Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Saudi to ban the sale of cats and dogs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
pdurod1 Donating Member (328 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:35 AM
Original message
Saudi to ban the sale of cats and dogs
Saturday 09 September 2006, 5:44 Makka Time, 2:44 GMT

Municipal authorities in the Saudi Arabian cities of Mecca and Jeddah have banned the sale of cats and dogs as un-Islamic.

Saudi's religious police, the Muttawa, have been instructed the prevent the sale of cats and dogs in order to prevent the spread of Western ideas into the highly Islamic country, Saudi media reported on Friday

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1C57352E-C279-4A...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. I used to have a friend from Jeddah
He said nobody in Saudi Arabia has dogs or cats as pet... they are considered "unclean." He said the only pets there are birds. I thought that was really strange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well, I have 2 long-haired Ragdolls....
they might be on to something there. One of them has quite an issue with keeping himself "tidy"! :7

I love him anyway. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. yeah, I love my own dirty dog, too
Edited on Sat Sep-09-06 02:53 AM by Syrinx
:hi:

EDIT: What's a Ragdoll? I assume you're talking about a doggie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. No it's a kitty
they're big, fluffy cats that look like siamese, but with long hair. they are cute...

http://members.aol.com/catz4u/ragdoll/kits.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. thanks!
I had not heard of Ragdolls before. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlavesandBulldozers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #11
62. they are called ragdolls
cause when you pick them up they go limp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danmel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
44. They are pretty
But if I got a long haired cat my son would probably die- he is sort of allergic but can tolerate most short haired cats- long haired cats and he just swell right up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
69. Adorable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
29. visual aids...
Scooby is the dirty boy...


Mouse is his sister, but a total neat freak

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. Awww, Mouse is adorable
I have two generic tabbies, one orange another brown. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. I got her for free, they thought she was "mis-marked"
and no one wanted to buy her.

I did a little research, and found out that when you breed a Lilac male and a Seal point female, you occasionally get a Torte female. She's my special patchwork baby. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Haha...that's why we shave one of our ragdolls.
As for the other Ragdoll, I don't believe she's really a purebred Ragdoll, but she's still cute and we rescued her from an abusive breeder who was starving her (5lbs when we got her...9lbs now & she's still thin).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. I met kids in the Asir section south of Jedda that had cats
But they all seem to hate dogs. Some I met had goats as pets and as a fact my cousin had 3 as pets as a kid in NH. I think most poor society through out history have not kept dogs as pets. Cats worked for their keep as did any dog. One time in Europe every cat they could find was killed as it was said to be evil. People who were poor did not have money to feed pets. So to say they are un-clean fits the place they wish to keep the animal in. It is like we do not ear horse meat not because it is not good but it is a social thing and it was sold when I was a child because meat was hard to buy with out ration stamps, WW2. Odd things to you or I are often just to make society run as the rulers wish or old ways kept around. To tie it into a Holy Book works even better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I think you are missing the point
It's not about being poor or able to feed an animal. It's about their religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. No I do not think so. The religion is just being used
As why one does not eat pork. It is a society thing and then they write it into the Holy Books to re-enforce it. Just like in the Middle Ages when the churches wanted the cats killed. Tie it into the Holy stuff. Look at Gays. Where the Holy Books are the law this is the way things are done. Our own history is the same. We have just moved on from such things even if many laws still carry the old ways with them into our every day life. Just look how long the blue laws were on the books. I am willing to bet their are still some of those around. In our culture we still carry them with us if you stop and think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Perhaps at one time.
But once it's written into the holy book--as though anybody were going to rewrite the Qur'an!--it's sanctified, and change from that prescribed norm is a messy business.

But in this case it's the xenophobia inherent in Salafism that's coming to the fore. I've seen the same in a few fundie Xian sects: If *they* do it, it must be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsychoDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. There's nothing against Cats or Dogs in the Quran.
In fact, in a blow against the "unclean dog" belivers there is a story in the Quran about a group of men who are sleeping in a cave with a dog when some angels visit.

Cats on the other hand were loved by the Prophet (saw) and were considered exceptionaly clean. There is a prohibition in hadeeth against the selling of cats, but it is quite ok to adopt them and give them as pets.

