FINNISH KENNEL CLUB MAGAZINE PUBLISHES FACTUAL ARTICLE ON ISLAMIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS DOGS, THE USUAL OUTRAGE ENSUES…….
The following report on the incident, is by regular Tundra Tabloids contributor, fellow blogger and good friend, Vasarahammer.
Dogs, Islam and political correctnessKoiramme magazine (Our Dogs) published an article last October titled ”
Dog is an outcast in Islamic world”. There should not be anything remarkable, when a magazine published by Finnish Kennel Club (Suomen Kennelliitto) produces an article telling its readers about the people’s attitude towards dogs in various parts of the world. However, in today’s politically correct West telling the truth about the doctrinal basis behind Islamic aversion of dogs can be regarded as a courageous act.
In terms of circulation Koiramme magazine is hardly a marginal publication. It has a circulation of around 310 000 (2010). In comparison, the largest daily newspaper in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat, had a circulation of 383 000 in the same year. The high circulation can be explained by the fact that Koiramme magazine is distributed to every member of Finnish Kennel Club.
The article explains clearly why the question of Islam and dogs is relevant today. More and more immigrants are arriving to the West and the Muslim hostility towards dogs has already caused problems in Europe, particularly in the UK, in which dogs have traditionally played a large part in human life and which has also received a lot of Muslim immigration. Currently, Islam is the second largest religion in the country with 2,8 million adherents.
uran does not mention dogs but only gives guidelines for treatment of animals in general. Instead, the Islamic rules related to dogs can be found in hadith collections. The article in Koiramme magazine carefully explains both the taboos and the doctrinal basis of these one by one. Dogs are ritually unclean, a passing dog nullifies a Muslim prayer and dogs cannot live inside a Muslim household but must remain outside or in a separate living space or otherwise angels won’t visit the house.
The Muslims can use dogs for hunting, herding and guarding a farm house. But it is forbidden to have dog as a pet and to sell and receive payment for a dog. The fact that receiving payment for a dog is considered as sinful in Islam as paying for prostitution is, however, not mentioned. In addition, the special aversion of black dogs is not mentioned. The messenger of Allah said according to Sahih Muslim that the black dog is a devil.
After covering the Islamic doctrines the article proceeds to describe the practical problems the Islamic aversion of dogs causes in the Western world. The dogs are still widely used by authorities to detect drugs and explosives in airports, harbours and prisons. Koiramme magazine reminds the readers of the seriousness of the problem:
”The dog problem has received less coverage in the media than the French law that prohibits the wearing of the burqa or niqab – the full facial veil – in public places. However, that is only a superficial issue, while the aversion of dogs causes real problems to the indigenous population.”
The article goes on to provide examples. A Muslim suspect or inmate may refuse a dog sniffing him in search of drugs. The linen has to be changed if a sniffer dog has been used for searching drugs in a prison cell inhabited by a Muslim inmate.
People travelling with their pet dogs in the public transportation system have also experienced problems. For example, A London woman named Judith Woods was denied entry to a London bus when she was travelling with her Manchester Terrier. In the first case, there was a Muslim woman travelling in the bus and having a dog inside would offend her sensibilities. When Ms. Woods tried to board the second bus, the Muslim driver refused her entry.
Then there are the blind who actually need their guide dog to survive the daily life. There have been several documented cases, in which blind people have been refused entry to a bus or a taxi because of the driver’s Islamic beliefs.
All in all, the article was well researched by journalistic standards and provided useful practical information to the dog owners about Islamic attitude towards dogs. It could have been harsher than it was and told about the fact that all the rules related to dogs can be traced back to the sayings and doings of Islamic prophet Muhammad. And it is because of Muhammad’s stature as a ”perfect man” and excellent example of conduct these irrational, superstitious and downright cruel beliefs continue to live on and cannot easily be challenged by Muslims without straying from the ”right path” and being guilty of apostasy. Had the magazine done that, it would probably face charges of incitement of ethnic hatred in court.
The response
Even though the article was by no means extreme, it provoked a response from the multicultural establishment. In a rebuttal signed by several different organizations including Ihmisoikeusliitto (Human Rights Union), Finnish Islamic Council and the Finnish Red Cross campaign Say No to Racism, the usual suspects repeated the usual politically correct platitudes and, at the same time, failed to present any factual error in the original article.
The rebuttal accuses the article of factual errors without providing any examples. Koiramme magazine is not an X rated publication but is also read by children. This fact is exploited in the rebuttal:
”[the article] contains a one-sided interpretation of Islam as a religion and Muslims as its adherents containing factual errors.””In our opinion, it is specifically problematic that the magazine is also read by the young and the children, who sometimes may have difficulties in viewing the content of the article in a critical light.”
In addition, the article did not adequately promote diversity and inter cultural understanding:
”The article describes the Western world and Islam in confrontation in a way that strengthens the negative stereotypes about Islam and presents the Western world as culturally more civilized. This type of confrontation is an example of culturally racist generalization and may, at worst, create an unnecessarily false image of Islam as an extreme and violent religion.”
