START A PETITION37,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

Muslim Police Officer Murders Dog

Society & Culture  (tags: abuse, activists, americans, corruption, crime, culture, death, children, dishonesty, education, ethics, family, freedoms, government, humans, law, media, murder, news, police, politics, religion, rights, sadness, safety, society, usa, violence )

- 1436 days ago -
Hostility to dogs is deeply ingrained in Muslim culture. Muhammad said that a dog passing in front of a man who was praying would invalidate his prayer (so would a woman passing in front of him, which is why women pray behind men at mosques).

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Dalia H (1280)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 3:59 pm
Awww! That's so sad and unfair. Besides, he killed his Precious Angel, he got a citation for let the dogs at large...How sad and cruel...:(
Noted with sadness and thanks for sharing with Us. Stay Blessed you and yours!
Much LOVE and Light
B.D ♥

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 4:10 pm
This is an example of more than just police brutality. This is a Muslim given a gun and practicing Islamic hatred of dogs.

While it is true that there are non-Muslim police criminals, like the one from a few years back in the US who murdered the family dog in front of the family, the fact that Islam teaches hatred for dogs leads one to conclude that this is more than just some random criminal police officer. With unchecked Muslim immigration, what will happen to accountability when Muslims hold power? Who will we complain to when the Chief of Police or Mayor is a practicing Muslim? Forbid it that we let Muslims run animal shelters!

This Muslim "police officer" kicked at the dog. Is it any wonder the dog kept on barking at him? Then he calmly and coldly executed the disabled man's dog. This Muslim could have and SHOULD have retreated to his vehicle and called Animal Control, and in fact, A/C is the agency to call when dogs are running loose in a neighborhood, but apparently the Muslim cop had to do away with the animal he considers unclean, AND then he hollered and screamed at the old, disabled dog's owner.

For those who are unaware of Islam's hatred of dogs, because Muhammad hated them, please read the many citations below from the most authoritative books in Islam:

“Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, ‘We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.’” — Sahih Bukhari 4.54.50

“Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” — Sahih Muslim 3811

“Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.” — Sahih Muslim 551

"Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad mood. Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: You promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields or big gardens". - Sahih Muslim #5248

This Hadith tell the story of Muhammad's order to kill dogs. Muhammad said he would like to have all dogs killed. He wanted them killed, NOT because packs of dogs were tormenting the citizens of Medina or the commonly told lie that the dogs had rabies, but rather because a puppy stopped the "mighty" angel Jibril. Muhammad’s solution was to kill the dogs. He first said he wanted all dogs killed but then made exceptions for dogs that are used for farming, hunting, or watching (outside). Further, he ordered that all black dogs be killed and called them "a Satan". Muhammad had contempt for the color black, yet so many black people follow Islam...if they only knew.

All dog lovers MUST speak out against the hatred of dogs mandated in Islam. Muhammad is referred to 91 times in the Qur'an as the perfect example Muslims must follow. This Muslim cop was using his gun to practice his dog-hating religion. Any Muslim who takes Islam and Muhammad seriously is a potentially dangerous individual. If you love dogs, speak out against Islam. This dog murder took place in America. Such animal cruelty and worse occurs all the time in Muslim countries, which have little to NO animal protection laws. And why would they have law to protect dogs? Muhammad, after all, hated dogs.

All dog lovers MUST condemn Islam for teaching murder of dogs.

Dalia H (1280)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 4:20 pm
And All Muslims Say: "Islam is the Religion of LOVE" Then, why they hide behind their religion for doing everything they do and want?????
Unbelievable!!! :( :( :(
I hope this poor man make a Sue against this police officer and the department in which he is working for.

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 5:25 pm
@ Dalia - yes, Islam is the religion of hate. When they hate women, dogs, all non-Muslims, and even other Muslims, that is Islam. So actually Muslims don't hide behind their religion to act violently, that is their religion to be violent and hateful. Any peaceful Muslim is either unaware that Islam is hateful or they try to pretend that Islam is peaceful, or they know it is violent and want to spread the lie that it is peaceful so people end up not knowing how dangerous Islam is to you and your loved ones.

Please share this important story with your care2 friends. Islam is dangerous to animals, to women, to everybody.

Dalia H (1280)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 6:08 pm
My Beloved, Rahman: I have been working on Facebook on my page. Helping there signing petitions and causes. I have many friends that are Muslims and some of them are very Kind but the majority, are sort of grouchy (not all of them) But, I have noticed that they like to be violent, offensive with their language, they are all the time restricting their women in everything they do, such as: they have to use Hijab all the time, not to wear jeans, not to dress so pretty, not to use make-up and etc., etc.,
Some of the men, even they are married, but they are hitting on other women and sending nasty pictures in the Inbox. See, it is for that I say, they are hiding behind their religion.
Too bad and ugly thing. I agree with you in this: "So actually Muslims don't hide behind their religion to act violently, that is their religion to be violent and hateful."


Rahman Qureshi (76)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 7:00 pm
You're right Dalia. There are kind Muslims, but they fall into the category of: a) ignorant about Islam or b) knowing Islam is evil and trying to pretend it isn't. Half of my family members are Muslim, but they aren't real Muslims according to Islam. My close friend from Pakistan (she's so sweet I ended up falling in love with her, but she doesn't feel the same way) and her entire family are Muslim, but they are not nice because of Islam, rather in spite of Islam.

According to the Qur'an, no Muslim can be your friend:

Sura 5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Notice it is addressed to those who believe in Islam, that means Muslims. Muslims are not to genuinely be friends with us non-Muslims. Yet you and I have Muslim friends. That means your Muslim friends are not following Islam by genuinely being friends with you. It is not my interpretation, it is what the Qur'an is saying.

That isn't the only place in the Qur'an which tells Muslims to not be friends with us. Here is Sura 3:28 and the interpretation of that verse from top Islamic scholar In Kathir:

"Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them."

and the interpretation reads:

...meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "THE TUQYAH IS ALLOWED UNTIL THE DAY OF RESURRECTION."

Dalia, did you see the part about smiling in our face even though their hearts curse us? This is why it is hard to tell if a Muslim is really your friend. If they are ignorant of such teachings, then they don't know what Islam teaches and because of that then they can be genuinely friendly to you. In other words, if a Muslim is genuinely friends with you, they are not Muslim, whether they know it or not.

In fact, Muslims have to turn on their own parents if their parents are not Muslim:

Qur'an 9:23 "O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust."


Stan B (123)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 8:36 pm
What an absolute unmitigated moron!! That dog would have had a lot more love to give to the world than this murdering thug.

Madhuri Pillai (22)
Sunday February 16, 2014, 10:14 pm
Not surprised!

Giana Peranio-paz (398)
Monday February 17, 2014, 12:17 am
And what about that poor dog held captive in Afghanistan? This is just so stupid and ignorant!

. (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 5:16 am
Muslim is a hateful religion anyway.Is there a petition?I will sign it if there is.

Shil O (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 7:48 am
This dog was not a threat - it was simply warning off a stranger in its territory and dogs have also a sixth sense about people and obviously recognised this muslim for what he was. For what its worth they (muslims) have no trouble doing the same thing to non muslims all over the middle east

Muslims have no place in a modern western police force


Ann B (25)
Monday February 17, 2014, 9:28 am
This is so wicked and vicious, sorry but anyone with a gun standing there and seeing that would kill the cop.

Ana MESNER (201)
Monday February 17, 2014, 9:45 am
Well I don't care what religion he is. Fire him because he murdered the dog.


June Bostock (50)
Monday February 17, 2014, 10:00 am
Muslims have no place in Christian countries. Somebody should have shot that cop.

Past Member (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 11:15 am
I would be HYSTERICAL if some asshole shot one of my dogs. What a poof. He shot a dog. Why didn't he just go back to his squad car and have someone call the owner or animal control? He didn't give a shit about the dog or owner & didn't think twice about shooting the poor dog who was defending its territory. He also likely lied about "getting stiches" after a dog bite. Since a bite is dirty, it is seldom sutured but rather left open unless MAJOR trauma so I DON'T believe his story about going to the OR for stitches. Once he reports a "vicious" dog the SPCA must be notified & the owner given a chance to take measures. This is all bullshit!

. (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 11:25 am
I didn't want to open the article..and I am so sorry I did.

Melania Padilla (128)
Monday February 17, 2014, 11:38 am
Sick bastard!!

Winn A (177)
Monday February 17, 2014, 12:03 pm
Disgusting, despicable behavior from an ignorant individual.

Past Member (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 1:03 pm
Hate filled bastard!!!He should pray not to rot in Hell.

Patsy Olive (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 1:10 pm
Noted & tweeted.

Dianne D (490)
Monday February 17, 2014, 1:54 pm
God see's all. I believe that animals are the eyes and ears of God and cannot speak so no to give away their mission while on earth. They report back everything. God Bless all the animals in this world and those that love and care for them. Many curses on those that abuse, abandon, mame or intentionally kill an animal.

Birgit W (160)
Monday February 17, 2014, 2:08 pm
Noted, thanks.

norma laborie (33)
Monday February 17, 2014, 2:11 pm
I hate this! poor innocent dog -shared

Lynne Buckley (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 2:30 pm

Nannette ames (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 2:44 pm

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday February 17, 2014, 3:02 pm
While I'm disgusted to see that such a deplorable incident took place … I’m equally if not more disgusted that it is taken to bash again (I have to assume with the agreement of Care2 as this is not taken down as it is against the COC and TOC!) a whole religion for the wrong-doings of one Police Officer who also happens to be a Muslim ... I would recommend to read the article linked under the video: which sheds some more light on this unfortunate event.

I find it somehow interesting that former neighbours of this officer come to his defense and even opened a FB page to that respect and that these neighbours are Jewish.

Should I now hold my breath to read a whole series of articles titled "Christian Police Officer(s) Murdered Dog" as the internet and Youtube are full of such cases where it just happened that the Police Officer killing the dog was Christian? Or is it in those cases where Christian Police Officers are involved irrelevant what religion they adhere to?

Quite obvious the person who posted this has ulterior motives - this is also shown in the very selective choice of the "references" to "proof" the point as well as the general statements about "friendship”, the personal interpretation of "believers", the alleged hate against women in the Qur’an and so on.

Dogs are considered unclean because of their spongy nose which naturally is full of germs and bacteria. Therefore one should not touch a dog’s nose if one is washed for prayer or else one has to wash again. That doesn’t mean that dogs should be abused or killed, does it … unless one has one heck of an imagination.

Now how anyone in the right frame of mind can say that the Qur’an stipulates hate onto animals – dogs are for all I know animals too – is beyond me … especially considering Sura 6, Verse 38, where it says: “There is not an animal that lives on the earth, nor a bird that flies on its wings, which does not form a part of communities like yours.”. Equally the “expert” should know that Mohamed the Prophet said to Gabriel regarding the here cited incident (as reported by Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi): “Would the dogs not be a people (umma) among peoples, I would have ordered to kill them”.

The Prophet then went on to tell his followers about a man who found a thirsty dog in the desert. The man went to a well, got water, returned to the dog and gave him to drink until the dog’s thirst was quenched. The Prophet said “God thanked him and forgave him [his sins]”.

This fits perfectly the picture I would say … doesn’t it?

As I always say: "While there are plenty of bad people who happen to belong to one religion or another, I do not believe there is a person who is bad just because he/she happens to belong to a certain religion – culture or race for that matter."

Have a good day and for those who are on a special mission, obvious to all, enjoy your bashing trip.

Christine Linley (12)
Monday February 17, 2014, 3:22 pm
Care2 should remove this offensive article.
This is not a Nazi organization .
The dog was shot by a scared man. Full stop.

Nelson Baker (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 3:56 pm
Stupid, cruel person. May Karma get even with him.

Aurea Aurea Walker (226)
Monday February 17, 2014, 4:12 pm
@ Eleonora & Christine am a 100% behind your statements! If I could I would send you both 1000 STARS! Am appalled by the whole anti Islam diatribe posted about this POS poo poo cop being Muslim! Many CHRISTIAN cops have shot and killed innocent dogs, why not bring up their religion? But let us NOT stop there how many good? Christian cops shoot and kill unarmed men of color? Am an agnostic so all religions to me are a moot point. However, here in America the supposed Christian fundamental groups are trying to remove our rights! Not just about women's reproductive choices, but on a much grander scale!

