been tested.

And about dog's saliva, it actually possess healing properties, so we can consider either that hadith is bullshit or the most likely part, Muhammed was never told anything about this and simply took a guess which turned out to be wrong.

Eupraxia wrote:

ACMRox wrote:
1. Traditional Islam most definitely fits in the modern world, and in fact is better than most(fact) if not all (opinion) modern governments. History has proven this time, and time again. You really need to read up on Islamic history.

Traditional Islam has failed in the modern world (and if you don't consider countries under Sharia law traditional Islam then provide reason to why not) or has never been tested.

And about dog's saliva, it actually possess healing properties, so we can consider either that hadith is bullshit or the most likely part, Muhammed was never told anything about this and simply took a guess which turned out to be wrong.

potential tough you very well, here, get yourself educated
http://www.vetinfo.com/myths-facts-dog-saliva.html#b

A lengthy excerpt from an article by the German scientist, Dr. Gerard Finstimer, (translated from the German magazine: Kosinos) in which the author sheds light on the dangers to human health, resulting from keeping dogs or coming in contact with them. He says:

‘The increasing interest shown by many people in recent times in keeping dogs as pets has compelled us to draw public attention to the dangers, which result from this, especially because pet dogs are hugged and kissed and permitted to lick the hands of the young and the old, and what is worse, to lick the plates and utensils, which are used by human beings for eating and drinking.

Besides being unhygienic and uncouth, this practice is bad manners and abhorrent to good taste. However, we are not concerned with such matters, leaving them to be addressed by teachers of etiquette and good taste. Rather this article is intended to present some scientific observations.

From the medical point of view, which is our main concern here, the hazards to human health and life from keeping and playing with dogs are not to be ignored. Many people have paid a high price for their ignorance, as the tapeworm carried by dogs is a cause of chronic disease, sometimes resulting in death.

This worm is found in man, in cattle, and in pigs. But it is found in fully developed form only in dogs, wolves and rarely in cats. These worms differ from others in that they are minute and invisible.



Source: http://books.google.com.qa/books?id=hefdXNMKDQoC&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=gerard+finstimer&source=bl&ots=6FGNx_xoi9&sig=ewp5Tp2zIjuEUNFAmuSyzFw2t_Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LiiAUfLkJIbTrQfnw4DgBw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ

roughly half of the world's human population is infected with the mostly dormant, but potentially lethal cat-originating toxoplasma gondii parasite so you REALLY don't want to go into "scientific justification" why owning dogs is bad...

El Shaarawy wrote:Not "owned" just that having a dog in your own residence is extremely frowned upon, but you can keep dogs for other uses

From the things that the prophet Muhammad said (PBUH) in his lifetime, that the saliva of dogs was regarded as a filthy substance that should be avoided and which required extreme care to wash off. The prohet instructed people to wash plates licked by dogs with water many times as well as with dry sand (or dust) before they could be reused. Dogs were treated as filthy because of this

But alongside with this, are many hadiths that call for showing kindness to animals in general, including dogs, and the permissibility of keeping dogs for hunting, guarding, etc. It’s further reported that some of the Prophet’s companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, were in the habit of keeping animals for farming purposes or even for fun and pleasure.

So to clarify this confusion, we need to interpret those hadiths in the light of the Qur’an. The Qur'an makes it clear that there is no harm in eating animals grabbed by hunting dogs.

There is a hadith where the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Muhammad (pbuh) and didn't come on time. The Prophet (pbuh) found a stray dog in the room and put it out of the house. After, the angel appeared and when the Prophet (pbuh) asked about his being late, advised that he could not enter on account of the dog in the house.

So, Muslims almost never keep a dog in the house, since we WANT angels to come in, as they pray for us, etc.

This just translates to: Some people said that some people told them that when mohammed was alive he wasnt too keen on dogs

There is no mention of this in the Koran nor is there any scientific reason for this, just hearsay.

Which is exactly why traditional islam is a failure.

ACMRox wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

ACMRox wrote:
1. Traditional Islam most definitely fits in the modern world, and in fact is better than most(fact) if not all (opinion) modern governments. History has proven this time, and time again. You really need to read up on Islamic history.

This is the exact reason why it's a problem. It shouldn't even be a government. It should be a religion.