The rebuttal also claims that the article concentrates on individual cases in England but fails to provide concrete examples from Finland. This is not accurate, since the article first provides the historical background and doctrinal basis for the Islamic attitude towards dogs and then lists the examples.
In the Finnish discussion about Islam the historical Muslim Tatar minorityis almost always mentioned. They are mainly used for stifling any criticism of Islam by explaining how well they have adapted to the Finnish society. The things that are not mentioned are the fact that the minority is very small (less than 1000 people) and the fact that there was no politically correct multiculturalism and generous social benefits at the end of 19th century. The actions and behaviour of the more recent immigrants cannot be excused by the existence of largely secularized Muslim Tatar minority. The rebuttal states:
”One must remember that Muslims have permanently lived in Finland since the late 19th century and significant cultural clashes have been avoided during this long period of coexistence.”
In the end, the rebuttal complains that the right experts were not consulted:
”While writing the article, it would have been nice to hear the views of Finnish Muslims, Islamic organizations and scholars of Islam regarding the subject.”
It is easy to imagine what these opinions would have been. Islam is ”diverse” and there are divergent opinions on the issue. Also the Quran tells the Muslim to respect all living beings and not be unnecessarily cruel to them.
On the other hand, the website of the biggest Islamic organization in Finland Helsinki Islam Keskus provides a link to Islam Questions and Answers website. Through this link it is easy to see the islamic view of dogs. By reading those articles it is possible to conclude that the original article in Koiramme magazine did not distort Islamic teachings and did not have significant factual errors. The view provided in the article was factually accurate, but it only failed to gloss over the facts with platitudes about peaceful coexistence, benefits of diversity and the incredibly positive impact of the Islamic culture.
Needless to say, this type of article would never have been published anywhere in the mainstream media. This tells that there are fringes in the media that have not yet been polluted by political correctness and excessive sensitivity to minorities.
Side note
The publishers of Koiramme magazine were not prosecuted for inciting hatred or disturbing religious worship. However, there is one story related to freedom of speech in Finland that deserves a mention.
Marko ”Fobba” Forss is a Finnish police officer best know for his work in the internet and social media. He has been selected Policeman of the year in 2011.
A commentator wrote in an immigration critical Hommaforum website in a thread about the Koiramme magazine article:
”A dog is worth less than a human being. I own a dog. It’s an excellent companion, but it still has to be shown his place in the flock. A dog can be compared to muslims: ”If you don’t show them their place, they start causing disturbance and may, at worst, be dangerous to outsiders.”
The content of the statement are roughly the same as expressed in this hilariously funny video also published in Tundratabloids. However, the comment at Hommaforum website prompted the internet cop Forss to act. He contacted the author of the message and told him to remove the posting. Forss had contacted State prosecutor’s office for consultation and received the information that the comment was a borderline case that could lead to prosecution.
The case illustrates how strictly the hate speech laws are enforced in Finland. It also tells us about the possible future direction of hate speech law enforcement. The ”freedom of speech crimes” will no longer be prosecuted in court. Instead, the internet cop will issue a drive-by verdict scaring the hapless commentator or site administrator to remove the comment.
Last but not least, if the widely acclaimed internet cop cannot tell when a comment is criminal without resorting to legal consultation, how can an ordinary internet user be expected to know when he or she steps over the line? The laws concerning hate speech are vague and something tells me that this is intentional.
dweller Said:
@ honeybee:
In that case, better not let Yamit get wind of it.
dweller Said:
Neither, I like the edge!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
Both.
Better safe than sorry.
@ yamit82:
Not so.
What I am advocating is absolutely not ‘nihilism’; rather, protection of the right to be critical.
If there is no guaranteed right to say what you think, then there is no guaranteed right to criticize what somebody else thinks/says/does.
EVERYBODY’s views are quite libertarian in re some things (even Grand Inquisitor types, like PresentCompany), and non-libertarian in re others. You just have a hard time seeing yourself in context.
I put a premium on (among other things) civil liberties, and make no apology for doing so.
“Hate-speech” laws prevent resistance.
NOT a case-in-point; not germane to this discussion, which was about expression of opinion. Porn is not about that; it’s clearly designed to arouse. Opinion has nothing to do with it, and never did. The decision to lump porn together with expression of opinion was strictly a device to undermine — not fulfill — the First Amendment.
Based on what principle? You have yet to identify one, except “unrestricted expression” — which those things have nothing to do with.
@ yamit82:
For your edification: did’t go throu
yamit82 said
This an interesting comment,as I have always been a “live and let live” person. I must admit however that unristricted abortion, gay marriage, and the welfare state have become sacrements in progressive liberal politics.
yamit82 Said:
But that is the complaint. ” I’am offended”.
yamit82 Said:
I double my grocery money,your better then Backjack!!!!!!!!!! Way better odds.
honeybee Said:
Hate speech has nothing to do with offending.