Aurea Aurea Walker (226)
Monday February 17, 2014, 4:41 pm
Continued - for those in doubt about what the Christian fundamentalist are doing, look at the anti gay bill being proposed in Kansas. Yes, if you are LBGT this proposed bill would make it LEGAL to refuse service at all business's, goverment offices etc..... So please explain to me how Islam is evil and Christianity is all good?

Sheri Schongold (7)
Monday February 17, 2014, 4:52 pm
I am disgusted by the rules of this sect. They are only good for the men. Women are 2nd or 3rd class citizens and animals don't count unless they are for a sacrifice of some sort. Did anyone happen to tell the dogs to go behind? Would it have done any good? It seems that any excuse for shooting/killing an animal is fine. I hope that some day, which ever God he claims to believe in, and I am not sure that he or any of them do, will take care of them.

S J (130)
Monday February 17, 2014, 5:39 pm
sadly noted, thanks

Carlo r (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 5:43 pm
Judge or stigmatize an entire race for what he did that cop, it is right and proper, Anywhere in the world, animals are always hostility from those who can least expect it. You must instead severely punish those who committed this murder a defenseless being free, may belong to any religion. with the utmost severity, and maybe even evil, because he his, has not spared, with respect to that poor dog. Burn in hell for eternity!

Carlo r (0)
Monday February 17, 2014, 5:47 pm
Judge or stigmatize an entire race for what he did that cop, it is " NOT " right and proper, Anywhere in the world, animals are always hostility from those who can least expect it. You must instead severely punish those who committed this murder a defenseless being free, may belong to any religion. with the utmost severity, and maybe even evil, because he his, has not spared, with respect to that poor dog. Burn in hell for eternity, for what you have done !.

Walter F (128)
Monday February 17, 2014, 6:08 pm
How coild you base religious practices on the words of ha mashuga teaching that dogs are unclean.The parsees that were almost wiped out by his followers revered dogs and the followers of most other religions love them as pets.In answer to critics of Christianity .Christianity in practice abhors killing Islam does not it advocates it check with the koran . Don't judge all followers of Christ to the ratbiag fundamentalists and name only ones you have in America.The should give themselves another title.

Joy M (168)
Monday February 17, 2014, 6:44 pm
The asshole needs to go to HELL..

Aurea Aurea Walker (226)
Monday February 17, 2014, 7:05 pm
@marie tc - sorry you say, I am resorting to the LBGT cause? I am not resorting to anything other than pointing OUT what OUR supposed Christian civilized? nation is doing, ok? By the way why did you not also point out about using the race card? Oh could it be because it is the truth? What the POS cop did is reprensible at best, but to get into his religion is simply a very cheap way of going into the whole anti Islam hate. Christians? Are pushing a very destructive agenda at all levels in the USA.

Judith Hand (55)
Monday February 17, 2014, 7:23 pm
Noted. Glad that I realized that the video was going to actually show the dog being shot...come on, man! (I'm just a bit surprised and irritated at this realization. My sweet rescue is just outside the room and I shut off volume as soon as I heard the dog noises). Horrible stuff, cops killing animals. But the violence in the video I could've done without.

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Monday February 17, 2014, 9:01 pm
@ Aurea, Christine, Eleonora and Raetsch - stick with the topic. This atrocity reveals a deeper issue, the Islam-mandated hatred of dogs. Dog hatred NOT because of noses but because of Muhammad's delusion that an angel told him he can't enter a house with pictures or a dog. THAT is why murderous Muhammad ordered the killing of dogs.

For those of you who spew garbage about Nazi and race, answer me:

What “Race” is Islam?

Is it the Muslim black Africans?
Is it the Chinese Uighurs?
Is it the Indonesian Muslims racial group that constitutes the greatest majority of Muslims in the world?
Is it the Chechnyans and others from all the "-stans" with those racial features?
Is it the large groups of Hispanics who are converting to Islam in great numbers?
Is it the Semitic/Arab people of the Levant and Middle East?
Is it the Persian people (non-Arab) from Iran?
Is it the dark-skinned Pakistani, Bangladeshi who are the same racial group as the Hindus?
Is it the millions of Caucasians from Eastern Europe?
Is it the Turkic people around Turkey?

So tell us which race you think I'm being racist about, because the common denominator is the ideology of Islam.

Interestingly enough that Christine would bring up Nazi in defense of Islam because Muslims were intimately involved with the Holocaust. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the highest position in (Sunni) Islam, Haj Amin al-Husseini was intimately involved with Hitler and supplied the Nazis with anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 MUSLIM soldiers. Two of Hitler SS divisions were Muslims. Nazism and Islam are a match made in hell as both are supremacist ideologies based on hate, especially hatred of Jews. While Mein Kampf is 7% anti-Jewish, Muhammad's sayings are at least 17% anti-Jewish. While the Qur'an calls Jews the worst enemies of Muslims (5:82) and calls Jews pigs and apes (I.e. Sura 2:65), Muhammad's Sunna teaches things like food would not rot if it weren't for Jews and Jews need to be wiped out in order to usher in the Islamic messiah the Madhi:

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews." -- Sahih Muslim 6985

Sahih Bukhari 4.52.177: "Allah's Apostle said, The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him'."

Islamic doctrine is the most racist ideology ever known to man and the most supremacist, calling Muslims the most evolved (Sura 3:110) while calling Jews and Christians the vilest of creatures (Sura 98:6, 8:55).

Interesting that Eleonora wants to talk about "selective" and yet cites less authoritative sources than me. I cite the most authoritative sources of Bukhari and Muslim and you have to run all the way down to Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi to try to defend against what the most authoritative sources say! Furthermore, all you've accomplished is showing everyone just how self-contradictory Islamic sources are. Thanks for making my job easier :)

Lastly, regarding the issue of LBGT, not sure where that came from regarding an article about a Muslim killing a dog with his religion teaching him that dogs are filthy and to be killed. But since you brought it up, where is your condemnation of Islamic doctrine teaching that gays are to be killed. It is not theoretical, it is practiced in Muslim countries. Why don't you go to Iran and tell them to stop hanging gay people? Afraid to speak out against those who you know will kill you? Those who complain about LBGT issues in America need to openly condemn Islam and Islamic countries for hanging gays.

Muslims don't just limit the practicing of Islamic hatred to their countries, as my article shows with this Muslim practicing Islamic hatred of dogs. Muslims also show their murderous hatred for LGBT in America. Did you not read the story about the pious American Muslim who tried to kill gays by burning down their nightclub?

On the first of this month, "peaceful" Muslim Musab Mohammad Masmari in Seattle set fire to a crowded gay nightclub known as Neighbours. he was caught while fleeing the area. As the news reports,

“It was just after midnight on New Year's Eve while nearly 700 people crammed into Neighbours for a celebration when customers noticed the staircase at the iconic gay club was on fire.

“The bar later found a container of gasoline at the top of a staircase. According to SPD, Masmari doused the staircase with fuel and set it on fire.”

Surveillance video captured Masmari walking into the bar just before the fire broke out. He can be seen carrying a large container in his hand.

Why don't you openly condemn this? Contact the news and tell them you denounce Islamic hatred of LGBT which this pious Muslim carried out.

Why don't you openly speak out against Iran's Constitution Articles 108-113 which say:

"Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Shari'a judge to decide."

Why don't you call the news and openly condemn Islamic Shari'a law as hate speech?

You're too cowardly to do so because you know that you'll be leveled with slanderous terms like bigot, Islamophobe, racist, much like you four unjustly try to do to me.

Islam demeans women, teaches sex slavery as the divine right of Muslim males (Qur'an 4:3, 4:24, 23:6, 24:33, 33:50-52, 70:30 and numerous hadith references on top), teaches sex with prepubescent girls is fine (Sura 65:4), teaches wife-beating is a Muslim man's right (Sura 4:34, 38:44), teaches terrorism (Sura 3:151, 8:12, 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, 9:111, 47:4, 48:29), teaches to kill dogs, and on and on and on with the vilest teachings ever. Muhammad was a wife-beating, rape-endorsing, torturing, murdering terrorist, and Muslims MUST emulate him as their perfect model of conduct as mandated in 91 different ayat in the un-holy Qur'an.


Aurea Aurea Walker (226)
Monday February 17, 2014, 9:57 pm
@Rahma - do not dare tell me about going off topic! The ISSUE is about a POS cop shooting an innocent DOG! The POS cops religion SHOULD not have been brought up at all! The islamaphobic posts are what shocked me! And "there you go again" with your quoting the Koran. There is also a great deal of equally horrendous, hate filled passages in the bible. I am AGNOSTIC and am for NO RELIGION. What I am against is the flaming of the fires of religous HATE! Rahma would YOU feel justified with your fear/hate of Islam if every time a crime is committed the criminals religion should also be brought up? If so you better believe there will be a lot of Christians identified. Lastly why do you not mention all the hate filled acts going on right here in the USA by the good Christians? Oh, you know like the FAKE WAR the good Christian George Bu/SHIT brought us alongside his Evil Christian Cheney. Do NOT get me started on all the egregious acts of good Christians, not in the past but right now. Thank you so much for further enforcing my being an agnostic.

Carol H (40)
Monday February 17, 2014, 10:06 pm
First, I don't care what religion he is, 2nd, he should not have done this, HE WAS WRONG. IF his ass isn't fired, it should be. At the very least he should be on probation himself and demoted. He lacks training for sure. The dog was NOT threatening or lunging at him at any time, the dog was wagging his tail, that's friendly in case he didn't know. He should be held liable for his stupid actions.

Aurea Aurea Walker (226)
Monday February 17, 2014, 10:17 pm
@Rahman - continued the LBGT issue was brought up to show the HATE that supposed good Christians are inflicting on an entire community, based on their sacred bible sayings! Yet the posts are very hateful, this type of hypocrisy that is so infuriating. Basically, my religion is good, yours is bad, because my good book says so. It is all utter rubbish to me, but I will respect your opinion as just that, your opinion! But will NOT allow anyone ever to force feed me their beliefs!

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Monday February 17, 2014, 10:46 pm
@ Aurea - you're good at throwing around meaningless buzz words. You use the Islamic supremacist term "Islamophobic" designed to quash free speech and critical though, in an effort to express your thoughts? How ignorant of you.

You can knock the Bible all you want, and also Hinduism and Buddhism and whatever else, but none of that hides the FACTS which I presented straight from the doctrine which Muslims MUST follow.

While you're at it, condemn Atheism / Communism / Marxism. All these ideology are anti-Christian, and Atheist regimes have murdered at least 160 MILLION people just in the last century! Darwinian "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" theories, in conjunction with Islam, are what created the Holocaust.

You keep harping on Christianity, as if that excuses Islam. Also, when Christians commit crimes, they are just that, CRIMES against the law and against the Bible. But in Islam what we consider to be crimes like rape, abuse of dogs, wife-beating, are NOT considered crimes. THAT is the difference.

As for the wars, I was never for invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. We should have attacked the State sponsors and promoters of terrorism, which are number one Iran and number two Saudi Arabia. Overthrowing Saddam was a mistake because now Iraq is more dangerous than before. Afghanistan continues to be a waste as well. Democracy can't be imposed on pious Muslims because Islamic Shari'a law is the opposite of democracy.

Lastly, you keep using the buzz word "hate" to attack others as having "HATE" when you're the one using it. And considering the fact that 75% of the world's Christians have brown or black skin, by you constantly attacking Christianity means you're a hatemongering, racist, Christianophobic bigot!

Monday February 17, 2014, 11:32 pm


Inge Bjorkman (199)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 2:15 am
Prohibit all religions, they just kill, rape, and start wars.

Make LOVE not hate

marie C (163)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 5:33 am
What a foolish comment did I understand correctly "If you are scared its OK to shoot"
There is no excuse for murdering an innocent animal I am surprised by this comment Christine
Also Aurea I really can not understand your defence of Mohamed's teachings about animals they are cruel and insane remember this is what this thread is about

Aurea Aurea Walker (226)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 6:15 am
@Rahman - thank you so much for your insulting post! I have not attacked you personally, yet you feel doing so to me is acceptable. I am not any of the things you say. If you feel vindicated by your ugly post towards me, sadly that says a lot about you. I am on care2 mostly to earn butterfly rewards that do good, sign petitions to help injustice to sentient beings, and to further my knowledge of what good I can do in the world. Again, I went on this particular site to try and get justice for an unjustly dog that was murdered. Certainly not expecting this debacle! Had I paid attention to the fact that it was you Rahman who had put up the site I would simply had avoided it. But I do have one question for you, you have been on this site for close to two years and have only earned 12,000 plus butterfly rewards? Would your virulent passion not be better served by accumulating butterfly rewards? Keep on attacking me, it shows what a bully you are.