I suspect this prohibition against the selling of cats is because the Prophet understood that we cannot "own" a cat... they "own" us.

:)

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. OWNAGE!!


She is a grim taskmaster this one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. you are right
Lots of my Persian family and friends had cats. Perhaps the Saudis just don't want to have a pet-sales industry there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. Things like this may not be in the Holy Books but become
Part of the religious belief such as we have done with things and then called them a Holy thing. Long time since I have been in class but I am sure there is a name for this. It ends up with us as just a custom, but if you look when it started it seems to come from some thing that maybe good for society so it is added to the religious. Or sometimes a church or ruler wanted it. We came from societies that ran almost every thing under the church and a ruler if you recall. And often we do not even recall where we get some of the things we do and why we even do them. So much of it was tied right in to churches etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Dietary laws had a reason
If one looks at the environment of the Middle East, one notices that it is primarily desert (no firewood). The injunctions against eating unclean foods were created to keep people from getting food-borne diseases. Pork, if not raised and cooked properly carries a number of diseases which humans can get. Shellfish also have heath-related problems. Hence, if forbidden, the followers of Judaism and Islam would be healthier and better able to worship their god.

The food prohibitions did not "take" in Christianity, since it quickly moved from being a Middle Eastern religion to the Greek and Roman worlds. The physical environment was different (lots of firewood) and afforded the ability to cook the prohibited foods properly. Also, European peoples came from different tribal traditions, where pork was part of the culture: just try telling that German barbarian warrior that he can't have a pork sausage!

As to pet cats in the Middle Ages: the Church associated them with witchcraft, that is why they were forbidden. This position came back to haunt all of Europe in the form of the Black Plague. Without cats to keep the rat population down, the vector fleas had a field day. And so somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of Europe's population died due to the Black Plague. (Death count varies, depending on the scholar, since record-keeping was, at best, inconsistent.)

Writing dietary rules into religion is nothing new. Given the lack of scientific knowledge in those days, it was simply easier to keep the followers healthy by saying the religion forbid some foods. Remember that most people until this century were illiterate and uneducated.

Modern people of reason do not just blindly follow the dietary laws. My Islamic step-father likes bacon. He simply puts it in the microwave and makes sure it is cooked well. When I asked him about it, he mentioned the ancient health reasons against eating pork, and then pointed out the modern appliances which were able to properly cook it. He just isn't fond of most pork or shellfish, because he didn't grow up eating them. On the otherhand, he has a jolly time at the local crab feeds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #35
60. Yes I know this is all true and always interesting but also
many people do not know it so follow the old ways of doing things. They think it is a 'church' thing and get some what upset it others do not do it. It was even more so as I grew up. I am in my 70's. It is almost like night and day from the time I married out side my own religious in the 50's to today. It used to be what type of Christian you were and I fear we are coming back to that some what. But now it is fundamentalist that seem to have the big club and wish to use it. I am willing to bet their is still food that comes under what you are talking about now. One great food I can think of off hand I have heard people say odd things about is snails. If they have produced sins in me so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #35
64. Is the dietary thing true?
I am not disagreeing because I have always understood that commonsense lies as the motives of some religious edicts. But I also am aware that religion often uses the 'noble lie' to fool people.

As far as pork and shellfish preparation and consumption -- it seems it was never a problem in SouthEast Asian cultures where pork and seafood/shellfish was consumed. In fact many so-called primitives (west coast aboriginals) developed long ago 'perserving' techniques like salt?

The 'eating fish on Fridays' thing the Catholics were ordered to follow for centuries was actually a political decision to aid Mediterranean fishermen who were complaining about their markets in the North drying up due to the rise in 'meat' consumption. The 'cover' was that since 'St. Peter' was a fisherman and JC alledgedly ate fish at the last supper and blessed fisherman and you use water to baptize people and etc etc...then naturally the Lord and the fishermonger should be honoured at least once a week.

That's why I bring it up...many believe that the 'sacred cow' practise in India is a traditional practise. But actually it isn't -- Hinduism sacrificied cows and use the blood ritually for centuries. In fact, Hindus are perfectly free to milk them for related products.