Why?

Because Religion isn't rooted in reality, or reason, and therefor shouldn't influence spheres of public living, that should be governed rationally. You can believe whatever you want, but when you influence millions of lives, you shouldn't believe anything, and go with facts.

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:Not "owned" just that having a dog in your own residence is extremely frowned upon, but you can keep dogs for other uses

From the things that the prophet Muhammad said (PBUH) in his lifetime, that the saliva of dogs was regarded as a filthy substance that should be avoided and which required extreme care to wash off. The prohet instructed people to wash plates licked by dogs with water many times as well as with dry sand (or dust) before they could be reused. Dogs were treated as filthy because of this

But alongside with this, are many hadiths that call for showing kindness to animals in general, including dogs, and the permissibility of keeping dogs for hunting, guarding, etc. It’s further reported that some of the Prophet’s companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, were in the habit of keeping animals for farming purposes or even for fun and pleasure.

So to clarify this confusion, we need to interpret those hadiths in the light of the Qur’an. The Qur'an makes it clear that there is no harm in eating animals grabbed by hunting dogs.

There is a hadith where the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Muhammad (pbuh) and didn't come on time. The Prophet (pbuh) found a stray dog in the room and put it out of the house. After, the angel appeared and when the Prophet (pbuh) asked about his being late, advised that he could not enter on account of the dog in the house.

So, Muslims almost never keep a dog in the house, since we WANT angels to come in, as they pray for us, etc.

This just translates to: Some people said that some people told them that when mohammed was alive he wasnt too keen on dogs

There is no mention of this in the Koran nor is there any scientific reason for this, just hearsay.

Which is exactly why traditional islam is a failure.

Not everything has to be from the Qur'an...

People deciphered from information Hadiths, which sheds light on countless of matters

"Traditional Islam is a failure"

People percieve Western cultures/religions as far more humane than the bloodthirsty Muslims

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:

-No killing of women, children or innocents

-No wanton killing of livestock or other animals;

-No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and

-No destruction of wells.

But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad's death, is that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor established the existing rules and made them the standard for his army. Which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe showed a degree of toleration which puts many religious nations to shame

So while Christian crusaders were beheading enemies and tossing their heads like carnival prizes, the Muslims had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies.

"Traditional Islam is a failure"
If you wish to believe so, then i cant do anything about that

El Shaarawy wrote:

"Traditional Islam is a failure"
If you wish to believe so, then i cant do anything about that

can you name one country that currently employ "traditional islam", whatever the hell that is, as a governing method?

if not, "traditional islam" is by definition a failure as a political system, just like communism

I wasn't talking about traditional Islam in a political sense, i was stating the moral/ethics of it

so the boston bombers were denied visa to visit Mecca, a holy place where muslims do their pilgrims.

Saudi: we consider US reverts as a threat to our country.

call me ignorant but I agree with that. not only US but most western countries where non muslims convert to Islam. They just don't understand the full meaning of their religion the same way other muslims who have been taught by well educated parents/teachers

El Shaarawy wrote:

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:Not "owned" just that having a dog in your own residence is extremely frowned upon, but you can keep dogs for other uses

From the things that the prophet Muhammad said (PBUH) in his lifetime, that the saliva of dogs was regarded as a filthy substance that should be avoided and which required extreme care to wash off. The prohet instructed people to wash plates licked by dogs with water many times as well as with dry sand (or dust) before they could be reused. Dogs were treated as filthy because of this

But alongside with this, are many hadiths that call for showing kindness to animals in general, including dogs, and the permissibility of keeping dogs for hunting, guarding, etc. It’s further reported that some of the Prophet’s companions, may Allah be pleased with them all, were in the habit of keeping animals for farming purposes or even for fun and pleasure.

So to clarify this confusion, we need to interpret those hadiths in the light of the Qur’an. The Qur'an makes it clear that there is no harm in eating animals grabbed by hunting dogs.

There is a hadith where the Angel Gabriel was supposed to visit Muhammad (pbuh) and didn't come on time. The Prophet (pbuh) found a stray dog in the room and put it out of the house. After, the angel appeared and when the Prophet (pbuh) asked about his being late, advised that he could not enter on account of the dog in the house.