Jocelyn L (3)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 7:01 am
Any idiot cop or anyone else who shoots a dog or any animal for that matter whatever their religion or lack of one may be doesn't deserve to be a police officer. Whatever one will do to an animal one won't hesitate to do to a person either. Sorry but for me "fear" doesn't cut it as an excuse.

No matter where this idiot of an officer lives, I can fairly safely bet that SOMEONE in his neighborhood has a dog. I wouldn't feel safe AT ALL with an "officer of the law" like this scum ball running patrols in my neighborhood. Animal cruelty is AGAINST the thing he swore to uphold in most places, and if that dog, that his actions would have been threatening to from the dog's perspective, had been inclined to bite, the dog had plenty of chances to do so before they were shot, and I, for one, wouldn't have blamed the dog if it had bitten the bastard. "The dog was about to bite me" isn't going to fly. I have absolutely NO sympathy for ANYONE who shoots or otherwise harms any animal for any reason (which was obviously nothing but an excuse in this story). And I also notice that his partner was, while acting MUCH more appropriately than his partner, also a REALLY big coward in his own right. Screw protocol. That officer WANTED to sate his bloodlust. He didn't shoot the dog for any reason beyond that. Nothing but a bully with a gun.

Syd H (48)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 7:36 am
Dogs in Islam
Loyal companions, or unclean animals to be avoided?

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?


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 5:4
There 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.


Syd H (48)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 7:55 am


The historian William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad's kindness to animals was remarkable given the social context of his upbringing. He cites an instance of Muhammed, while traveling with his army to Mecca in 630 CE, posting sentries to ensure that a female dog and her newborn puppies were not disturbed.[22] On the other hand, in a tradition found in the Sunni hadith book al-Muwatta, Muhammad is reported as saying that the company of dogs voids a portion of a Muslim’s good deeds.[23]

According to a Sunni narration classified as authentic by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, black dogs are a manifestation of evil in animal form.[24] Another Sunni tradition attributed to Muhammad commands Muslims not to trade or deal in dogs.[25] The Hanafi school, however – the largest school of ritual law in Sunni Islam – permits dog trading.

One story relates that Muhammad, having seen a prostitute give a thirsty dog some water from a nearby well, told her that her deed had earned her God's forgiveness.[13][26]

The majority of Muslim jurists consider dogs to be ritually unclean (najis)[27] and some Muslims point to hadith that state that dogs should be killed.[28][29][30] Beyond ritual, however, individual fatāwā ("rulings") have indicated that dogs be treated kindly or otherwise released[31] and earlier Islamic literature often portrayed dogs as symbols of highly-esteemed virtues such as self-sacrifice and loyalty, which, in the hands of despotic and unjust rulers, become oppressive instruments.[27]

Dogs in the Qurʼān

The Qurʼān contains three mentions of dogs:

Verse 5:4 says "Lawful for you are all good things, and [the prey] that trained [hunting] dogs and falcons catch for you."

Verse 7:176 says that if you drive a dog away, it lolls out its tongue, panting, but if you leave it alone, it lolls out its tongue anyhow.

Verse 18:18 describes the Companions of the Cave, a group of saintly young men presented in the Qurʼān as exemplars of religion, sleeping with "their dog stretching out its forelegs at the threshold." Further on, in verse 22, the dog is always counted as one of their number, no matter how they are numbered. In Muslim folklore, affectionate legends have grown around the loyal and protective qualities of this dog, whose name in legend is Qiṭmīr.[32][33][34]

In none of these verses are dogs condemned as unclean or unlawful; on the contrary, trained hunting dogs and the dog of the Companions of the Cave are described in a positive light, and the companionship of these dogs is mentioned with approval. The Qurʼān thus contains not even a hint of the condemnation of dogs found in certain ḥadīths.[35]

Dogs in ḥadīths

(1) Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time. (Muslim Book #002, Hadith #0551)

(4) Ibn 'Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) giving command for killing dogs. (Muslim Book #010, Hadith #3809)

Some Moslem commentators (e.g Bassam Zawadi) suggest however that these killings were to be limited to rabid dogs.[36]

Others (e.g. Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid) have only ruled that Moslems should not keep dogs.[37]
As epithet[edit]

There can be some unfortunate problems associated with the word kalb (كلب meaning "dog") because it can be used as an epithet, especially in compound terms such as beni-el-kalb ("sons of dogs") or ibn-al-kalb ("son of a dog"). Both terms are explained and used in context by author Frederick Forsyth in his novel The Fist of God.
Religious impurity[edit]

The majority of Muslim jurists consider dogs to be ritually unclean, though jurists from the Sunni Maliki school disagree.[27] However, outside their ritual uncleanness, Islamic fatāwā, or rulings, enjoin that dogs be treated kindly or else be freed.[38]


Syd H (48)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 8:04 am

Islam On Dogs: Can You Be A Good Muslim And Still Have A Dog?
Religion News Service | By Omar Sacirbey Posted: 09/15/2012 9:00 am Updated: 09/15/2012 9:00 am

(RNS) Worshippers at Toronto's 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,

Some Muslims responded with their own "Good Muslims Love Dogs" Facebook page, including at least one photo of a veiled woman with a veiled dog.

Muslims' alleged canine-phobia is often cited by critics of Islam as an example of how the faith is incompatible with Western values. Some Muslims have perpetuated that narrative, such as when a Somali cab driver in Minneapolis made national headlines in 2007 when he refused to let a blind man bring his seeing-eye dog into his car.

Yet many Muslims all over the world have dogs, and dogs figure prominently is some Islamic countries, such as Turkey, famous for its Kangal and Akbash breeds.

"This has always been a touchy issue for me, trying to balance my needs for a guide dog and the concerns within the Muslim community," said Mazen Basrawi, a blind Muslim-American lawyer in Washington D.C., who has had two seeing eye-dogs since he was 18.

Islamic scripture and tradition does not provide a definitive guide to all matters canine.

The Quran mentions dogs twice, including the permission to eat meat that has been carried by hunting dogs. In another verse, a group of "believers" and their dog escape their persecutors by hiding in a cave, where they fall asleep. "And their dog stretched his forelegs across the threshold," the verse finishes.

"This tender description of the dog guarding the cave makes it clear that the animal is good company for believers," Ingrid Mattson, chair of the Islamic studies program at Huron University College, wrote last December in a column for The Huffington Post.

While many Muslims believe scripture approves canine companions, many also believe scripture discourages Muslims from keeping dogs in their homes. This belief is partly based on the Quranic verse describing the dog at the threshold of the cave, as well as a story in which the angel Gabriel breaks a rendezvous with the Prophet Muhammad because a puppy had wandered into Muhammad's home.

"We angels do not enter a home in which there is a dog or a picture," Gabriel tells the prophet.

There are also a few hadith, or sayings attributed to Muhammad, that are hostile toward dogs, including a couple in which he orders the killings of dogs. But Islamic scholars and other Muslims say that many hadith are fabricated or hard to verify, including those about dogs. And because these hadith contradict the apparent divine sanction for dogs in the Quran, these stories should not be trusted.

Zeyna Ahmed's Egyptian parents wouldn't let her have a dog as a child when she was growing up in New Jersey, saying that it was haram, or forbidden, under Islam. She didn't believe them, but couldn't change their minds. Instead, Ahmed walked the neighbors' dogs behind her parents' backs.

Ahmed got her first puppy, an American Staffordshire Terrier-Boxer mix, five years ago after her husband left her and her four young children. She said the dog was therapeutic for them.

"This is the one, loyal, consistent thing in their life," said Ahmed, 45, who adopted a pit bull last year, and lets both dogs sleep in her bed. Ahmed said many of her Muslim friends have gotten dogs in recent years, although a few others won't enter her home because of the dogs.

Basrawi, 33, has also developed a close relationship with his guide dogs -- the first a yellow lab named Regan, and his current black lab named Sebastian. "You have to trust your life with your dog," said Basrawi. "They go everywhere you go."

That includes mosques, where most worshippers have generally been friendly or tolerant towards his dogs.

"A lot of times people will come up and pet them," said Basrawi, who usually ties his dog outside the mosque. Only on a few occasions has Basrawi been asked to move his dog away from a mosque.

Far less tolerant, Basrawi said, are Muslim-owned businesses, such as restaurants, and taxi drivers, who have refused his business. "It happens all the time," he said.

It may be harder to change the minds of Islam's critics, who often invoke Muslims' alleged canine-phobia to demonize them.

"It must have been difficult for the Muslims stuffing the dogs with the bombs and detonators, considering how they loathe dogs. The sacrifices they make for jihad," prominent critic Pamela Geller wrote in 2010, reacting to a story about how terrorists in Iraq had implanted bombs inside dogs they hoped to get on board a cargo plane, but failed.

Many Muslims in America are keeping an eye on the event in Toronto, hoping that their fellow Muslims react to protestors by wagging and not barking.

Sheila Musaji, who blogs at The American Muslim, encouraged worshippers to react kindly to those protesting -- by offering "flowers, or dog biscuits and water for their animals."


Lloyd H (46)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 9:01 am
What a pile of Islamophobic lies. Interesting that none of the local news reports mention that Officer Hassani is Muslim and the only places that do assume he is Muslim are cretinous Islamophobic sites such as Eyes on Sharia, Sharia Watch, others associated with Pamela Geller and some Militia groups. The origin comes only from the assumption that to quote one blog commenter that, " he is a Paki, look at his name, he's a Muslim" BUT absolutely no mention of Officer Hassani's religious beliefs are made by any non-Reich-wing source, hell even The Blaze, Breitbart, and The Christian Post do not mention his supposed following of Islam. If one actually reads any of the articles about the incident that do not have Muslim in the head line one gets a totally different picture of the incident. 1) Officer Hassani had previously been bitten by an at large dog that sent him to the ER and required stitches. 2) Children in the neighborhood carry sticks on their way to school. 3) Several of the neighbors considered the dog aggressive and feared having the dog around their children and grandchildren. 4) The entire Police force of Filer, ID, which is 5 yes only 5, has any animal control training. 5) Filer, ID has no Animal Control office or officers. And 6, just why is it that no mention is made of the fact that Officer Hassani was at the address because of complaints from neighbors about an at-large aggressive dog, which happened to be the one shot. This article is Hate Mongering by Islamophobic morons.

Christine Linley (12)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 9:41 am
In reply to marie tc ......... I do not state that "If you are scared its OK to shoot" what I stay is lay the blame on fear...mixed with guns...................... the man being scared of dogs following a previous dog attack and carrying a gun he can not have been properly trained to use.
Thankfully we do not have our ordinary policeman armed in this country .

Rehana VN (0)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 9:57 am

Past Member (0)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 10:59 am
I am not interested in the officer's name, his religion...which, by the way, no news outlet has mentioned because it's irrelevant to the case...or anything other than the facts of this case. This officer has fired his weapon three times in the last several years. The first time he shot and killed an unarmed man sitting peaceably in a car. The second time he shot but did not kill another man in a similar circumstance. And, most recently, he shot and killed a service dog...this case...during a young boy's birthday party. Most police all around the US can go most of their careers without firing their weapons, but this officer has used his weapon three times in less than a decade. The people of Filer are not safe...and it has nothing to do with this officer's ethnic or religious background...and everything to do with whether he represents a danger to the citizens of this town. What will it take for people to take a close look at this officer? Does he have to shoot a child before anyone realizes that he is unfit to carry a weapon?

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 12:01 pm

There is no such thing as "Islamophobia". Anyone who knows what Islam says against women, minorities, non-Muslims, dogs is wholly justified in having a healthy fear of this hideous ideology and the destructive, criminal, murderous, hateful acts it commands its followers and they, in obedience, do.