But the edict was introduced to hassle Muslims in India who had NO prohibitions on eating beef and so the Hindus responded by basically allowing their herds to wander about invading Muslim land and Muslims couldn't do a thing about it, because if you harmed a cow (cattle) then you would trigger a whole world of shit provided by Hindu nationalists.

So I have been somewhat hesitant to necessarily believe that the root of 'food' prohibitions and controls introduce by religion, might have motives OTHER than simple health concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #35
74. I think an alternative to the firewood explanation is that pigs do
not fit very well into a nomadic lifestyle, particularly in an arid environment. So, groups who were largely nomadic could not have pigs, while more sedentary groups could. So, a ban on pigs could be a form of differentiating one's culture from another, perhaps driven by friction between the groups (perhaps the xenophobia mentioned above), and maybe even a bit of good old sour grapes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. nomadic lifestyle
yes, that is probably one reason. When I asked my Persian step-father about the dietary laws, he mentioned the cooking problem. Also, as mentioned by another poster below, water use by pigs was also an issue. In the environmental context of original Judaism and Islam, with the concerns of disease (caused by inadequate cooking), nomadic lifestyle, and the habitat needs of pigs, outlawing their consumption made perfect sense. It would have made (and makes) no sense at all to a person living in the cold, soggy fields of central Germany.

Different physical environments lead to different eating patterns. Being of partially German heritage, I got to point out to Step-Father that my ancestors probably would have starved to death without pork. He had never thought of it that way. (Ein Wurst und ein Bier, bitte.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. The water consumption point is one I hadn't heard/thought of...
Very interesting. And like you, I've raised many a glass in gratitude to my German ancestors for their brilliant inventions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. My family ended up with an adopted dog after a 2 year
stay in the gulf.

Ugly thing, but he would probably have been shot if he had been found. Some other ex-pats obviously just abandoned him when they went home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
41. Its also not true...
The Prophet Muhammad himself had several cats he kept as pets, in fact, folklore tells of a time when he was called to prayer, and his cat was asleep on the sleeve of his arm, so he cut the sleeve off to go pray, rather than to disturb the sleeping cat.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Env...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
68. I remember something funny that guy said once
He asked me to take him to the local federal courthouse to renew his visa, or something like that. I agreed, but my air conditioner was busted, and this is was in the middle of summer in Alabama. He could speak English, but not real well. We got caught up in some serious traffic. The temp outside was about 100, with sweltering humidity. It was probably something like 120 in the car. We were both quite miserable. He turned to me and said "Damn, I'm freezing!"

I cracked up. Appropos of little. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. Oh my, there goes my kitty
Edited on Sat Sep-09-06 03:06 AM by krispos42
I'm waiting for the American Taliban to take away my feline, Sedgwick Fluffanutter a.k.a. "The Fluff", to protect me from the temptation of beastiality!

Of course, first we need the Federal Bureau of Vice and Virtue.

<on edit>

Well, at least The Fluff is female so I can't be accused of being tempted into HOMOSEXUAL beastiality!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. Dogs
are traditionally considered unclean in Islam and the keeping of perts, especially 'useless' pets like ornamental cats and and dogs, as opposed to working cats and dogs has always, for good reason, been cionsidered very bourgeosie.

See Mao's reactions to pet ownership et al
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Which accounts for how the Chinese were able to murder all those dogs
just recently.

Human beings developed cooperative, loving relationships with domesticated animals at the very dawn of our humanity. It isn't bourgeois. It's basic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Their attitude towards pets is disturbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Actually, it's not 'basic'...
because while humans may have those sorts of relationships with animals in SOME cultures (particularly central and Western European cultures) they certainly don't in ALL cultures. Quite often in China and other parts of Asia, dogs are more often seen as a source of meat than as a pet. And most domesticated animals aren't raised as pets, they're food sources (meat, dairy, eggs). Horses (in Anglo-Saxon culture), dogs and cats are the only real exceptions, and it's a bit arrogant to assume that everyone should abide by Western cultural prejudices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Yes, let's all have a Hindu beefsteak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Now you're just being ridiculous.
And your snide comment only serves to further illustrate my point: we in the West don't have any cultural taboos against eating beef. Muslim societies don't have a cultural tradition of keeping dogs and cats as pets, at least over the past 1300 years or so. China, Korea, Vietnam, and a few other places in Asia have a cultural tradition of using dogs as a food source. Bit ridiculous to expect ANY cultural practices specific to one region to somehow have precedence over those followed somewhere else, and the idea that your own particular set of cultural prejudices is somehow the 'right' way of doing things is, again, nothing but arrogance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
37. I agree
we should respect other peoples culture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. You miss the point
Nobody said having relationships with domesticated animals is bourgeois.

