RUTHFULLY YOURS

They don’t just hate us. They hate our dogs, too.

What’s the deal with Islam and dogs? It’s this: Dogs are viewed as unclean. More importantly, Mohammed didn’t like them – as in wanted them dead.

Although there is nothing written in the Quran about dogs, Mohammed’s thoughts on all things canine can be found throughout the Hadith (a collection of direct quotes from Mohammed on a range of issues that was compiled after his death).

Mohammed warned angels not to enter any home that had a dog. He also ordered that dogs be killed and that none be spared, with a specific directive to kill all black dogs. (More information can be found here, here, and here.)

That doesn’t mean that all Muslims hate dogs, just as all Muslims don’t do or not do anything. (To hear an excellent take down by Jamie Glazov of the “not all Muslims do that” argument, see here.) But enough Muslims seem to hate dogs and enough act on that hatred to reveal a hideous pattern of mistreatment and abuse. Dogs are also used to assert supremacy, as you will see in the examples noted below.

This semester I am teaching developmental reading at a local community college. This means that most of the students are reading at sixth-grade reading level. Their writing skills are, at best, very basic. Below is a sample of an unedited paragraph (replete with errors) that a student was asked to write after having been taught the meanings of autocratic, demolish, debilitating, hyperthermophile, perpetrators, and plaque. You will note that while the student incorporated the words into her paper, she does not really understand the meaning or the nuances of the words.

In the Atlantic Ocean there are tons of Hyperthermophiles hidden in the ocean. These plants often are by the waters or in it. Some sea creatures around this area are debilitating because of the warm temperatures. The plants have to be in cold waters where it’s below zero to stay alive. They will demolish into the ocean once they are gone. These pants will go into the colder parts of the ocean if they can make it. The marine biologist can be autocratic when picking these plants. They are just so rare in the U.S. that they don’t want these Hyperthermophiles to go instinct.

From Asia to Africa, Islamic militants are slaughtering fellow Muslims. In Europe, they’re fomenting anti-Semitism. Through the Internet, they’re spreading hatred and winning recruits. We can’t defeat this enemy with weapons, money or liberal platitudes. We need a man of God.

Into this role steps a most unlikely candidate: Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Britain. Mr. Sacks believes that Islamic violence, like Jewish and Christian violence, flows from a misunderstanding of sacred text. In “Not in God’s Name,” he illuminates a wiser faith and a gentler God. It’s a perceptive, poignant and beautifully written book. But its analysis of history suggests a darker conclusion: Words alone won’t pacify Islam. There will be a lot more killing.

The problem isn’t Islam: Mr. Sacks points out that Jewish and Christian scriptures have also been invoked to justify violence. It’s human nature. We’re tribal creatures. We bond with our kinsmen against outsiders. Tyrants and demagogues exploit this tribal propensity by feeding us religious doctrines that blame our suffering on enemies: infidels, Crusaders, Jews. This “pathological dualism,” as Mr. Sacks describes it, corrupts societies by deflecting internal scrutiny and impeding reform. And it dehumanizes the putative enemy, facilitating mass murder.

So why do Muslims, Christians and Jews kill one another? Because we’re sibling rivals. As children of Abraham, we claim the same holy land. Each of the three communities sees itself as the people of God. Mr. Sacks says we’re all wrong: God’s love is infinite. “To insist that being loved entails that others be unloved is to fail to understand love itself.”

Countless Palestinian parents support, encourage and praise the sacrifice of their children in suicide bombings, stabbings and other terrorist attacks.International law prohibits using children to fight. Article 38 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted in 1989) condemns the recruitment and involvement of children in hostilities and armed conflictsA criminal Palestinian Arab leadership, along with cowardly and intimidated Palestinian parents on the West Bank and Gaza, exploit their children to engage in armed conflict – in opposition to values held by the rest of the civilized world and in flagrant violation of international law and common decency.There is no excuse for sacrificing the youth of any society for political gain and tactical advantage. If this is to stop, the culpability must be put squarely on the shoulders of Palestinian society and others, who legitimize, support and “understand”such child sacrifice.UN Security Council Resolution 1377 reaffirms its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed……please read this article from 2009