It is very important to differentiate between Muslims (who may or may not know or believe in their ideology) and Islam itself. I can tell you that the person who submitted this article knows extremely well that distinction, as he comes from a Muslim family and cares about Muslims.

His belief is with the ideology of Islam. He has several pets and treats them with great love. He is shattered when have fallen ill.

Animal abuse is pervasive in many Islamic countries, and the hatred and Muhammad's command to kill dogs come right out of the holy books of Islam.

When a religious ideology is the CAUSE for a follower of that ideology to kill animals or certain kinds of animals, then that must be understood and addressed, and Rahman has done NOTHING wrong with making people aware of this.

Throughout Europe there are massive dog poisonings near Muslim communities. If I had a dog, I'd want to know, so that I could protect my dog from the likelihood that it could be poisoned.

Muslims attack the OWNERS of the dogs while they are walking them. This is important to know. People need to take precautions so that they and their animals are safe.

Stick your head in the sand, and then you'll miss it when someone comes with a sword to chop you in half.


Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 12:02 pm

That was supposed to be "His "beef" is with the ideology of Islam.

fly b (26)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 1:01 pm
The points made by Lloyd H's are the first ones that came to me, and obvious to anyone, who is not new to posts such S THESE.
I QUICKLY REALIZED THERE WAS NO MENTION THE OFFICER WAS 'Muslim' in ANY of the newspaper reporting, having researched it, myself.
There is no statement by the party, who posted the video on youtube that the officer is Muslim.
If you look up 'Muslim' officer ... however, you will find all the anti-Muslim websites and associated postings that are known to be hate sites and designed to spread undocumented aspersions and malice, and are used frequently by some here.
Again, the inference, whether it is true or not, that the officer is Muslim is not merely a supposition, but a deliberate attempt to demonize an entire of group of people, using the incident and exploitation of many people's indignation at, the shooting of a dog that should not have happened.

There are countless other reports of American officers shooting and killing dogs for no reason. The religion of officers in dog shootings, etc., presumed or otherwise, is selectively used to bash Muslims at large and circulate misconceptions.
On the one hand, a poor man has lost his cherished dog, largely due, to several issues mentioned in multiple papers (conveniently left out on sites like Sharia Unveiled and other anti-Muslim sites) such as insufficient animal training and animal control services ....
.... on the other, some choose to demonstrate prejudice, demonize and delegitimize people within a group, with self serving hate mongering and deliberate distortions.
Every day, it seems, a dog is shot by officers in America. There are procedures, like calling animal control. In every case, the circumstances vary. Animal control is not always available or contacted, or they arrive too late.
What is relevant are the specifics related to the incident, rather than religion, aspersions or innuendo.


Ruth C (87)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 1:27 pm
It says: Mohammad said that a dog passing in front of a man who was praying would invalidate his prayer.

But I found this: There's a story about a man walking in the desert, and it was very hot, he passes by a well, so he stopped to drink, then after drinking he saw a dog with his tongue out grasping for his breath and looking thirsty, so he tried to bring water from the well but the water was shallow, so he climbed down with a rope, and with his shoes he took some water in it, then came up and gave the dog a drink.

Prophet mohammed tells us what that man did, made God forgive all his sins in the after life!

So which one is true!

Gloria H (88)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 2:53 pm
I don't care what religion this POS is. Labs are friendly dogs! The dog was wagging it's tail! This M-F would have shot a chiuaha if it barked at him. WTF couldn't he have just tasered it (not that THAT would have been right either). What is his name??? Let's petition to get his sorry ass off the force. I wouldn't trust him to hand out parking tickets. Dip shit would probably shoot any dogs in the car!!GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 4:20 pm
A Dog in Central Park, New York

A man was walking in Central Park when he saw a dog viciously attacking a young girl of maybe 8 years. The man intervened and he had no choice but to kill the dog. One of the by-stander walked up to him and congratulated him for his outstanding bravery and courage in saving the life of this innocent child. He introduced himself as a Journalist and said that this story must make headlines.

Journalist: “It will read ‘Brave New Yorker saves life of little girl who was attacked by a vicious dog’”

The man answered: “Sorry, I’m not from New York.”

Journalist: “OK, we then say ‘brave American’”

The man answered: “Sorry, I’m not American.”

Journalist: “OK – what about ‘brave Christian man saved the life of a little girl who was attacked by a vicious dog’”?

The man answered: “Sorry, I’m not Christian – I’m a Muslim”

Journalist: “Ah … OK!”

The next day the headline in the NYT read as follows: “Vicious Muslim terrorist kills harmless and friendly dog as a little innocent girl was forced to helplessly watch the heinous crime unfold.”

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 4:34 pm
To Patricia - nice try ... your "defense". There is just one fundamental flaw in this "gentleman's" story which gives him away at first sight. I wanted to be sure ... so I checked with an (agnostic) Muslim friend of mine. He confirmed that such xxxxx mistake would never ever be made by a true Muslim - no matter how liberal, secular he is. Even if he left Islam altogether - it is just NEVER done. Yet the person with the rat (?) as avatar - probably clouded by his all encompassing hate for whatever he perceives as Islam - did exactly that.

See - it's always the tiny little details which make people stumble and give them and their agenda away. Sometimes I'm really happy that I often have a bit of a "stickler" tendency - LOL!

Carol Dreeszen (346)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 4:42 pm
This guy should be fired!! Isn't it also in the Koran that dogs are evil and dirty!? And this guy is a Muslim!? Put the pieces of the puzzle together..they fit!!

fly b (26)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 5:41 pm
There's no puzzle here. The "pieces" fit, like glue.
Pretending to not have read a preceding post (s) and responding with a comment, like the one above, is so transparent.
Once more, the aim is to prop up hateful stereotypes and gratify toxic personal interests.
Bullies are often fearful, weak and/or manipulative. The compulsion to add fuel to the fire and spin events to serve prejudices, 'prove' loyalties or maintain ties, trump personal accountability.

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 6:08 pm

Ms. Oldani,

Is this a true story about the man in the newspaper, or just one of many fabricated stories by Muslims of their purported victimhood at the hands of non-Muslims? Like the fabrication of alleged crimes against Muslims, their businesses and mosques which are in fact committed by the Muslims themselves in an attempt to gain sympathy and paint themselves as victims.

I do not understand what you're talking about with Rachman, except I would say that is most likely not a rat in his avatar. Otherwise, he definitely does not relate to his Muslim side. However, I think it is probably unfair for me to tell you what he thinks, other than to say I know that he cares for animals deeply. It would be more appropriate for you to ask yourself, and maybe explain what you mean.

You seem to think you are tripping me or anyone else up somehow. I have not misrepresented anything to my knowledge, but you may be projecting your own proclivities, maybe because that is your nature or maybe you just don't want to hear the truth and are trying your best to evade dealing with it.


Angela J (61)
Tuesday February 18, 2014, 8:11 pm
How sad.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 19, 2014, 12:25 am
To Patricia Martinez - It is amazing how deep seated hatred can blind some people to the point that they cannot even see a good joke if one passes by ... this "dog story" is an old joke which has been around in the net for years. Sad as it may be but expressive of certain type of people we've all gotten to know. Or is it playing gullible as a part of the image you hopelessly try to portray?

But you should be thankful that I gave you the opportunity to bring in the hate guru Daniel Pipes - shouldn't you? Otherwise it would have required quite some more twist 'n turns to bring him up too.

That you don't understand what I'm saying ... well ... that's not my problem, is it?

Just for the records: as for your statement "I have not misrepresented anything to my knowledge, ..." - I'd appreciate you'd not putting words in my mouth.

I didn't accuse you anywhere of "misrepresenting anything". You are however free to carry on accusing me (and others) of accusing you of whatever and then answering back to yourself. Be my guest.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 19, 2014, 2:29 am
It’s an amazing and enlightening thread! It pleases the Islamphobes to run all over the place with their “truth about Islam” (and it goes without saying, therefore, the Muslims) but if one answers their diatribes … one is told to stay with the topic. Callous I’d say – a better word would be “chutzpah”.

Now … the topic here is seemingly an incident of a cop killing a dog. It so happen that one can SPECULATE by the name of the cop that he might also be a Muslim. NB: He could also be agnostic or he could have left his religion (if he ever had one).

But alas! This event is taken as an opportunity to go back in history 1’400 odd years, dig out whatever comes along the way incl. making up stories and distort others, dehumanize, defame and paint in the ugliest possible way a community of roughly 1,5 Billion people from all walks of life, races, cultures, traditions, nations and countries – and why?

Because one American Police Officer who seems to be also a Muslim has shot a dog.

It begs the question: which one is the topic we (who are opposing this hate and distortion festival here) are allowed to discuss? Is it the incident of the dog shooting? Is it the whole of the Qur’an as excerpts of it are posted at length? Is it the collection of Ahadith (sayings and doings [some strong others very weak regarding the authenticity] by Mohamed the Prophet which have been passed down from men to men …) and which according to late Sheikh Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, head of Al Azhar (highest Islamic Authority for those who are not familiar with this institution), may be a set to follow but ultimately it is the Qur’an which alone is the ultimate guideline? Or is it that the topic is given at whim by these “happy go merry” people here which are dominating this diatribe a.k.a. thread?

Which one is it?

I read in Rahman’s posting (quoted below): “This atrocity reveals a deeper issue, the Islam-mandated hatred of dogs.”

Let’s assume for the sake of argument and just for a second that this notion bears some truth: If this is so – how much deeper must the hatred of Christians and others for dogs be considering the fact that ever so often we read about dogs beings shot by obviously non-Muslims? See Romania, see Russia just as the latest headlines.

And just as a reminder: it is NOT mandated in the Qur’an nor the Bible nor the Torah (not in the oral one nor in the written one) to hate dogs. Nevertheless, I know it is stated in many Jewish scriptures that dogs are not kosher (in the Kabbalah it even states that dogs are the symbol of demonic powers) and that (the same as in Islam) one should refrain from having them except for protection. There are a number of contradictory rulings by various Rabbis (Haredi, Masorti incl. revisionist Rabbis) to the permissibility of having dogs; this is why Ultraorthodox Jews normally forbid them or at least shy away from having them.

But ah! – all this is not to be discussed because it is - according to the authoritative statement above - “off topic” … read: it doesn’t serve their agenda?!

There seems to be also a comprehension problem here:

I posted on Monday February 17, 2014, 3:02 pm:

“Now how anyone in the right frame of mind can say that the Qur’an stipulates hate onto animals – dogs are for all I know animals too – is beyond me … especially considering Sura 6, Verse 38, where it says: “There is not an animal that lives on the earth, nor a bird that flies on its wings, which does not form a part of communities like yours.”. Equally the “expert” should know that Mohamed the Prophet said to Gabriel regarding the here cited incident (as reported by Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi): “Would the dogs not be a people (umma) among peoples, I would have ordered to kill them”.” Let me emphasize: it says “I WOULD HAVE …”

Which nonetheless led Rahman to answer a few hours later (Monday February 17, 2014, 9:01 pm): “… but because of Muhammad's delusion that an angel told him he can't enter a house with pictures or a dog. THAT is why murderous Muhammad ordered the killing of dogs.”

Hhmmm … One of the Ahadith (cited earlier) states: “Would the dogs not be a people (umma) among peoples, I would have ordered to kill them”. Some participants here love to quote incessantly any kind of Hadith – how come this one is totally ignored? On the contrary - one goes on to repeat the same lies that “…murderous Muhammad ordered the killing of dogs.”?

Well – English is not my mother tongue and sometimes I may not quite understand the true meaning at first glance. Could it be that I’m not the only one …?? Shhh – that can’t be as these righteous folks here have read and studied not only the Qur’an and the Ahadith but also the various Muslim communities and their behavior … otherwise they wouldn’t trash, dissect and slander 1,5 Billion people around the world …

Evelyn B (62)
Wednesday February 19, 2014, 5:37 am
Do some people surf the net in search of excuses to promote Islamophobia?

The report NEVER refers to the police officer's religion. It is a family name that sounds Arab - but there are many Christian Arabs also.
His religion has NOTHING to do with his acts here.

The police were called because of a compllaint about dogs, in a neighbourhood that has regulations about dogs not being allowed out off the leash (Don't like the sound of that .... )

The officer's car was rushed by 2 "large" barking dogs.