What is undeniavly bourgeois is having a toy dog or cat that doesn't contribute especially when living in a country like China where famine is common - IE - you are rich enough to buy extra food but choose to give it to an animal over a human.

This is why dogs are such a big status thing in China again now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
70. Why did they do that? Disease? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
citizen snips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. owning a dog is bourgeosie?
I have not heard that word used in a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SweetLeftFoot Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #36
59. I'm old skool
like that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingshakabobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:53 AM
Original message
They can have my pups when they pry ME from their cold dead paws. nt
Bella(shar-pei/blue healer) and Samuel L. (full-blooded food-crazed beagle)



Bella:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. With that attitude
people lose so much love, the love between a person and their pets is beautiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. Agreed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
15. 'nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
20. Well, I hope Americans keep their dogs and cats
they are going to have to eat something when their children start paying off the bills for the ruling elites' luxuries. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kb9vrg Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
22. How ironic...
Wasn't the animal we know as the domestic cat originally domesticated in the middle east? I know Egypt isn't Saudi Arabia, and 8,000 years ago was pre-Islam but really...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katzenjammer Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
47. "Wasn't the cat originally domesticated in the middle east?"
Yes. :) Felis sylvestris lybica, the North African wildcat, is now generally considered to be the ancester of all housecats. They used to think that other felis species, such as f. chaus, also contributed, but apparently DNA testing says not.

What's interesting is that lybica cats seem to be unique in their curiosity and pro-social nature. The other f. sylvestris races are very distinctively wild even as kittens, but even "wild" lybica kittens are apparently ready to move in with humans if given any encouragement such as a trailed string, wiggled fingers, or a bowl of food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
23. I'm Trying to Think of a Legitimate (non-religious claptrap) Reason
and can't think of a one.

It's not like starvation roams the Kingdom of Saud, and pets were misappropriating calories.

Cleanliness? Don't make me laugh. Pets are as clean as their people want them to be.

Because I (or some stand-in for authority) say so? Not on your life. This is the 21st Century, even in Saudi Arabia.

If they want to "clean up" society there, why don't they shut down television, radio, TV and private transportation? How much like a jail can you make a country before the people rise en masse and put you behind bars, instead?

(Something I expect we will all know intimately here in the US in a few short years!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlavesandBulldozers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
63. maybe allergies were associated with it.. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
27. Do you get that all religions are unholy? Just man controlled obsessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katzenjammer Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
28. Note that it's only SALES that are being banned.
Which, frankly, sounds like a good thing. I've always thought it disgusting that people ignore the connection between the pet industry and the killing of "surplus" cats and dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. I don't think the pet "industry" is their intent, but you do raise a valid
point. There could be an unintended good that comes of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanie Baloney Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
31. They don't want any western ideas? Screw 'em
They don't seem to have a problem with western cars, western money, western technology, or western medicine. Let's drop this cultural sensitivity crap and face the truth; these people are religiously insane enough to be a danger to the rest of the people of Earth.

It's pretty obvious why * likes to hold their oily little hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. They seem to want western education....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

U.S. schools compete for Saudi students (Saudi royals paying the tuition)

snip>

The program will quintuple the number of Saudi students and scholars here by the academic year's end. And big, public universities from Florida to the Kansas plains are in a fierce competition for their tuition dollars.

