i) From Bukhari Vol. 4, #540, narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: “Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.”
ii) From Bukhari Vol. 3, #515, narrated Abu Huraira: ‘Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle."…’
iii) From Abu Dawud Number 0704, narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: 'Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: “The Apostle of Allah said: ‘When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw.’…”
|Is that Alum Rock, Birmingham or is it Pakistan? Who can tell?|
According to Radio 4, there has been a 400% rise in dog-fighting in the last three years here in the UK.
Most of the dog-fighters are Muslim. BBC Radio 4, of course, referred to them as “British Asians”. (I wonder what British Japanese, Sikhs, Hindus, Koreans, Chinese, etc. think of that blatantly -wrong catch-all term?)
Apart from not mentioning Muslims, the same Radio 4 programme was otherwise very specific. Apparently there is a big problem in the Alum Rock area of Birmingham. Let me rephrase that.
There is a big problem in the Alum Rock Muslim ghetto of Birmingham.
So far 26 Muslim men have been convicted from this area alone.
But are all dog-fighters Muslim? Of course not! That would be a stupid claim. According to the RSPCA, only 98% of dog-fighters are Muslim. That’s not many – is it?
All this goes back to Muhammad's, and therefore the Muslims, dislike of dogs. I noticed this in Bradford even as a kid.
Most Muslims hate dogs simply because the Prophet Muhammad hated dogs. They sleep on their left (or their right?) side because Muhammad slept on his left side. And they also kill Jews because Muhammad killed Jews.
There is absolutely no doubt that some Muslim or other will cite other hadiths, or another “Islamic scholar” (what is an Islamic scholar?), which/who says that Muhammad simply adored dogs and even had sex with them. The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of words (probably millions) in the hadiths and elsewhere. Which ones are sacrosanct? If one Muslim argues against the abuse of dogs, why should we accept his word as being definitive of Islam - or of Muhammad’s views - if many other Muslims can cite the exact opposite? What decides the issue? What could decide the issue? There is no central authority in Islam – something which Muslims themselves stress and even cite that as a reason why Islam better than all other religions.
So there is no way Muhammad’s or Islam’s view on dogs can be formally established let alone acted and agreed upon.
None of this matters, really, because what does matter is the all Muslims regard Muhammad as an “exemplar”. That is, it is incumbent on all Muslim males to imitate the life and behaviour of Muhammad as much as they can – as much as is humanly possible. So if many Muslims accept “the Sunni view of dogs”, and how it sees Muhammad’s view of dogs, then they will imitate it. Simple as that! That’s what Muslims do. They parrot not only Muhammad’s views but also his behaviour.
The fact is that millions upon millions of Sunni Muslims do believe that Muhammad hated dogs and even saw the black ones as being “evil”. The parallel fact that a few Muslims don’t think he did so cannot amount to anything because there is no real way of deciding the issue. There are many hadiths and a multitude of Islamic scholars - all of which/whom say many contradictory things. And, again, because Islam, in many respects, is a free-for-all (except, perhaps, for a few fundamentals such as “Allah is One” and “Muhammad was his last prophet”), there are no conclusive or even justified Islamic arguments against brutality against dogs/animals/infidels/Jews/pigs - or, in fact, against Muslim dog-fighting.