The officer is scared of dogs, & has already been bitten in the past, which adds to his fear.
His reaction of fear almost certainly increased the dogs' aggressivity - they sense fear, it frightens them & fear makes them bark more.
He tried to discourage the dog by kicking at it .... behaviour bound to aggravate the situation.
(Clearly - the police in this area need training on how to handle unfriendly dogs)
He panicked and shot the dog ... total mis-judgement of the situation, believing he was about to be bitten again. It looks as though, in his panic, his fear made him misread the risk -it doesn't look as though the dog was close enough to bite him.
He shot the dog - condemnable act.

I would completely endorse every statement that calls for him to be judged for the very wrong decision to shoot the dog.

I have the impression that the bulk of people who commented here (and apparently the person who posted the film) react towards Muslims & Islam much as this police officer reacted to the dog. Fear, irrational judgement based on fear.
Or else they are just happy for an opportunity to go "Muslim bashing".

And the real message of the clip - that a police officer overstepped his job, and shot a dog - is lost, as is the lesson that police officers clearly need better training in how to handle aggressive animals without killing them.

Shil O (0)
Wednesday February 19, 2014, 5:50 am
@ Eleanora
"But alas! This event is taken as an opportunity to go back in history 1’400 odd years,"

Sadly one does not go back in history 1400 years because what was written then is just as relevant now

To enable some understanding of the matter
Muslims will tell you that Muhammed only allowed the killing of dogs because there was a dog problem in Medina-- this is just Taqiyya the true story can be found in the Hadith

From Sahih Muslim #5248 (and you well know that for a hadith to be sahih it is the most reliable of hadith)

Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad mood. Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: You promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields or big gardens.

So you see... 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.

So really your arguments whilst no doubt pleasing to muslims are just so much hot air
and when you state
"And just as a reminder: it is NOT mandated in the Qur’an nor the Bible nor the Torah (not in the oral one nor in the written one) to hate dogs."

You do realise that you cannot equate Islam and the koran with either the Old or the new Testaments because they are supported by history and archeology and prophecy whereas the koran is actually a book without any of these and not enough information to become a muslim and that is why the sira and sunna of Muhammed are needed --- to make some sense out of it all
Your stance on all this would seem to indicate an affinity to Islam when you obfuscate so much
Under the Sharia dog, pigs and their offspring are classified as Filth (Najasa)
The Quran gives only the general fundamentals when it comes to legal rulings, leaving their expansion and interpretation to the prophet (pbuh)--- Uh Oh but that was 1400 years ago yet this is a statement from today--MMmm
In Islamic law a thing which is inherently unclean is known as "'ayn najis,"
so if we look at the ayn najis (the inherently unclean) of which there are nine what do we find"
We find kafirs (non muslims),corpses,dogs and pigs included.--- 1400 years ago rules today


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 19, 2014, 12:22 pm
To Shil O. (Note on Care2 website: “The profile you are looking for could not be found”)

Although it is the first time I see a posting by you for some strange reason the writing sounds very familiar to me. Equally strange is the synchronization of the appearance of some “members” with the disappearance of others. It never fails that our friends - whether those who appear or disappear - always share the same qualities, foremost among which is that they cannot or do not wish to read what others offer nor are they willing to even begin to attempt to engage in a useful discussion.

The pattern is becoming slowly clearer and clearer. Therefore, and as I 'm not a promoter of futility and negative energies I rest my case where those particular “members” (brigade) are concerned.


The person “Shil O.” throws some Arabic words in his/her monolog maybe under the wrong assumption that his/her writing gets more credibility? Like i.e.:

Najasa = not poperly clean (ready) for prayer. Loosely also used as a slur that someone is bodily unclean. Seems to me quite a dangerous and ominous word …

Taqiyya = an act of dissimulation (loose translation) which was mainly developed and practiced by Shia when they were under life threatening danger and equally by Sunni Muslim in Spain. Following the end of the Reconquista in Spain, Muslims and Jews alike were persecuted under the Christian rulers of Spain. They had the choice to convert or being killed. Many became what was known as Crypto-Muslims and Crypto-Jews. It’s always quite revealing how the “know-it-all” use this term across the spectrum and in various fora and on different websites in such a meaningless and false way.

Another little item which gives the true agenda away.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 19, 2014, 3:04 pm
Patricia Martinez stated on Feb 18 (above) the following:

"Throughout Europe there are massive dog poisonings near Muslim communities."

It's most unfortunate that she doesn't provide the slightest shred of evidence for her terrible accusation. Therefore, and because being European, I addressed the animal protection organizations "Tierschutzverein Europa" as well as "Tierschutz Schweiz" (Animal Protection Association Europe as well as Switzerland) as I was unable to find anything in the net to confirm the veracity of her statement.

Both were astonished and neither one can confirm Patricia's statement. They have no information whatsoever on "massive dog poisonings near Muslim communities" - but plenty of animal abuse by all kind of people from all walks of life.

Also the Cantonal Police of Baden (Switzerland) has no information about such events.

What do we make out of her statement now?

Beth S (330)
Thursday February 20, 2014, 11:35 am
Apparently, poisoning dogs in Spain isn’t enough, now Muslims are attacking people walking their dogs

BNI has reported on the shocking rise in pet dog poisonings near Muslim areas of Europe and in Muslim-majority countries. Now, Muslim hatred of dogs has become violent, with several attacks on people walking their dogs in the park. When police arrive to help, they are attacked by Muslims, too.

(Photos below are of dogs allegedly poisoned/killed by Muslims)

AlertaDigital (H/T Susan K) reports that incidents of Muslim attacks on Spaniards is increasing, particularly in Catalonia and other parts of northeast Spain, where illegal Islamist immigration is reaching alarming levels. The Muslims are taking over previously tolerant and Westernized areas of Spain, even imposing their morality on the indigenous Spanish population.

Islam vs Europe The name Tarrasa should be familiar to those tracking the re-Mohammedanisation of Spain. It was there that parents recently wrote a public letter complaining their children were not allowed to eat ham sandwiches by their Muslim classmates. An imam in a local mosque famously told his flock to beat their disobedient wives. Now the Islamic sickness is spreading further. Spaniards are being harassed and beaten up for walking their dogs.

In a recent incident a 27-year-old man taking three dogs for a walk along with his 49-year-old mother was attacked by a mob of 25-30 Muslims from North Africa. ”We were there with the dogs and suddenly loads of Muslims appeared. They hit my son a lot and they shook me”. The police were called but the Muslims attacked them too and reinforcements had to be called in. Eventually, the police managed to get the family into a doorway and were able to protect them there.

“On Saturday night two Muslims [female] hit my niece. They attacked her because they want this plaza for themselves”. “They said daughter of a whore, bitch to her,” she adds because she was walking with an “impure animal”.

“There was a Muslim with a djellaba taking photos of the dogs and one of those who hit my niece”. “In an instant they touched us with the elbow and started ‘I’m going to kill this dog, it and the whole family, this plaza is ours’”.

“Then they appeared from all sides, the square filled with Muslims. They say the dog attacked them but the dogs didn’t attack anyone”, she insisted. “If they want – she added- let them show a jaw mark”.

“I’ll kill your dog, I’ll kill your dog, the dog and the whole family”, they were shouting. “All of them were punching and kicking us”, she adds. “They were choking my son, all of this is scratched, the arms, legs”. “And they were shaking me from all sides. On Monday it was if my skin was burnt”.

The outcome of this brawl resulted in two officers injured and four (Muslims) detained. The attacked family turned to Alerta Digital to express their fear of reprisals from the Muslims. Even during the brawl, the Muslims threatened them with cutting their necks, all this in the presence of the officers, who were just looking numbly.

Debra Tate (17)
Thursday February 20, 2014, 1:11 pm
May someone murder this man that murdered this dog. That would be poetic justice. And lets not stop with this one Muslim, do it to all Muslims and make the world a better place!

Patricia Martinez (63)
Thursday February 20, 2014, 3:32 pm

Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe

A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.
Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are "unclean" animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.

This latest canine controversy -- which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage -- follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.

The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.

According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.

According to its website, the Islam Democrats [ID] party is "founded on the Islamic principles of justice, equality and solidarity. ID is a bottom-up response to the large gap between the Muslim and immigrant communities and local politics…ID focuses on the political awareness within the Muslim and immigrant communities. Awareness about the need to organize, but also the need for mutual support."

Paul ter Linden, who represents the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) on The Hague city council, responded to Küçük by saying: "In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country."

Dutch political commentators believe Küçük's declarations are a provocation designed to stir up the Muslim population in The Hague. Muslims -- who now make up more than 12% of the city's population of 500,000 -- view dogs as ritually unclean animals and Küçük's call for a ban on them is a sure vote-getter, they say.
The incident in Holland follows dog-related controversies in other European countries.

In Spain, two Islamic groups based in Lérida -- a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city's total population -- asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not "offend Muslims."

Muslims demanded that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. Muslims said the presence of dogs in Lérida violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.

After the municipality refused to acquiesce to Muslim demands, the city experienced A WAVE OF DOG POISONINGS. More than a dozen dogs were poisoned in September 2011 (local media reports here, here, here, here and here) in Lérida's working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed over the past several years.
Local residents taking their dogs for walks say they have been harassed by Muslim immigrants who are opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.

In Britain, which has become "ground zero" for Europe's canine controversies, blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their "unclean" guide dogs.

In Reading, for example, one pensioner, a cancer sufferer, was repeatedly confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog. He also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.

In Nottingham, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry a blind man because he was accompanied by his guide dog. The taxi driver was later fined £300 ($470).

In Stafford, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry an elderly blind couple from a grocery store because they were accompanied by their seeing-eye dog.

In Tunbridge Wells, Kent, a blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.

In London, a bus driver prevented a woman from boarding a bus with her dog because there was a Muslim lady on the bus who "might be upset by the dog." As the woman attempted to complain, the doors closed and the bus drove away. When a second bus arrived, she again tried to embark, but was stopped again, this time because the driver said he was Muslim.

Also in Britain, police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at train stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers, following complaints that it was offensive to their religion.

A report for the Transport Department advised that the animals should only touch passengers' luggage because it is considered "more acceptable." British Transport Police still use sniffer dogs -- which are trained to detect explosives -- with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers are now more aware of "cultural sensitivities."

Sniffer dogs used by police to search mosques and Muslim homes are now being fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws so that they do not cause offense.

Critics say the complaints are just another example of Muslims trying to force their rules and morals on British society. Tory MP Philip Davies said: "As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally."

Meanwhile, Muslim prisoners in Britain are being given fresh clothes and bedding after sniffer dogs search their cells.

The inmates say their bedclothes and prison uniforms must be changed according to Islamic law if they have come anywhere near dog saliva. Government rules mean prison wardens must hand out replacement sets after random drug searches to avoid religious discrimination claims.

The dogs have also been banned from touching copies of the Islamic holy book the Koran and other religious items. Prisoners are handed special bags to protect the articles.

In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to the city's 3,000-strong Muslim community.

In Norway, Gry Berg, a blind woman, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of Oslo because she was accompanied by her guide dog.

In France, Marie Laforêt, one of the country's most well-known singers and actresses, appeared in a Paris courtroom in December to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.

The 72-year-old Laforêt had placed an ad on an Internet website looking for someone to do some work on her terrace in 2009. She specified in the ad that "people with allergies or orthodox Muslims" should not apply "due to a small Chihuahua."

Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.
The case was taken up by an anti-discrimination group called the Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), which lodged a complaint against Laforêt.

Laforêt's lawyer said his client "knew that the presence of a dog could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect." But Muslims rejected her defense.

Gina Caracci (219)
Thursday February 20, 2014, 6:54 pm
I wont watch the video, because I just cant watch another one like that innocent Rottie being shot in the street for NOTHING..Sounds like this is what happened.
This is why Im taking a break from care2..need a break b4 i snap..

as for the point of the article..From what I understand about Muslims, this falls in line with how they hate anyone unlike them and they believe every word from a book that was clearly written by a madman

sick bastard needs to be fired and jailed


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:28 am
I took the time and read through the article and the links provided by Patricia Martinez (

Although I could safely assume that it is from the bottom of the gutter … I didn’t expect to see hate-sites like “Bare Naked Islam” and “Euope united against Islam” which are since a while on the NHS index of the respective country. But it just goes to tell (at least me) that it’s a waste of time and effort. On the other hand I got to know a number of “delightful” hate sites which make the Ku-Klux-Klan and the “Sturmfront” pale in comparison and Goebbels could still learn a lesson or two. But one needs quite a good stomach to be able to read the comments by those extremists and fanatic haters on these sites.

