This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← UPDATED: Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe

UPDATED: Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe - Comments

mmurray's Avatar Comment 1 by mmurray

Is it OK if they wear barkas ?

Michael

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:50:23 UTC | #913753

Absinthius's Avatar Comment 2 by Absinthius

Boy, is he barking up the wrong tree...

Let us all hope he will walk away with his tail between his legs.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:51:42 UTC | #913754

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 3 by Ignorant Amos

They are just "canineaphobes"....let's here it for dogs rights.

These people are 'mongrels'.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:53:49 UTC | #913756

beau53's Avatar Comment 4 by beau53

They even ban dogs in a lot of shops in Britain because they are unclean..oh!

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:56:10 UTC | #913757

PERSON's Avatar Comment 5 by PERSON

from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants

But not native Muslims? Why use this word? I think I smell anti-immigrant bias.

I notice the same site has an article entitled "Newt Gingrich's Non-Zany Space Policy". This doesn't make me think the site is very sensible. A permanent, $700 billion moon base in seven years? OK, then. I mean, without the Iraq war and no obviously immanent bail-outs, what else will they do with all the money they'll borrow from China? Bear in mind NASA currently gets less than $20bn per year, and that Newt is talking about cutting taxes for the rich even more.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:56:35 UTC | #913758

vessela84's Avatar Comment 6 by vessela84

Next we won't be allowed to eat bacon?

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:57:21 UTC | #913759

andyb001's Avatar Comment 7 by andyb001

So why did God instruct Noah to save two of them on the Ark?

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:57:40 UTC | #913760

sycorax's Avatar Comment 8 by sycorax

The most comical religion ever invented by a man (for his own vanity and agenda?) strikes again. How deluded are these people that they think they are not part of the animal kingdom?

When in Rome do as the Romans do unless you are a Muslim and member of the single most intolerant and ridiculous religion ever invented which insults not only humanity but the universe itself

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:00:59 UTC | #913761

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 9 by MarkOnTheRiver

Comment 6 by vessela84 :

Next we won't be allowed to eat bacon?

We're allowed to eat bacon?

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:01:44 UTC | #913763

pwuk's Avatar Comment 10 by pwuk

Barking mad

Still, shows these insane ideas for what they are.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:06:34 UTC | #913764

Fozzie's Avatar Comment 11 by Fozzie

In the words of Billy Connelly - "Bloody Idiots!". If they don't like it - they should bugger off to another country!

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:07:35 UTC | #913765

mindy234's Avatar Comment 12 by mindy234

Absolutely ridiculous, not pawesome at all.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:08:04 UTC | #913766

mole at the counter's Avatar Comment 13 by mole at the counter

So the Muslims have a problem with the Caninites now...

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:09:40 UTC | #913767

Tony d's Avatar Comment 14 by Tony d

I would not want to live in a country that bans dogs. I would rather live in a country that bans people who don't like dogs. Anyone who want's to ban my dog is looking for trouble and can kiss my ass. Europe seems to be going down the pan.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:10:06 UTC | #913768

Ornicar's Avatar Comment 15 by Ornicar

I don't like dogs.

But what if they ban cats next !

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:10:56 UTC | #913769

calvinchan's Avatar Comment 16 by calvinchan

Barefaced speciesism.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:12:06 UTC | #913771

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 17 by Agrajag

What about service dogs... do they "offend muslims" as well?

I think someone (piss be upon him) was frightened by a dog when he was too young to be a pedophile. ;-)
Or maybe it's to do with the obsession with "elimination", as described HERE.
Steve

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:12:34 UTC | #913773

Sample's Avatar Comment 18 by Sample

It can be one of life's greatest experiences, the human-animal bond (barring allergies).

There is a proven link between animal violence and subsequent domestic violence. Why would I not be surprised if far too many practicing Muslim men beat their wives? Oh, because they do.

Despicable.

Mike

(I take responsibility for my overt emotional reaction on this subject).

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:14:12 UTC | #913774

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 19 by Richard Dawkins

I don't think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste of more serious things to come. They've already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice, decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children automatically adopt the religion of their parents.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:14:26 UTC | #913775

permafrost's Avatar Comment 20 by permafrost

The LaforĂȘt case is particularly surrealist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The old lady places a job adverstisement saying she will not engage orthodox muslims because she has a dog and she is brought to court for discrimination!!! And then a couple of "Muslim" experts say that her defense (that she did not want to offend muslims, knowing full well about their dislike for dogs) is false, that muslims do not really hate dogs! Now, go to hell.

A few years ago I belonged to the respectful accommodationist crowd in matters of religion. No more. I positively hate religion idiocy.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:14:36 UTC | #913776

robaylesbury's Avatar Comment 21 by robaylesbury

Ruff justice.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:15:18 UTC | #913777

mmurray's Avatar Comment 22 by mmurray

Comment 19 by Richard Dawkins :

I don't think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste of more serious things to come. They've already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice, decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children automatically adopt the religion of their parents.

This case does highlight something I think Schrodinger's Cat raised the other day. That is that in a democracy you don't need to hold a majority of votes to have power. Depending on how the votes of the various parties balance out a small party can wield disproportionate power.