So, Muslims almost never keep a dog in the house, since we WANT angels to come in, as they pray for us, etc.

This just translates to: Some people said that some people told them that when mohammed was alive he wasnt too keen on dogs

There is no mention of this in the Koran nor is there any scientific reason for this, just hearsay.

Which is exactly why traditional islam is a failure.

Not everything has to be from the Qur'an...

People deciphered from information Hadiths, which sheds light on countless of matters

"Traditional Islam is a failure"

People percieve Western cultures/religions as far more humane than the bloodthirsty Muslims

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:

-No killing of women, children or innocents

-No wanton killing of livestock or other animals;

-No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and

-No destruction of wells.

But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad's death, is that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor established the existing rules and made them the standard for his army. Which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe showed a degree of toleration which puts many religious nations to shame

So while Christian crusaders were beheading enemies and tossing their heads like carnival prizes, the Muslims had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies.

"Traditional Islam is a failure"
If you wish to believe so, then i cant do anything about that

Yes, someone saying that someone told them that mohammed said something should be held as irrefutable religious scripture.............right

Why was the hadith not compiled in the early years of islam? Why didnt most of his companions memorize it like they did the quran?

Btw, jesus was not a war lord

They were compiled, just that it was a few years after, during the Caliphs


1. Muhammad b. Ismail al Bukhari, (194 A.H.-256 A.H.): Sahih. This work is next to the Quran in authenticity.

2. Muslim bin Qushairi (204 A.H.-261 A.H.): Sahih. This is the next most important work on Hadith.

3. Ibn Majah (202 A.H.-275 A.H.): Sunan

4. Abu Isa al Tirmizi (209 A.H.-279 A.H.): Jame

5. Abu Abdur Rahman an Nasai (214 A.H.-303 A.H.): Sunan

6. Abu Da‘ud (202 A.H.-275 A.H.): Sunan

6 compilations by the people who were trusted by Muhammed (pbuh)

El Shaarawy wrote:They were compiled, just that it was a few years after, during the Caliphs


1. Muhammad b. Ismail al Bukhari, (194 A.H.-256 A.H.): Sahih. This work is next to the Quran in authenticity.

2. Muslim bin Qushairi (204 A.H.-261 A.H.): Sahih. This is the next most important work on Hadith.

3. Ibn Majah (202 A.H.-275 A.H.): Sunan

4. Abu Isa al Tirmizi (209 A.H.-279 A.H.): Jame

5. Abu Abdur Rahman an Nasai (214 A.H.-303 A.H.): Sunan

6. Abu Da‘ud (202 A.H.-275 A.H.): Sunan

6 compilations by the people who were trusted by Muhammed (pbuh)

Those are all 200+ years after wards bro pretty sure that is not considered a "few years", Im also pretty sure Mohammed didnt know any of those people either btw

The compilations were made with the consent and help of Caliphs after the Prophet's death, those people were the ones that "organized" should i say, the Hadiths

El Shaarawy wrote:I wasn't talking about traditional Islam in a political sense, i was stating the moral/ethics of it

and? that doesn't change anything

if "traditional islam" isn't practiced anywhere (though taliban certainly are doing their best) then its moral/ethical code is a failure since it didn't survive the presence of other moral/ethical codes

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

Yes, someone saying that someone told them that mohammed said something should be held as irrefutable religious scripture.............right

Why was the hadith not compiled in the early years of islam? Why didnt most of his companions memorize it like they did the quran?

Btw, jesus was not a war lord

Hadith compiled by Prophet Muhammad's family was around the time he was alive


and thanks captain obvious

El Shaarawy wrote:The compilations were made with the consent and help of Caliphs after the Prophet's death, those people were the ones that "organized" should i say, the Hadiths

This is not true according to many accounts, hadith was compiled under later ummayed kings and preached by their clerics

Umar banned the compilation of hadith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Umar%27s_ban_on_hadith

Yuri Yukuv wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:The compilations were made with the consent and help of Caliphs after the Prophet's death, those people were the ones that "organized" should i say, the Hadiths

This is not true according to many accounts, hadith was compiled under later ummayed kings and preached by their clerics

Umar banned the compilation of hadith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Umar%27s_ban_on_hadith

I have no information of that, what i relay was what i had been taught in my school years...