My initial suspicion got confirmed that these C2-members here like “Rahman Qureshi”, “Beth S.”, “Patricia Martinez” et al. have nothing else in mind than incite hatred and fear against a religion and its followers by disseminating and dwelling on stories which have been manipulated in the worst possible ways and gathered from all possible (and dubious) sources. Even if one follows the sources in MM-Outlets … the origin always leads back to the same sources.

What did I find? I go in sequence of the links provided in Patricia’s article and start with Holland.

No surprise here. How could it be anyone else other the “Party of Freedom” of Geert Wilders, founder and President of the party with his known hatred for anything remotely resembling Islam leave alone Islam itself.

“Gatestoneinstitute” saw it correct to flash the following: “According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.”

Whereas in the article’s headline of Jan. 2012 I read that Küçük said: “Honden horen in de natuur, maar niet in een huis. ... Een hond in een flat is dierenmishandeling.” Which means: “Dogs belong in nature but not in a house. To keep a dog in an appartment is animal abuse.”

For all I know, yes, animal abuse is punishable by law in Holland. Amazing – the notion of not being allowed to hold dogs in appartments can be found with many dog lowers of all faith and in all countries. But naturally it is CRIMINAL if a Muslim would ask that this should be treated as animal abuse.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:30 am
Let’s move on to Spain on the "Jihad against Dogs" (copyright Patricia).
El Ayuntamiento socialista de Lérida podría prohibir los perros en los autobuses para no ofender a los musulmanes, Jan. 2011

Interestingly it can’t name the 2 mentioned Islamic radical associations which seemingly demand a ban of dogs on the public busses.

Then I read: “No olvideis que periódico estais leyendo. Nunca diràn nada bueno de un musulmán, un comunista o ya puestos, de un catalán.”

The reply to that was: “Estoy de acuerdo contigo. La fuente de donde viene esta noticia solo es para crear xenofobia y mal rollo. APARTE QUE NO SÉ DE DONDE HAN SACADO ESTO. DEL AYUNTAMIENTO DE LLEIDA SEGURO QUE NO….” [Emphasis added]

Strange that the City Hall of Lleida seems to have no knowledge acc. to the above comment … after all … this is where these extremists supposedly filed their demand.

The links which are provided as “proof” of the killings of dogs by Muslims in Spain all have the same articles in Catalán and in Spanish– none of them mentions anywhere that these attacks have been committed by Muslims – they don’t even speculate that the perpetrators were Muslims.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:32 am
Let’s move to England.
Part I

The incident on the bus with the blind man in June 2009 (

“Mr Herridge [the blind man in question], from Tern Close, Tilehurst, said: “Her child was kicking and screaming and someone off the bus told me her child was frightened of my dog. The driver said, ‘Look mate, can’t you get off?’ ... He is unsure what has provoked outbursts but said he thinks some have come from Asian people and that it may be due to religious or cultural differences. IF the people who were upset WERE Muslim, they consider dogs to be ritually unclean.” [IF and WERE ... this is proof?]

In the last line of this para the speculation continues although nowhere in the whole article is it confirmed that the scared kid (and neither the Mum for that matter) was actually a Muslim.

Nevertheless, at the end the following remark was put in:

“As part of a Muslim Council of Britain project, Mufti Zubair Butt, Shar’ia advisor to Muslim Spiritual Care Provision in the NHS, admitted Muslims “require some education” on guide dogs.
In response to concerns raised about guide dogs in mid-2008, he said: “It is important that one does not impose one’s own understanding upon others, but one shows understanding and compassion for others, their needs and their views, especially in an open communal space and in a country where Muslims are living as a minority.”

In the aftermath of this incident the Muslim Council of Britain urged Muslims to show tolerance and common sense over the issue. “’We need to be flexible on this,' a spokesman said. 'Muslim drivers should have no hesitation in allowing guide dogs into their bus or car.’ ...'If a dog does lick you, it's not the end of the world. Just go home and wash yourself.'”

“While drivers [of all religions one is safe to assume] can use their discretion to refuse to carry non-disabled passengers with dogs, they are compelled to accept guide dogs under disability discrimination law.”

In other words: why not just take proper legal action?

Like in this case: In 2006, Muslim minicab driver Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni was fined £200 and ordered to pay £1,200 costs by magistrates in Marylebone, central London, after being prosecuted for failing to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act when he refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was 'unclean'.

Simple, isn’t it? But naturally this doesn’t serve the hate mongers’ and inciters purpose ... therefore, such actions are not mentioned. They’re only good at blowing-up single incidents which help further their mission in life.

Blind couple’s anger as taxi refuses guide dog, Nov. 2010

Nowhere in the whole article does it say anything about the taxi driver being Muslim. Yet ... at the end we read: “In recent years, there have been reports of Muslim drivers refusing the blind due to their doctrine’s assertion that dogs are unclean.”

Pure speculation to hype up what??

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:33 am
England, Part II
Is a religious bus ban on my dog right? June 2010

This is a question by a reader who claims that she was twice denied access to a bus. Oh boy – and one must read the comments!

Although the lady claims what she claims – no action has been taken; not towards the driver nor the company nor has a police report be filed.

The question is allowed: why? Knowing the strict rules which are established by the Transport Dept and knowing the Disability Discrimination Act she sure would have had ample possibilities. If her problem was real. See the above cited case of Marylebone.

Sniffer dogs offend Muslims, June 2008

“The use of sniffer dogs was generally problematic for Muslim respondents on religious grounds if there was the potential for the dog to make direct contact with them.”


One young Asian man told researchers: “We are not supposed to have dogs. It is against our religion.” [This man should read again his scripture]

Another Asian man said: “I don’t mind dogs in the park or walking near me, but sniffer dogs? I don’t think that’s right, on the station, the way they use them.”

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said even dogs touching baggage WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR A MUSLIM PREPARING TO PRAY. [Emphasis added]. But he stressed that it should be easy to allow dogs to check passengers without physical contact. “There is a way of dealing with this and we just need to be sensitive,” he said.

A British Transport Police spokesman said sniffer dogs would continue to be used with any passenger but officers would be considerate where appropriate. “As a force we obviously look at any or all feedback about how people from all faiths and backgrounds view the use of dogs, and how we can incorporate that into how the dogs and their handlers interact with people.”

This gentleman seems not to be affected by the “hate Muslims” hype which is positive – “ people from all faiths and backgrounds view the use of dogs, ...” and I’m just glad that Jews and Sikhs (who get special treatment too) are not in the focus on this site.

Police sniffer dogs to wear bootees during house searches to avoid offending Muslims, Sept. 2008

This article is about the fact that dogs wear bootees if and when searching mosques. There was in the aftermath a recommendation that sniffer dogs should also wear them if searching homes of extremist Muslims. “Under proposals from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the bootees would be used when the occupants objected to the search on religious grounds.”

More from the article:
“An Apco spokesperson said, 'We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people's homes.
'It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it.'
Last week, some Muslims raised objections over being searched by explosive-detecting sniffer dogs at Brighton train station.
The Muslims reported that it was not permissible for them to have direct contact with dogs due to their religious or cultural beliefs.

'If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Apco needs to consult better and more widely.
'I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, BUT THIS IS CULTURAL. [Emphasis added] 'Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do out bit to change out attitudes.'”

This very same Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra spoke out for ALL OTHER RELIGIONS too: ““We would expect the religious requirements and needs of all our diverse religious communities to be accommodated.”

(From the article “Muslim inmates get new clothes if dog sniffs cell” (

(The article fails to mention is that dogs would be required to wear bootees too in case they would enter a synagogue or a church)

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:34 am
Let’s move to Norway.

This one here takes it all as it is an outright lie. Regarding the above cited articles which I found under the provided links … well one can be lenient and call it “mis-presentation” …?
Nei takk til uføretrygd (which reads: No (thanks) to disability), Oct. 2011

The article in this Norwegian newspaper refers to an almost blind young woman of 29 yrs of Lysaker who lives in Oslo and who complains bitterly that she can’t find a job due to her eye bad sight “It’s difficult to be disabled and at the same time deal with a system that works against you not with you.”

She has a service dog named Otilie, is a trained Ergotherapist and can’t find a job because she is medically blind. NOWHERE in the article is there any mention of any Muslim whatsoever – leave alone that she was denied by anyone of entering taxis.

Whereas in the “Gatestone Institute” we read the following: “In Norway, Gry Berg, a blind woman, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of Oslo because she was accompanied by her guide dog.”

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:36 am
Let’s go to France – the last stop.
Procès de Marie Laforêt : la chanteuse, le chihuahua et l'islam, Dec. 2011

The article states that Marie Laforêt is very familiar with Islam and this is why she put in “orthodox Muslims” full well knowing that only very fundamental Muslims have problems with the saliva of dogs.

Why did Gatestone not also mention the rest of the article? Because it doesn’t fit the agenda.

Les arguments de la défense surprennent un expert de la religion musulmane, contacté hier soir. « Dans le fond, le chien n'est pas considéré impur, c'est faux de prétendre le contraire », assure-t-il. « C'est même aberrant, ajoute un chercheur spécialiste de l'islam. Dans la tradition, un être vivant est respecté et respectable, donc c'est évidemment valable pour un chihuahua. » Ce spécialiste s'étonne malgré tout que le Mrap ait déposé plainte à cause d'une telle annonce, estimant qu'« il n'y a pas de quoi fouetter un chien ».

One thing though is for sure: would Marie Laforêt have written that the job is not for “orthodox Jews” the whole world would have come down on her but especially "Honest Reporting" as we see time and again.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 5:57 am
As for the article “Beth S.” posted ( ) … I googled it and found umpteen hits … except that all of them had one and the same source (BNI) and that all of them were hate sites that incited their readers. Nothing really to waste time with.

Other than that - nothing.

I conclude with respect to Patricia's initial comment about the mass-killing of dogs in Europe near Muslim communities:

This is nothing but a lie. The rest is self-explanatory from the cited articles and quotes thereof which I posted above.


It is common knowledge that for all those who dare to come out of their personal cocoon that dogs are part of everyday life in Muslim countries. I currently live in Egypt and have lived in various Islamic societies before. Our street dogs are a nuissance because they are not controlled and can pose problems when walking our pet dogs - if one doesn't know how to handle street dogs that is. ESAF and others have started a spaying/neutering program but there are just too many dog on the streets.

Egypt is heavily advertised among dog breeders because dogs are in very high demand and some people even started backyard breeding because it's such a good business. Even under the rule of Mursi and his Muslim Brothers dogs were neither persecuted nor banned nor killed.

The same applies to Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Tunesia, Marocco and I dare assume the other ones too.

The fact on the grounds speak a total different language than what this "brigade" here tries to portray and concoct. Notwithstanding the fact, that yes, many orthodox Muslims don't like to come in contact with the saliva or the nose of dogs. Is this a crime already?

I do know plenty of non-Muslims who don't like it either; some out of disgust or because they don't like dogs and others because they are simply scared. In such instances our dog goes to the kitchen or upstairs and that's that.

Where exactly is the true issue ... other than hate mongering and incitement?

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 6:03 am
As for the article “Beth S.” posted (… I googled it and found umpteen hits … except that all of them had one and the same source (BNI) and that all of them were hate sites that incited their readers. Nothing really to waste time with.

Obviously just another one of the many hate-inciting stories which cannot be verified ...

I rest my case!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Friday February 21, 2014, 6:08 am
The following is an article by Max Blumenthal which could shed some light on what's going on here and in other forums too and which was published on TomGram:

The Great Islamophobic Crusade
Inside the Bizarre Cabal of Secretive Donors, Demagogic Bloggers, Pseudo-Scholars, European Neo-Fascists, Violent Israeli Settlers, and Republican Presidential Hopefuls Behind the Crusade
By Max Blumenthal


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday February 24, 2014, 1:00 pm

Some love to dig up all kind of from the beginning of Islam (some 1400 plus yrs ago) and want to make it stick that this is still applied across all Muslim nations – despite the fact that there is ample proof to the opposite. This is done in order to support the hate and incitement campaign by those few. What is enshrined in the Torah, the Bible and the Qur'an will never be changed by the respective authorities. But the understanding, interpretation and, therefore, adherence is what can and does change over time and in tune with science and research.

