"Dreaded Cute Puppy Dog of Blasphemy."

nozzferrahhtoo

I wonder if anyone can explain the thinking behind the action of these muslims:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030798/Muslim-outrage-police-advert-featuring-cute-puppy-sitting-policemans-hat.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374564,00.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/07/05/police-puppy-ads-upset-muslims-britain

Are the muslim community not just harming themselves by making wailing claims of being offended at every little thing? Sure, Mohammad might not have liked dogs, but this is no reason to go protesting at every little picture of them.

When are these communities going to realise pictures of dogs are not out to insult you, naming teddy bears Mohammad is not a crime punishable by death, and writers of books or drawers of cartoons do not have to have fatwas of doom declared against them.

Seriously. Get over yourselves guys.

Rev Hellfire

Its somewhat telling that you had to come into this forum in order to get the issue raised.

Hobbes

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Are the muslim community not just harming themselves by making wailing claims of being offended at every little thing?

At the end of the day the newspapers have to sell papers. The only way they can do it is to sensationalise it. You listed three good examples.

However if you bothered to do a bit of reading around you would find that the Muslim community is not up in arms over postcards of puppies at all.


In fact the only real comment I could find was from one Muslim City councillor who said:

"My concern was that it is not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards. It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities. The police should have understood. "

There you have it. He mentions that Muslims don't see puppies the same way and targetted advertising to them in such a way is not likely to have any real effect.

Police just issued a standard apology like they normally do if they think if they have offended anyone at all (even though no one is actually complaining).

So seriously, you need to get over yourself and do a bit of research rather then be baited by tabloids.

wes

As has been pointed out above by others the articles are ridiculous exaggerations (and thats being kind). Complete tabloid rubbish.

BuffyBot

A good counterpoint to the puppy story is here (in fairness, the Daily Mail and Fox News O_o)

http://scottishislamic.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/now-muslims-hate-cute-wee-puppies/

and the media/Islam in general here

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-wifebeating-thats-fine-ndash-unless-youre-a-muslim-862898.html

Standman

Hobbes wrote: »

At the end of the day the newspapers have to sell papers. The only way they can do it is to sensationalise it. You listed three good examples.

However if you bothered to do a bit of reading around you would find that the Muslim community is not up in arms over postcards of puppies at all.


In fact the only real comment I could find was from one Muslim City councillor who said:


There you have it. He mentions that Muslims don't see puppies the same way and targetted advertising to them in such a way is not likely to have any real effect.

Police just issued a standard apology like they normally do if they think if they have offended anyone at all (even though no one is actually complaining).

So seriously, you need to get over yourself and do a bit of research rather then be baited by tabloids.

Well you left a bit out of that quote

wrote:

'Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.'

This implies that it did cause upset, not just that it was "not likely to have any real effect"

Hobbes

Standman wrote: »

This implies that it did cause upset, not just that it was "not likely to have any real effect"

There is a difference between implying it would cause upset and causing actual upset. Even so I was looking for the Muslim outrage and could only find that one quote which doesn't sound anyone getting upset about it.

Is that the worst you can find about the outrage? :rolleyes:

Actually the quote from buffybot sums up the Muslim response fine.

We agree with Mahmud Sarwar Rathor, trustee of Dundee’s Dura Street Mosque, who in yesterday’s Scotsman clarified that “This is not an issue as far as the Muslim community is concerned… the fact that it was a picture makes it more ridiculous to say it was offensive. Muslim shopkeepers sell dog food with pictures of animals on it.”

FriarMo

I'd like to Ddrect you to this letter recently published in the Irish independent titled "Muslims Love Their Dogs Too"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/muslims-love-their-dogs-too-1456452.html

" As a person originally from Saudi Arabia and a proud owner of a Lab-Collie cross that I love dearly, I seem to be a walking contradiction of Ian O'Doherty's generalisation ('Ah yes -- it's those pesky dogs that are the problem', Irish Independent, August 7).
In Islam, animals in general are treated with compassion; dogs are even mentioned in the Quran as faithful companions (the chapter of the Cave) and a parable is told by Mohammed in the Hadith (or sayings of the Prophet), in which a man is forgiven all his sins for going down a well and fetching water for a dog tormented with thirst in the desert.

Meanwhile, the person most quoted as a narrator of Hadith, and who has been compared to Saint Paul for his place in Muslim theology, is a man nicknamed Abu Hurairah or "He of the Cats", because of his great fondness for the feline species.

Unfortunately, the so-called Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia has yet again imposed its own puritanical and extreme interpretation of religion on the rest of the population and made a travesty of the faith.

But as with a lot of their decrees it will mostly be ignored, I can assure you.

Even Bedouins, who are considered to be one of the more conservative elements of Saudi society, have had Salukis as companions for hundreds of years and will certainly continue to do so for hundreds of years more."

InFront

Well as the owner of a very beautiful young German Shepherd I'd like to affirm what FriarMo just said.

Whatever the motives of people's objections to those ads, if it was a blot on their conscience to say nothing, and if it was causing them genuine upset, and if they objected in a way that was not offensive, well then they were right to speak out. That's the whole point of living in a free society, and is a privelege that most of us here I'm sure, thankfully, enjoy.

I'm not sure why anyone here would get offended at their objection? Isn't this a sign of an open and equitable society?

I don't know sometimes, everything these days just seems to be one long whirlpool of offence and counter-offence.

hivizman

Did anyone see this short piece in The Times yesterday?

A Muslim student has become the first person allowed to take a guide dog into a British mosque. Mahomed-Abraar Khatri, 18, can now enter the Bilal Jamia mosque in Leicester with Vargo after a decision by the Muslim Law (Sharia) Council UK. Previously, all dogs were banned from mosques because the Islamic faith sees them as being for guarding and hunting only.

There's a much more full report here.