The kingdom's royal family - which is paying full scholarships for most of the 15,000 students - says the program will help stem unrest at home by schooling the country's brightest in the American tradition. The U.S. State Department sees the exchange as a way to build ties with future Saudi leaders and young scholars at a time of unsteady relations with the Muslim world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
celtdem Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. And Western petro-dollars nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdurod1 Donating Member (328 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #31
50. BINGO...
Joanie, that's the response I was looking for. I'm tired of the political correctness. It seems to just pro-long the issue. We've been attacked since 1979 (Iran) and the in Lebanon (Marine's, 241 dead in 1983), 1993 WTC and 2001 WTC (yes I've left some out).

It's time to draw the line. I still consider myself a liberal. And I don't appreciate Limbaugh dividing our country.

Thanks for reading

-P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Left out the CIA overthrow of Iran's elected government in 1953
As well as many more such shenanigans. And the big one you left out is the unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. He probably sees them as a spread of western ideas....
Y'know, when the US does it, it's good. When anyone else but the US does it, it's bad. If the OP and the poster he was replying to are any indication of what liberal thought is in the US, then it's no wonder the rest of the world sneers at the US...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #57
66. Funny, I didn't see any of what you're claiming in the poster's entry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I don't recall claiming he said anything he didn't....
I recall stating my opinion about what sometimes passes for liberal thought in the US...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscar111 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
39. Dogs civilize Man.
good breeds of dog, that is.

Caring for a loving dog taught me as a boy, to care for smaller beings. To look after them.

Later that expanded in my brain, to looking after all humans who need help.

Personally, i think any society that does not have dogs is missing a lot of civilizing influence. Brutal societies may result from dog-banning. At least, the result may be a less genteel society.
Certainly the warrior societies should be examined for evidence of this theory i have.

Arent a lot of mideastern societies warrior types? Dont they also ban dogs?

I am not married to this theory, so i keep an open mind and invite your comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #39
53. Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
Shakespeare was serious - dogs have been used in war for thousands of years (at least back to the Romans). They are not necessarily a civilizing influence. Human societies influence dogs more than dogs influence human societies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
42. DISPELLING A MYTH, Cats are not considered "Unclean" to Muslims....
Cats in Islam

The Prophet Muhammad taught mercy to all of Gods creation. There are many reports of his love for cats resulting in their historical acceptance among Muslims. Cats were very common among the people during the time of the Prophet, and he said, They (cats) are not impure and they intermingle with you.1 The cat is such a clean animal that according to authentic narrations one may make ablution for Prayer with the same water that a cat drank from. Yet, it is known that some people nowadays have opposed the traditions of the Prophet by taking up the evil practices of torturing and poisoning cats. In Islam, punishment for such acts is severe. Both Al-Bukhari and Muslim reported a hadith regarding a woman who locked up a cat, refusing to feed it and not releasing it so that it could feed itself. The Prophet Muhammad said that her punishment on the Day of Judgment will be torture and Hell.


http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/Env...

The Prophet himself kept cats as pets, how far is the Saudi Kingdom to stray from their own Prophet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katzenjammer Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. "how far is the Saudi Kingdom to stray from their own Prophet?"
The cult that holds sway there seems to be very far from his teachings, for sure.

It feels to me as though that Wahhabist cult has the same relationship to Islam as Paulism does to Christianity. Both show a particularly ugly fear and loathing of women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. paulism
actually wahhabism is closer to Christian reconstructionism then the teachings of paul. although the teachings of paul are bad enough to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
49. The newspaper headline I long to see someday:
"US cuts off relations with Saudi Arabia; Saudi Ambassador Expelled from Washington"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
51. In Arab lands Dogs and Jackal are view as similar animals
In the Urban centers, at the time of Mohammad, Dogs existed in Cities and ate all the garbage in the streets (and do this till very recent times in most of the World). Jackals did the same in the "Wild". The report I read was that Mohammad tried to ban ALL dogs from the Cities but when the resulting garbage gather up he relented and just baned dogs with white on their head IN THE CITIES.

This seems to be the main reason Dogs are disliked by Arabs, they are tied in with eating Garbage and viewed as nothing but Jackals.