Oddly enough, they claim while this is unquestioned for Judaism and Christianity it is not allowed (according to the hate brigade) to equally take place in Islam. Why? It would destroy the evil picture they try to paint.

Concerning the “dog issue” seemingly at hand here – below is the latest Fatwa by Dar al Ifta’ which belongs to the Ministry of Awqaf (Ministry for Religious Affairs). This notwithstanding there are a number of Muslims who follow some wrong interpretations and advice from their respective Imams or “leaders”. Does it necessarily mean that the whole of the Muslim community is to be trashed? Do we do/allow this for the Christian and Jewish community as they too have some misguided “leaders” who are in my opinion “false preachers for ulterior motives” in all 3 religions? I don’t think so and have always stood up (and I’ll continue to do so) against those “false prophets” like we see them here in this thread – whether it concerns Judaism, Christianity or Islam.


Are dogs considered impure animals? How about cats?


The majority of scholars opined that dogs are impure and they based their opinion on what Abu Huraira narrated that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “If a dog drank from a dish of yours, purify the dish by washing it seven times with dust being the first time”. So scholars said if the dog was not impure, the Prophet would not have commanded us to spill the water from which the dog drank because it would be considered a waste of money which the Islamic Shari’ah prohibits.

Those who maintained the dog’s impurity, some of them obligated washing the dish seven times along with one time with dust and others have found it only recommended to wash it seven time and one time with dust as they maintained the opinion that impurity of the drunk water by dog is similar to other forms of impurities. The latter opinion was held by the Hanafis and they based their opinion on the hadith of Abu Hurairah in which the Prophet said, “If a dog drank from a dish, it should be washed three times”.

Another group of scholars such as Imam Malik opined that the dog is pure because all living things are pure according to his legal school of jurisprudence. As for the command of spilling the water of the dish from which the dog drank and then washing the dish is a ritual act that is not subjected to reason. Therefore for the Malikis washing the dish does not indicate the impurity of the dog because impurities are not conditioned with a certain number. Therefore no command was found to spill anything from which the dog drank except water. Imam Malik supported his juristic opinion with the Quranic verse in which God says, “So eat of what they catch for you..” (5:4)

So if the dog was impure in itself, then it would make what it hunted impure as well. Imam ibn Daqiq al ‘Eid said in his book “Ihkam al Ahkam Sharh ‘Umdat al Ahkam”that the Malikis supported their opinion regarding the purity of dogs through citing the example of the permissibility of dogs to hunt animals without persisting on its purity because hunting animals without touching them is very difficult. Another evidence that is cited by the Malikis to prove the purity of dogs is a hadith which reported by al Bukhari in which ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar stated that dogs used to come and go in the mosque at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) without spraying anything on it. Imam Ibn Batal said that for dogs to come and go in the mosque usually entails wiping their nose, drinking water and eating leftovers because the mosque was the sleeping place for strangers and delegations. They eat in it and the mosque was also the living place for Ahl al Suffa. If dogs were impure, they would be prevented from entering the mosque because Muslims unanimously agree on the impressibility of impurities to enter mosques. Also the fact that dogs used to “come and go” indicates the repetitive nature of dogs’ entrance to the mosque and not forbidding their entrance indicates that they posses no impurity because impurity does not accompany living things.

Although the majority of scholars maintain the impurity of dogs, this does not indicate harming dogs or killing them as the Islamic Shari’ah commanded Muslims to be kind and merciful to all animals and dogs are certainly included.

As for cats, they are pure and this opinion is based on the Prophet’s hadith in which he said, “it is not impure. It is one of these creatures that live in our attendance” (Bukhari)


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday February 24, 2014, 1:03 pm
Another Fatwa from Dar al Ifta' regarding keeping a dog in the house:

What is the ruling of keeping a dog in the house?


The majority of jurists have agreed that it is not permissible to keep a dog except out of need (hajah) like hunting, guarding, and other kinds of benefit that the law has not prohibited. The Malikis said that it is disliked to keep a dog for purposes other than agriculture, herding, or hunting, but some of them said that it is permissible (i.e. not disliked).

This is based on the saying of the Prophet, “The reward of a person who keeps a dog for reasons other than herding, hunting, or agriculture is decreased every day by a qirat.” According to Ibn ‘Umar the Prophet said, “The reward of a person who keeps a dog for reasons other than hunting or herding is decreased every day by two qirats.” They said it is permissible to train puppies that are expected to learn for this purpose.

Imam al-Nawawi said, “Al-Shafi’i and his companions said, ‘It is permissible to keep a dog for hunting, agriculture, or herding without disagreement based on what is mentioned by the al-Musanif. There are two positions mentioned by al-Musanif along with their evidence concerning keeping them to protect homes and neighborhoods and the most correct (asah) one is permissibility as is stated in the al-Mukhtasir.”

Sheikh ‘Ilish, one of the great muhaqiqun of the Malikis said, “It is permissible to keep dogs for all beneficial purposes, and to ward off harm, even if it is not in the wilderness where thieves are feared.”

Based on this, it is permissible to keep dogs for beneficial purposes or out of need, and it is impermissible otherwise. And God is Most High and Knows best.

bob m (32)
Monday February 24, 2014, 7:03 pm

Eleanora; I have never heard a more entirely ludicrous pile of crap in my life concerning dogs noses and the lies, fear and baffle gab in the quran about dogs ; from the prophet of lies on up... .. . this dog even wagged its tail after being shooed off before being shot. Cruelty abounds yes; but islam has taken this to depths the shaitan has wet dreams over daily... and you a pathetic dhiimmi apologist.... Bacteria in nose indeed... bacteria in mind?stick your pathetic paranoid hypochondriacal, manipulations for Islamic beastiality in your ear.

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Monday February 24, 2014, 7:04 pm
It is clear Eleonora is experiencing cognitive dissonance. She posts a picture of a dog as her avatar while at the same time tries to explain away Muhammad's clear command to kill all dogs, especially black ones, because his imagination told him an angel said he couldn't enter a house with a dog. There is no reconciliation possible. Any fatwas issued in favor of dogs are as a result of cognitive dissonance, Muslims who have a conscience about dogs trying to reconcile Muhammad murderous attitude towards dogs while trying to hold onto Muhammad the "excellent model of conduct." There is no reconciliation. Muhammad was a fraud - period,

To cite early Islam means NOTHING because of the doctrine of abrogation. Medinan Islam abrogates peaceful-sounding Meccan Islam.

Condemn Muhammad, the ultimate racist, bigoted hatemonger!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Monday February 24, 2014, 10:39 pm
To Bob - you truly made my day! I sure hope you feel better now. The way I know it is that bigottery and ad hominem attacks are not taught in/from the holy book (?) you seem to follow. It looks to me as if you have quite a way to go to understand His message(s).

You say in your profile about "what gives me hope": Gods' graceous hand; His mercy over my life which is His.

Then I read your motivating comment above of Monday 24, 2014, 7:04 pm with all the nice insults based on nothing - just because I dared to post two Fatawy about what Dar al Ifta'a says about dogs in Islam and which doesn't match the crap which is disseminated here by some professional inciters ... then I get from YOU this in my mail box ....

"bob m. sent you a green star Feb 25, 2014: Guelph, ON, Canada"

???? I hope that at least YOU understand what you're doing ...

Have a great day ...!! LOL!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 12:45 pm
As all of the participants here are great dog lovers - I guess it's a fair assumption?? - I'd appreciate it if all of you would find it in your heart to sign this petition:

This petition will be delivered to:

Senator Nick Rahall, West Virginia's 3rd District

Justice For Toby - "Toby's Law"

Three years ago in Texas, three young boys kidnapped a neighbor's 5-month-old Pomeranian puppy, named Toby, and took him to an abandoned house.

There, they climbed to the top of the building and repeatedly threw this poor pup off the edge, breaking all of his legs.

They then strung him upside down BY HIS BROKEN LEGS and proceeded to hit him repeatedly with a wooden board embedded with nails, basically treating this tortured puppy like a piñata.

These young monsters then lit his genitals on fire.

One of them grabbed a pocketknife and started to cut Toby's throat.

It was at this point that this poor, victimized pup died of his wounds.

As a side note which I don't want to keep to myself: there’s nothing like fine “Christian” boys … isn’t there?

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 8:02 pm
Eleonora, thanks for bringing that story to my attention. There are many fellow dog lovers here. I signed the petition.

I would have given you a green star, but you lost out on it because of the ignorance shown in your ending statement.

Exactly where in the Bible does it say to kill dogs? NOWHERE! But where in Islamic doctrine, Muhammad's Sunna, does it say to kill dogs? Let's read Sahih Muslim, one of the top sources of Sunna:

“Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” — Sahih Muslim 3811

"Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad mood. Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: You promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields or big gardens". - Sahih Muslim #5248

When Muslims kill dogs, it is because of Muhammad. However, if someone claims to be a Christian and kills dogs like the criminals in your petition, it is because of their sin and NOT because of Jesus. The pious Muslim who kills dogs is in alignment with the "perfect model of conduct" in Islam, but the one who claims to be a Christian and tortures dogs is out of alignment with the perfect model of conduct, Jesus Christ.


Rahman Qureshi (76)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 8:02 pm
Eleonora, thanks for bringing that story to my attention. There are many fellow dog lovers here. I signed the petition.

I would have given you a green star, but you lost out on it because of the ignorance shown in your ending statement.

Exactly where in the Bible does it say to kill dogs? NOWHERE! But where in Islamic doctrine, Muhammad's Sunna, does it say to kill dogs? Let's read Sahih Muslim, one of the top sources of Sunna:

“Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” — Sahih Muslim 3811

"Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad mood. Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: You promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields or big gardens". - Sahih Muslim #5248

When Muslims kill dogs, it is because of Muhammad. However, if someone claims to be a Christian and kills dogs like the criminals in your petition, it is because of their sin and NOT because of Jesus. The pious Muslim who kills dogs is in alignment with the "perfect model of conduct" in Islam, but the one who claims to be a Christian and tortures dogs is out of alignment with the perfect model of conduct, Jesus Christ.

fly b (26)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 8:22 pm
here's the main purpose of this post - anti-Muslim attacks.
so obvious -so wrapped in it, that it doesn't matter what the title of the video is - he just inserts his own script, in the attempt to demonize Muslims (and Islam).
The title that goes with the posted video is NOT "Muslim police officer...
It is : "FILER POLICE Shoot Dog".
The articles posted on this incident do NOT mention the 'religion' or ethnic origin of the officer, in question.
ONLY anti-Muslim hate sites infer this, though there is absolutely NO documentation to this effect.
Engineering one's own stories to try and stir up negative and hateful attitudes seem to be one of the reasons for the 'title' selected, and an ugly compulsion to vent and demonize, rather than examining one's reasons for needing to continually needing to smear people and/or a religion.

Again, "THE TILE IS Filer Police Shoot Dog".

Personally, I would not make assertions based on the names 'Rahman' or 'Qureshi'.

Clearly, the faux righteousness displayed is beyond hypocrisy.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 11:14 pm
To "Rahman Qureshi" - Thank you – with your comment of Tuesday February 25, 2014, 8:02 pm you have just presented the ultimate in the art of twists and "pick ‘n chose"!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 11:29 pm
To Jess - you're statement is so very correct as can be seen by "Qureshi's" response above! Take as further evidence to your point the lengthy article which they posted from a source called "Gatestone Institute" and my point by point rebuttal thereof on Friday February 21, 2014, 5:28 am ff.

Does it come as a surprise that none of this "righteous figthers" could come up with any answer? No. What can one say anyway if one is so clearly exposed? LOL!


Eleonora Oldani (37)
Tuesday February 25, 2014, 11:30 pm

To sum up this fruitless but nonetheless somehow insightful "discussion" ...

Someone once said, “I cannot add to your knowledge what you already know, or what you are predetermined to UNKNOW.”

I had many-a-time in earlier postings here suspected this basic wisdom explains the main underlying issue hampering our discussions.

