Traditionally, Muslims have never thought highly of dogs.
This position could be linked to an unlucky event in which the Prophet Mohammed was attacked by an animal belonging to this species.
“Qalb ibn qalb” , which means ‘dog, son of a dog’, is a highly offensive insult in the Arab world.
That said, many observers were left bewildered by the position taken by Hasan Küçük, a political representative on the Hague city council for the Islam Democrats. According to the local press, he declared that dogs should be banned as pets in the city.
His party claims that dogs belong in nature, not inside a house. Consequently, the party’s political leader stated that dogs being shut inside houses represents a case of animal abuse and ought to be punishable by law.
Those with a more critical and jaded spirit (and they are many), suspect that Hasan Küçük might not be particularly concerned about the dogs’ fate, but more about the fact that Islam sees dogs as impure.
His proposal, which came just after animal-rights advocates had asked that The Hague be made more dog-friendly, was immediately rejected by the other members of the city council.
It appears however that Küçük’s proposal might not be particularly new, at least not in the eyes of those closely following the issue. There have been tales, in past years, of people - sometimes blind - who were refused a ride by a Muslim taxi driver or were not allowed to enter shops managed by Muslims.
In some cases, it seems, they even had to get off buses because of other passengers’ reactions. Daniel Pipes has made a catalogue of such events dating back to the ‘90s, over an area stretching from Milwaukee, all the way to Melbourne. (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/11/muslim-taxi-drivers-vs-seeing-eye-dogs).
In July 1997, for example, in New Orleans, Mahmoud Awad, a taxi driver, got so incensed at a passenger, Sandy Dewdney, who was attempting to get her dog in the cab, that he dragged her out by force, yelling :“No dog! No dog!” and in the process hurt the woman’s wrist. His defence (that dogs’ saliva makes people impure) was deemed unacceptable by the judge and the taxi driver was condemned to 120 days of community service in a house for the blind.
In Edmonton, in 2003, Doris Owen tried to enter a shop owned by Mohammad Rafiq, a Pakistani who had lived in Saudi Arabia for 25 years. Rafiq did not let Doris into the shop, even after he was informed that the law there allows blind people to enter public areas with heir guide dogs. Rafiq refused to listen to Doris’ explanations and shouted ‘Get that dog out of here. This shop is also my church because I pray and eat here.’
The list of incidents is endless. It is worth mentioning one more case which took place on the 19th of July 2010.
The British newspaper Daily Mail reported that Muslim taxi and bus drivers had been ordering blind passengers off vehicles and that the phenomenon had ‘become so widespread that the matter was raised in the House of Lords, prompting transport minister Norman Baker to warn that a religious objection was not a reason to eject a passenger with a well-behaved guide dog.’
Seventy three year old George Herridge was left speechless when he was made to get off a bus twice because of his guide dog, a black Labrador called Andy, against whom Muslim passengers reacted violently. Herridge complained to the transport company which launched an enquiry. After the enquiry, he was informed that the issue had been dealt with internally.
Another sign, this time from Iran, shows that we might be reaching another turning point in this matter. A bill was recently put forward in the Iranian Parliament which, in accordance with Islamic Sharia law, would make the ownership of a dog illegal and therefore punishable.
According to the supporters of this bill, beside the threat dogs pose to public health, there is an additional problem.
The popularity of a dog owner carries with it a ‘cultural problem’, because it is ‘a blind imitation of the vulgar western culture.’ The proposed bill defines specific sentences for those found ‘walking and keeping dangerous and impure animals;’ this might extend to cats as well, but for now the main target appear to be dogs.
Since the law mandates that the animals be confiscated and in Teheran alone there are thousands of dogs, one is left to wonder what the fate of the confiscated pets might be.
But for some analysts, the true problem lies in the West. They fear that, should religious objections about dogs prevail, according to the so-called ‘logic of conquest’ it would then be time to deal with more ‘sensitive’ aspects of the Islamic view of the world.
In British Columbia, taxi drivers who for reasons of ‘honest religious faith cannot transport blind people with their guide dogs,’ have been granted an exemption. The Minneapolis –Saint Louis airport has reached a compromise between blind people with guide dogs and Muslim taxi drivers.
In the United Kingdom the police dogs used to identify terrorists have to wear leather boots when taken into mosques or Muslim homes in order to avoid reactions. As the percentage of Muslims in the population grows, the less flexible their stances become.
Last year, according to a report by Soeren Kern, the Islamic groups of Lérida in Catalonia where 20% of the population is Muslim have asked to ban dogs from public transport and certain public areas because it would ‘ violate religious freedom and people’s right to live according to Islamic principles.’