So how do we stop the children inheriting this religion ?

Michael

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:18:20 UTC | #913778

PERSON's Avatar Comment 23 by PERSON

Shops can ban dogs. Is that an infringement of civil liberties? If not, why is the people of a town voting for a candidate who will see through their wishes? What gives the rest of the country the right to interfere in their democratic process this way?

By all means, people can and should oppose it, campaign against it. But we're talking about something non-necessary here. A pet is a luxury. Why the outrage, apart from an attempt to generate hatred against a minority group as a cheap tactic to garner support?

Obviously harassment to achieve this end is completely unacceptable, but that's a different issue from the ban itself.

There is also a serious problem with banning guide dogs. They are a necessity, and it's fair enough to intervene to prevent that. Otherwise, I have to question the commitment to democracy here.

Comment 18 by Sample

Muslims. How long have you been beating your wives?

Is there a higher rate? Higher than which group(s)?

How do we stop children inheriting the religion? Reject the irrationalism and the evil aspects, not the whole package of their history and culture (which extends beyond stoning, hijab, burkahs and violent jihad, and even varies somewhat by region and country, some of you may be shocked to learn). History and culture should absolutely not be used for excuse-making, but neither should they be thrown out just because they are too Muslimy or not Western or American or Dutch enough.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:18:42 UTC | #913779

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 24 by irate_atheist

I bet they even oppose dogging.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:24:17 UTC | #913781

RationalConclusion's Avatar Comment 25 by RationalConclusion

          [Comment 19](/articles/644807-muslims-declare-jihad-on-dogs-in-europe/comments?page=1#comment_913775) by  [Richard Dawkins](/profiles/53)          :


                 I don't think this is a matter for levity. Think of it as a foretaste of more serious things to come. They've already hounded Ayaan Hirsi Ali out of Holland and their confidence is growing with their population numbers, encouraged by the craven accommodationist mentality of nice, decent Europeans. This particular move to outlaw dogs will fail, but Muslim numbers will continue to grow unless we can somehow break the memetic link between generations: break the assumption that children automatically adopt the religion of their parents.

For that to be achieved I think that the most effective thing would be a ban on faith schools or at the very least state funded faith schools. I think that this is the main target that we as secularists/atheists/humanists/agnostics/rationalists should be aiming for. We need to come together and start putting more pressure on all governments who allow faith schools to exist.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:24:48 UTC | #913782

mmurray's Avatar Comment 26 by mmurray

Comment 23 by PERSON :

Shops can ban dogs. Is that an infringement of civil liberties? If not, why is the people of a town voting for a candidate who will see through their wishes? What gives the rest of the country the right to interfere in their democratic process this way?

By all means, people can and should oppose it, campaign against it. But we're talking about something non-necessary here. A pet is a luxury. Why the outrage, apart from an attempt to generate hatred against a minority group as a cheap tactic to garner support?

Obviously harassment to achieve this end is completely unacceptable, but that's a different issue from the ban itself.

There is also a serious problem with banning guide dogs. They are a necessity, and it's fair enough to intervene to prevent that. Otherwise, I have to question the commitment to democracy here.

Just because you can wield political power doesn't mean you should. Otherwise the majority could beat up the minority all the time. You should be required to make a case. What is the case against people having dogs as pets ? They are "unclean". I put the quotes around it because I have no idea what it means. These meaningless religious arguments should have no place in the public sphere anymore. I thought that on this website at least we agreed on this point? Kucuk himself seems to know this because he tries to argue that it is unfair to the dogs.

Michael

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:25:46 UTC | #913783

Sample's Avatar Comment 27 by Sample

Muslims. How long have you been beating your wives?

Is there a higher rate? Higher than which group(s)? (PERSON)

I would simply not be surprised if there were.

That said, you make a fair point. I admit my reaction was emotion-based. I will, however, investigate my suspicions and I thank you for being the catalyst for that.

Mike

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:28:30 UTC | #913785

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 28 by QuestioningKat

12% Muslim in one area - 20% in another. These numbers are the real concern.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:31:23 UTC | #913786

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 29 by SaganTheCat

if there's one way the islamist movement in the UK can shoot themselves in the foot it's to start targeting dogs and their owners

comment 20

absolutely and this highlights the emptiness of islamic offence

I am offended by your dog and i am offended by your acknowledgement of my pottential offence

a ballanced muslim has a chip on both shoulders

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:34:51 UTC | #913787

PERSON's Avatar Comment 30 by PERSON

I agree that people should be won over by argument. So reject the argument, as I said, campaign against it, persuade people (Muslims are also people, note, and many are persuadable, just as with most other groups). We can reject the notion of unclean animals. But given the lies that are told about birth control and abortion, I'd be very surprised if the Muslims base their desire for this purely on that notion. Correcting their errors, rather than telling them how evil they are (*) would be more effective. Their beliefs also need to be challenged, but not in a way that facilitates misinterpretation of intent and belief by all concerned, as this does.

(*)rather than the parts of their religion chosen by religious leaders to be emphasised; there are weak limits on interpretation... meanings are chosen in religion

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:35:37 UTC | #913788