This is no longer a suspicion. I have now reached the conclusion that discussion in this forum has been hijacked by a certain small clique of individuals surreptitiously working together and/or directed by an entity, inconspicuous to the audience, having a unique unchanging objective. Regardless of the discussion topic, be it the weather conditions today or the shape of your kitchen sink; this small clan will – in the absence of a keen and neutral moderator – always derail the discussion, pursuing their hate campaign of “disinformation” and waging their sanctified war on Islam!!

This by no means is my first encounter with such ‘clandestine’ internet operations… Throughout my prior experience with discussion forums, I came to learn that there are essentially four categories of participants, where it comes to the possibility of establishing a constructive dialogue. There are those who are:

(a) Somewhat informed about the topic at hand, come to the forum to further expand their knowledge and benefit from a healthy debate, and admittedly state so upfront.

(b) Well versed in the topic and are therefore justifiably comfortable within a challenging pertinent discussion. These normally will have developed a firm opinion, with a certain leaning to one view over the other, but are still open-minded enough to genuinely want to pursue a meaningful debate.

(c) Brain-washed, having been intensely and ruthlessly manipulated by certain interest groups, to where they are no longer capable of leading any discussion at any level. This bunch will avert addressing all questions and counter-arguments placed on the table. They will time and again tirelessly come back at you with the very same arguments which had been already refuted and rebutted earlier on, ... till you go blue in the face!!

(d) "Mercenaries". These are individuals recruited by (mostly) global entities and organizations to form what has become known as the "E-Brigades" to push their campaign of disinformation down your throat. These mercenaries are chosen to be remarkably verbose and thick-skinned. This, coupled with the fact that they are backed by massive teams feeding them with the necessary material –of which at least half is twists and lies –, makes it a stroll-in-the-park for them to soon dominate and takeover the forum.

The former two categories, (a + b), provide for good discussion partners. As for the latter two, well, you can just forget it!

One last point: How to distinguish the (c) participants from the (d) enlistees??

Mainly by three characteristics: First – The volume of the contribution by each of the (d) folks is many folds that of anybody else’s, supported by references/quotes from their teams operating in the background; second – they orchestrate their appearing and disappearing in the forum(s) i.e. they work in shifts, and – third – the (c) members do not burry you under a mountain of lies,… at least not intentionally!!!

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Wednesday February 26, 2014, 2:33 pm
Eleonora talks about "pick and choose", not realizing she is hanging Islam. But I'll come back to that in a bit.

Eleonora thinks she is an Islamic expert, citing somewhat pro-dog sources which are obviously from Muslims who have better morals and character than the rapist, terrorist, wife-beating "prophet" Muhammad they think they follow.

Let's see now if Eleonora knows Islam better than the scholars who eat, breathe and live Islam, and the rulings based on that.

Everyone, please read this article about theocratic Muslim Iran's position on dogs:

Iran is run by the Supreme Leader. Iran's Constitution, Penal code and rulings are based on the inhumane doctrine of Islam.

When Eleonora, in her "expertise" is successful in getting Islam-run Iran to see how they are getting it all wrong on their anti-dog stance, then Eleonora can come here and legitimately argue what Islamic doctrine says. Until then, Shari'a-run Iran's position on dogs is in alignment with what I have been saying. Notice Islam-run Iran doesn't spew any of the nonsense Eleonora says about dog noses, instead their anti-dog position is based on the anti-dog rants rampant in Islamic doctrine.

With Islam-governed Iran's anti-dog position, kind-hearted Iranian Muslims can have their dogs arrested for even walking them in public or driving them in cars. How exactly will dogs living in apartments get to pee and poop and their daily walks? How exactly will dog-loving Iranian Muslims drive their dogs to the vet? Islam-run Iran's anti-dog position is based on the contempt of dogs stemming from Muhammad's anti-dog words.

Since Eleonora thinks she is a master of Islamic doctrine, she can easily debate Iran's Supreme leader and win. His life-long study of Islam certainly wouldn't be able to defeat Eleonora's "expert" analysis of the Islamic position on dogs, right? Therefore, Eleonora should provide us with a written response from Iran's Supreme leader, on official Iranian letterhead, explaining how her "vast knowledge" of the Islamic position on dogs is correct and his is wrong, and how based on her "expert" knowledge of Islam he will promptly change Iran's anti-dog position to a humane one representative of "true" Islam.

We're all waiting...

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Wednesday February 26, 2014, 2:52 pm
Now for Eleonora's mention of "pick and choose", not realizing she is hanging Islam.

If someone murders a girl, and that person also sends his mom a birthday card every year, the birthday card doesn't cancel out the murder. No one would condemn the man for sending his mom birthday cards, but do condemn him for murder.

If Eleonora was on that jury she would rant "pick and choose." She would focus on the birthday cards and not the murder. Normal jury members, however, would take everything into account and find him guilty of murder. Why? Because the good doesn't erase the bad.

Another way of looking at it is if someone helps people but murders a few of them, the focus is not on the ones he helped because that us not the problem. The problem is that he murdered people. Eleonora would cry "pick and choose" at the focus on his murders, but normal people understand that he is to be held accountable for the murders. No amount of people he helped erases the murders.

In early Islamic doctrine, Muhammad wasn't anti-dog. No one has a problem with his stance at that point. However, he turned on dogs and order the murder of dogs because his imagination told him a angel couldn't visit him. THAT is what Muhammad is condemned for, especially since later teachings abrogate the earlier ones. His anti-dog rants are what led Islamic-Iran to take its anti-dog position.

Furthermore, "pick and choose" shows, at the very least, contradiction within Islamic text, which demolishes the Islamic claim of clear and perfect doctrine. Eleonora doesn't claim that Islamic text, which we can all read, is void of Sahih Muslim 3811 and 5248. She instead wants us to IGNORE such authoritative Islamic text and follow her "pick and choose" references. In other words, the very same thing she rants about, "pick and choose", is the very same thing she does. And the need to do it illuminates the self-contradictory nature of Islamic doctrine.

I thank Eleonora for her work in exposing Islam as vile and self-contradictory. She deserves a green star for that.

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 26, 2014, 4:28 pm
Why is “Rahman Qureshi” so hell bent in exposing and making a laughing stock out of himself? One can only wonder and guess …

Let me see …

Fact 1:
I never claimed nor did I set myself up as an expert on Islam – unlike the “E-Brigade” here of which “Rahman Qureshi” is a member of. I just have the ability to think for myself rather than have others do the thinking for me. I have learned to use logic and common sense when I read – especially when it’s so obvious to a blind man what the purpose of these “comments” are.

Fact 2:
“Rahman Qureshi” still does not say anything – he just copy-pastes the material which is fed to him.

Fact 3:
But IF and WHEN he tries to say something than it just ends in a temper tantrum like a little spoiled kid who got his favorite toy confiscated.

Fact 4:
Iran has a population of just short of 80 Mio (2013 figure) of which 98% are Muslims. For the sake of not overstretching anyone’s math skills let’s stick to the 80 Mio – this equals to a meager 3.92 % of the Muslim population worldwide (2013 figure).

Fact 5:
Iran is a country with 89% Shia and 9% Sunni Muslims. I do assume that the majority of literate people know that Shia are at odds with Sunni Muslims. Equally I can assume that people know that the majority of the Islamic countries are strongly opposed to clergies (Ayatollahs) ruling a country.

Fact 6:
Given the 89% majority of Shia (who rule the country) it, therefore, follows that they would not necessarily concur with Fatwas issued by the highest Sunni Authority (?!) …

Fact 7:
Just for the sake of the argument – let’s assume that this 3.92 % follow what this Ayatollah says (willingly or unwillingly is not the discussion point) … is this truly a reflection that all of the 2.04 Bio Muslims are that way?!


Let’s look at what the article says:

The 1st line reads: “Walking dogs in public or driving them around in cars is set to be banned in Iran”. Unfortunately, we are not privy to the information whether this ban is now in place or not.

Further we read that the authorities THREATENED to criminalize dog ownership. Here too the follow-up is missing.
The article also discloses that the Iranians have kept their fighting spirit and obviously don’t intend to be scared off.

Quotes from the article:
“Despite the threats, sales of dogs are still booming. … Pet shop owners and vets said sales of dogs have risen sharply in recent years. … Pet foods and grooming kits are available at most supermarkets and dog training schools and 'dog hotels' have even sprung up in the country.… It has become increasingly fashionable in well-to-do Tehran neighbourhoods to keep dogs – especially expensive pedigrees – as status symbols. … Customers are opting for 'tiny' dogs such as Chihuahuas that make less noise and are easier to hide during walks or car trips.”

And as a finale – LOL – “Rahman Qureshi” demands … as if he were in any position to demand anything from anyone …:

“Therefore, Eleonora should provide us with a written response from Iran's Supreme leader, on official Iranian letterhead, explaining how her "vast knowledge" of the Islamic position on dogs is correct …”

But even if I were out of my mind and would consider for a split second to entertain such a childish “demand” – why should I? … if the article does this for me?!

The same article reveals the following – which is 100% in line with what I quoted and linked from Dar al Ifta’:

“Dogs are considered 'unclean' BUT guard dogs are common and tolerated, although they are not usually allowed into homes. … Specially trained dogs, such as those that detect drugs, or sheepdogs are ALSO ALLOWED. [Emphasis added)


Well … and who would "We" be in "we're all waiting" ... LOL

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 26, 2014, 4:29 pm

I ask everyone to read this posting of "Rahman Qureshi"

Wednesday February 26, 2014, 2:52 pm

and decide for himself in which of the 2 categories he fits!

Eleonora Oldani (37)
Wednesday February 26, 2014, 4:39 pm

THANKS a lot that "Rahman Qureshi" confirmed with his posting of Wednesday February 26, 2014, 2:52 pm
the correctness of my statement under Fact 7!

I did send him a Green Star for this posting as a little sign of appreciation. And PLEASE don't send me now a Green Star as I have no means to reject it!

Rahman Qureshi (76)
Wednesday February 26, 2014, 5:22 pm
Tantrums, tantrums Eleonora. Tisk, tisk. The "we" are all who have commented on this article or read the comments.

Eleonora talks about confronting the Supreme leader as a "childish demand." Seems obvious to any adult that if Eleonora truly believed in her position she would attempt to "correct" the Supreme leader instead of arguing to a small group of people. When challenged with this, instead of Eleonora stepping up to the challenge, she throws a fit, and I'm supposed to be the "childish" one?

In terms of the vast majority of Muslims spoken of, the masses are ignorant of what is actually written in Islamic doctrine. If Imams, both Sunni and Shi'a, were to actually tell the Ummah that Muhammad and his companions, including Ali, were rapists, terrorists, thieves and murderers, Islam would be over the next day. This is why some Muslims may hold to views like acting humanely towards dogs, while pious Muslims know no limit to their hate and cruelty against animals and people. One would think the fact that many Muslim countries have no animal protection laws would be a clue to the Ummah that Islamic leaders know something about Islam the Ummah doesn't. But, just like with Eleonora, it eases the cognitive dissonance to avoid dealing with the vile nature of Islam or attempt to explain it away.

I thank Eleonora for the green star for my post showing that Islamic is inherently self-contradictory and vile.

Here's some 'lovely' citations for Eleonora from Islamic doctrine. As a female, I'm sure she'll find these quite relevant:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DEFICIENCY OF A WOMAN’S MIND." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826)

Muhammad indirectly makes reference to Sura 2:282 regarding the testimony of two women being equivalent to one man as a basis to show why women are intellectually inferior. Thus, Muhammad’s own interpretation of Sura 2:282 establishes the case that the reason why two women are required to testify is because they are inferior intellectual beings!

Sunni Qur'an exegete ar-Razi made these comments on Sura 4:11:

"(The males share is that of two females). Man is more perfect than the woman IN CREATION, AND INTELLIGENCE, and in the religious sphere, such as the suitability to be a judge, and a leader in worship. Also, the testimony of the man is twice that of the woman. So that whoever is given great responsibilities must be given correspondingly great privileges. As the woman is deficient in intelligence and of great lust, if she is given much money, much corruption will be the result."

In other words Muslim women, based on the Qur'an and Muhammad, are STUPID!!!!

Using the rules of Islam, Eleonora's testimony / writings against me are inherently deficient.


Latonya W (82)
Monday March 3, 2014, 2:29 pm
I hate animal killers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hate them
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Society & Culture

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.