My comment to dweller blocked by spammer will explain in part my position.
Ted my reply to dweller was blocked by spam filter??????
dweller Said:
What you are actually advocating is a form of what poses as a blank slate is hardcore nihilism, militant and ignorant of the other side’s arguments.
Your views are quite libertarian, and libertarian societies lack values. They proclaim freedom to be their value, but freedom is the absence of restraints, while values are restraints. Freedom is the opposite of values.
Libertarian societies abrogate values, and then abandon responsibility. They become quasi-socialist welfare states.
Liberalism and Libertarianism is not an honest intellectual position, but a rationalization of fear. Affluent societies fear for their wealth, refrain from violence, and don’t want to repress deviants. Encountering no resistance, deviants take over societies.
Case in point pornography was once banned by law but those laws were overturned based on the broadest interpretation of free speech. From there almost every traditional value of American society was discarded based on the same principle… from open legal abortions to same sex marriages. The genie is out of the bottle and can’t be returned. America is finished because of people like yourself.
@ yamit82:
“The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting IMMINENT lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
— Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
“This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the US. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law…”
“The reason WHY fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.”
— [Scalia writing for SCOTUS majority in R.A.V. v. City of St Paul (1992)]
“Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.”
All from the same web page you linked to.
@ yamit82:
The Rebbe didn’t go on to say his precepts should be enforced at the point of a gun — or the implicit threat of one — which is what the state ultimately represents.
This is not merely non-sequitur; it is also myopic.
When another Pharaoh arises who knew not Joseph, and who has different ideas of what constitutes “hate speech” than (you and) the last Pharaoh did
— how will you protest when the new Pharaoh points to the precedent of banning “hate speech” set by his predecessor?
You poison the very wells from which you drink.
@ yamit82:
Remember Darlin, is’t not so much what you as how you say it, I can tell some one to go hell so sweetly that they will immediately run out and buy ticket.
@ yamit82:
I’m broken hearted,our first arguement! Freedom of speech is abosolute. In the USA, there is no right not to be offended.
honeybee Said:
The right to free speech is one of the most important democratic freedoms. It enables the flow of information and encourages diversity of opinion in the public sphere, as well as criticism of political leadership, all of which are in the public interest. But like most freedoms, it is not absolute, nor should it be. Freedom of speech must be balanced with freedom from the destabilizing effects of public hatred.
Here:
yamit82 Said:
Depends on your definition of BS!!!! You really want a legal definition for BS. I know it when I hear it or read it, pornography I an’t define it.
@ yamit82:
@ dweller:
Say what you want and “the devil take the hindmost”, but prepare youself for the consequences and DON’T BACK DOWN.
dweller Said:
I thought we were talking about hate speech not BS.
yamit82 Said:
Say what!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Because you’re not here!!!!!!!!!Silly
dweller Said:
Say what????????????
honeybee Said:
How do you know I am there?
@ yamit82:
So say you.
But to prohibit hate speech is effectively to prohibit all speech, because it puts speech into the hands of the biggest bully on the block — the state.
One man’s right to call what another regards as BS is that other‘s right to call it BS
— it’s the same right.
honeybee Said:
I am for them as long as they are applied equally and that the wording of the laws are not too general and they make sense according to their specific purpose.
yamit82 Said:
No Yamit82, Iam here,you are there!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Wildfire Sugar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
Iam Ito disern from you are opposed to “hate speech” laws?????/ Listen to this song today while painting and thought of you Darlin. http://youtu.be/0cDT2XsGgL0
honeybee Said:
Here I am.
dweller Said:
“All that is thought should not be said, all that is said should not be written, all that is written should not be published, all that is published should not be read.”
– Rabbi Menachem Mendel Morgenstern of Tomashov (the Kotzker Rebbe)
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————
SINCE WE CAN’T TRUST PEOPLE TO BE DISCIPLINED AND DISCERNING, THERE MUST BE LAWS TO ENFORCE WHAT EACH PERSON SHOULD AND COULD BUT WON’T DO BY THEMSELVES.
Tolerance of hate speech and all forms of societal deviant behavior is worse than the prohibitions of them. Tolerance results in valueless nihilism.
5dweller Said:
Felix’s clique???????? Or Yamit82???????
@ honeybee:
No doubt.
Round up the usual suspects.
dweller Said:
That is hate speech!!!!!!
“Hate-speech” laws are, in their very nature, stupid, myopic, and invariably totalitarian
— and their proponents are not to be trusted.
Europe exchanged 6 million productive, loyal Jews for many more million Muslims. A real bargain.
Poetic justice if there ever was such a thing!
Allah walkbark!
Any distress that Muslims offer their European hosts gladdens my heart.
For the most part they deserve each other.
Sorry, but my sympathy meter for Finns and Europeans of every country is broken. I take that back – I never had such a sympathy meter for Europeans, so it couldn’t break to begin with.
Interesting that Euronazis will stand up for dogs, but not for us lowly Jooooos.
Rot in Islamist hell forever, Euronazis.