Now Dogs used in the Hunt were never under this ban, in fact Mohamed kept a set of hunting dogs for the Hunt, thus the main thrust is any dogs in Urban Areas

AS to Pigs, the ban is based on economics. Pigs use as much water as a man (which is a lot more than Sheep of Goats). Thus for every pig you raise, you can have one less person IN A DESERT COMMUNITY (outside of Deserts people tend NOT to ban pigs). Thus in any desert society if that society bans pigs, it can have more people (Or more sheep or more goats). It is this ECONOMIC REALITY that both the Jews and arabs dislike Pigs, both came out of Desert communities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Interesting angle about pigs and water
Pigs are also omnivores, so in a sense they compete with humans for food. Sheep and cattle eat things humans can't eat, so the relationship is more or less symbiotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. Arabs held the Horse is low regard till Mohammed.
Prior to Mohammad, the The Arabs preferred Camels, donkeys and Oxen to move heavy loads over horses (and preferred to walk than ride a horse). The main reason is a horse needs better food to survive than Oxen and Camels (and Donkeys were so much smaller they could be feed a lot cheaper than a horse if an Arab wanted to ride something, thus Joseph put Mary on a donkey when he went to Bethlehem to be "Taxed" in the bible story of Christ's birth).

While the Arabs had traditionally hated horses, Mohammad wanted to improve the Calvary of the Arabs so Mohammad required all of his followers to keep at least one horse. Horses cost Money to maintain, so the Arabs instead of having a lot of horses, tended to go with keeping a very good horse and thus "Arab" was born after several hundred years of Breeding.

The shift from Infantry to Calvary now was slow, in the Battle of Yarmuk (636 AD, Where the Arabs defeated the Byzantine Army) the present belief as to how this record was fought was the Arabs infantry rode camels around the Byzantine Army and held the pass at Yarmuk against several efforts of the Byzantines to break through (This is the most common understanding of this battle, the records is weak from both sides as to HOW the battle was fought, for years it was thought the Arabs broke throw a Byzantine blockade of the pass but more recent evidence throws strong doubts on that being how the battle was fought, the Battle might even have been only a small force of Arabs held the pass while the main Arab force came from the rear of the Byzantines and crushed them between the two Arab forces after the Byzantines had failed to break through the Pass, as I said records are weak as to how the Battle was fought but it was a disaster for the Byzantines who had for almost 400 years been heavy user of Calvary as opposed to Infantry).

The main significance of Yarmuk (excluding the loss of Palestine and Syria to the Arabs) was that the Byzantines used Calvary while you have no reports of ANY Arab horse forces. This was to change quickly as the Arabs came to perfect the Arab Horse. At Yarmuk the Arabs seems to be mainly infantry but by the time the Arabs attacked Spain in 710 AD, the Arab horse was they main means of Arab attack (people do change and sometimes quickly if required).

Thus the Arabs went from a people who hated Horses to a people who breed the best horses in a period of about 100 years, and the same can happen when it comes to Dogs and Cats IF THE SOCIETY IS WILLING TO MAKE THE SHIFT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oblivious Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
56. I think this law's a good idea for Saudi Arabia.
If pet ownership is not part of their culture and people are just buying them as status symbols, it can't be good for the pets. I sure wouldn't want that lady with 35 cats as my neighbor.

I live in a crowded area where exotic dogs have replaced children as 'our baby' for many couples and a lot of people treat them like cars to be disposed of for a new one when they get a bit bored with it. Most people also leave them alone all day in a tiny, hot, shoebox apartment. I think of it as animal cruelty.

I'm not against pets where it's part of the culture. I grew up with dogs, cats, goats, rabbits, birds, and horses as pets. But we had room for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katzenjammer Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. Yes, it's the "like cars to be disposed of" that's the real problem
People like that shouldn't be allowed to have a second animal if they "disposed of" the first one.

As far as the woman with 35 cats, though, I don't see why that's necessarily a problem. I would find it hard to support that many, and impossible in the space I live in right now, but she might be better off that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
61. Plenty of strays for free
No need to pay for them. Good plan that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-10-06 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
71. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
november3rd Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
72. what about selling of slaves?
that's unIslamic, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-11-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
73. What a bunch of morons.
Dogs are mans best friend. Partner in hunter, protector of the family. I just don't understand WTF these people do with their time to become so ass back wards.

If not for the help dogs humans would have never evolved into what we are now. We owe them big time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC