Why We Care for Animals and Muslims Don't



Malay Muslims have discovered dogs:

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 19 — A group of Muslims get acquainted with a dog at the ‘I want to touch a dog’ event at 1Utama’s central park earlier this morning. Around 200 dogs and their owners volunteered for the event, which sought to break cultural norms against dogs among Malaysia’s majority Malays.

The video on the Malay Mail Online website quoted above is a mixture of people who surround a dog as if they'd never seen one in their entire lives, and other people who wash their hands after having touched a dog, considered by Islam an "impure" animal. In a photo, some participants even wash their feet (don't ask me why).

From an article on the same Malay paper:

Being able [sic] take her two dogs to a public event attended by fellow Malay Muslims was liberating for Rina Z, who has been caring for dogs for the past 12 years.

As a lady in a hijab cautiously bent down to pet her dog, Kirby, Rina reminisced over the disapproving stares fellow Malays would shoot at ‘tudung’ — the local term for hijab — wearing women walking an animal that is culturally considered “haram” [sinful, forbidden].

“I have a friend who wears a ‘tudung’ who helped walk my dog, and this woman just went up to her and started questioning her; ‘You are a Muslim? You are a Muslim?’ And then she went on and on lecturing her on how it’s not right (for a Muslim to handle dogs),” Rina said.

“Being a Muslim dog owner, you tend not to publicise the fact that you own dogs because you run the risk of becoming a social outcast... but I think it’s time to share the love,” she added, as Kirby meekly sought out his owner for reassurance among the deluge of people stopping by to touch him.

The event was organised by Syed Azmi Alhabshi, who just desired to touch a dog, and we all know that the best way to do that is to stage a mass gathering of dogs and their human companions in your city's central park: otherwise how on earth do you ever get to see a dog, let alone touch him? It stands to reason.

The great pioneer Alhabshi is shown in a picture while he's realising his great ambition and touching a dog for the first time in his life, while the dog looks positively terrified (dogs apparently have an instinct for spotting mental disorders in humans).

Still, Alhabshi is to be praised for doing his bit for introducing Muslims of Malaysia to dogs.

In fact, he's a real martyr for a good cause (I'm not joking here), as for his ‘I want to touch a dog’ event, part of his charity work, he's received death threats and accusations of apostasy by many fellow Muslim-Malays online:

The Malays, furious at his audacity in organising an event to educate the public on Islam’s stance on dogs, have circulated his mobile number online, while on WhatsApp, messages claiming he is a Christian in disguise have spread like wildfire.

Once easily reachable through his phone or Facebook, Syed Azmi has now gone virtually underground, but on Facebook, his friends, family and neighbours in Taman Tun Dr Ismail have been responding to the threats on his behalf.

However, the threats, most of them posted as comments to a Facebook post by Ustaz Mohd Kazim Elias, which condemned the event, are numerous and filled with hate.

Here's a little taste of a few of them:

[T]his organiser cannot differentiate between what is right and wrong, has a shallow understanding of religion and likes to destroy Islam and should be stoned to death...

Let me give the organiser a beating so that he can gain some reason...

I hope this cursed person dies from dog bite.

But I like this most:

Another Facebook user, Yusoff Hj Ashaari, said that on top of taking action against Syed Azmi, the public should find the women who posed with the dogs at the event, and pull of [sic] their scarves to see if they wore crucifixes or were concealing tattoos. “Ustaz, this organiser really is a dog,” said Han Khalief.

I like it because it shows that, while we in the West don't realise how much we owe to Christianity, people in non-Christian parts of the world well realise that. In this case love for animals is associated with Christianity. True, what these people have in mind may just be the suspect, however absurd, that Christians are trying to undermine Islam by subverting its precepts on dogs.

But there is much more than that, as demonstrated by the fact that an animal welfare movement only developed in the Christian part of the world.

Animal welfare and love for animals developed from the compassion inspired by Christianity.

If we - or some of us - don't attribute the ending of the practice of animal sacrifices and respect for animals in general to Christianity, in the other parts of the globe they do:

The practice [of ritual slaughter of animals] is now far less universal than it was once, and in Christian countries it is generally looked upon as one of the basest expressions of primitive superstition. There is, for instance, hardly a book written to defend the “civilizing” role of the white man in India, which does not give publicity to that gruesome side of Hindu religion, through some bloodcurdling description of the sacrifices regularly performed in the temple of the goddess Kali, at Kalighat, Calcutta.

You will want to know how the story ended. Was our martyr stoned to death? No, or at least not yet.

He apologised:

“With a sincere heart, my intention to organise this programme is because of Allah SWT and not to memesongkan (distort) the faith, change religious laws, make fun of ulamas (religious scholars) or encourage liberalism,” he told the media today.

Ah, and don't forget - although you may be forgiven for forgetting - that Malaysia is a moderate Muslim country.

Muslims and Militant Secularists Increasingly Attack Christians in Europe

The above photo represents a graffito found a month ago in Vienna, on the ground of a popular walkers' and bikers' promenade outside Augarten Park.

It says: "Occupy all churches! We will rise!" (Besetzt alle Kirchen. We will rise.)

This kind of direct threat to Christians has become increasingly common in Europe.

A voluntary, non-profit organisation based in Vienna, the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe , has been established, and issued a report documenting 241 cases of intolerance and attacks against Christians and their institutions in 2013.

Among them are arson, gun attacks, bombs and Molotov cocktails.

Anti-Christian graffiti were sprayed on the outside wall of a cathedral in Austria, reading: "We do not want your crosses" and including a swastika. So much for the ridiculously false claim, much beloved by so many "free-thinkers" and Leftists, of a closeness between Nazism and Christianity. In fact, these Neo-Nazis are continuing a florid anti-Christian tradition going all the way back to the Führer.

Dr. Gudrun Kugler, director of the Observatory, explains: "The increasingly secular society in Europe has less and less space for Christianity."

No doubt many of these aggressive acts will be the work of Muslims, whose number, like that of anti-Christian threats, is also increasing in Europe. But not all this violence is caused by Muslims: some of it comes from intolerant secularists.

For example, among the most recent cases are a Coptic church set on fire in Berlin, but also another Berlin church seriously damaged because it offered its premises to abortion opponents. Secularist attacks were not limited to property: Christians peacefully assembled at the so called “March for life”, a pro life demonstration in Berlin, were targeted by Left-wing extremists who showered them with colour paint, insulted them and shouted vulgarly.

And in the night between 25th and 26th September a pharmacy in Neukölln, Germany, was vandalised because of the owner Andreas Kersten’s refusal to sell the morning-after pill, which he explained as motivated by reasons of conscience.

On a website of self-proclaimed “anti-fascists”, the authors of this vandalism confess to the act. They say: “Whoever refuses the women's right to self-determination for reasons of conscience shall not be surprised to find his shop vandalised for reasons of conscience.”

Who said that Stalinism is dead?

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe is on Facebook and Twitter.

Public Spending Needs a Drastic Reduction: Not Plan B but Plan Liberty GB

Despite all talks of austerity, £1,521.2 billion was the UK’s public debt at the end of the financial year 2013/14, as much as – be prepared for this, but probably you already are - 87.8% of GDP.

The Office for National Statistics, the source of these data, in a recent release also informs that this debt represented an increase of £100.6 billion compared to the end of 2012/13.

Still according to the ONS, government borrowing, excluding the effects of bank bail-outs, was £11.8 billion in September 2014, £1.6 billion higher than September 2013.

Without all their many zeros, these figures may look less catastrophic than they actually are, but are still impressive.

Economists had predicted that borrowing would not increase. Even worse, the government had. Chancellor George Osborne in March pledged to cut the budget deficit by more than 10% over the next 12 months.

According to some calculations, our national debt grows by £15,510 every three seconds.
What happens to individuals and families also happens to governments. Spend more than you have, and you end up in debt. Keep doing it, and the debt accumulates. The more debt you have, the more debt interest you must pay. Last year, Britain's debt cost the taxpayers more than £50 billion in interest payments: about half of the NHS budget and more than the entire defence expenditure.

Reducing the debt is a political priority. Raising tax rates hurts the economy, as has been repeatedly shown. Therefore, we can effectively decrease the debt only by bringing down spending, which would not be difficult to achieve if we cut waste.

The Liberty GB party has various common-sense policies to achieve this goal, including:

• abolishing purposeless quangos
• reducing the public sector's unnecessarily high number of employees and other wasteful departmental expenditures
• halting mass immigration, thus decreasing its enormous expenditure on benefits; diversity policies; education; health; translation services; extra police, prison, judicial and intelligence services; and so on
• ending health tourism
• ending non-emergency aid to all countries, except those with a proven record of protection of their minorities, in particular the one which is by far the most persecuted minority in the world: Christians
• limiting the funding of schools by central government to a base amount, adjusted to the cost of living of the area, with any extra spending raised by the local authority
• leaving the NHS free at point of delivery, but not in any circumstances. There must be a limit to the expenditure for each person paid for by public purse, that could vary with age and other conditions. This will mean that the elderly and people with chronic or serious conditions, who have more justified need for health care, will have a higher limit. The NHS money will be conditional on the patient's following the doctor's prescriptions, in particular the lifestyle recommendations
• devolving healthcare decision-making to the local level to enable services to target local needs and to cut out higher layers of bureaucracy
• implementing "Work for the Dole" (also known as "Workfare"), to help benefit claimants back to work
• removing benefits for people under 25 who refuse to take up offers of work, training or education. In those cases they should be the responsibility of their parents. This could incentivise them to become active members of society
• stopping giving free council or council-funded accommodation to unmarried mothers under 25, who must remain the responsibility of the pregnant girl's parents. The rate of teen pregnancy would dramatically decrease, as has been evidenced in the US when welfare has been withheld
• seriously cracking down on benefit fraud
• ending benefits for children resident outside the UK.

Radical Muslim, Moderate Muslim

Well put.

There is also another way to distinguish between Muslims of various degrees of militancy. Rather than the self-contradictory expression "moderate Muslims", invented by the West for tactical (read "cowardly") reasons and not used by the Islamic world, I prefer to call "devout and observant Muslims" the Mohammedans who are usually referred to as "radical and extremist", with the implication that those of them who are not covered by this description are not Muslim in the truest sense.

Ignorance and Illogicality of Many Atheists

I often share on my personal Facebook page posts by Freedom From Atheism Foundation (FFAF) .

This group provides many snappy and ready quotations, slogans and images that are perfectly suited to Facebook and in general to today's many time-poor and attention-span-even-poorer people.

The problem is that somebody who hasn't bothered to take the effort to examine a topic like the existence of God needs much more than a few lines or a graphic, which is why I think that I'll put the brakes on this habit of mine.

The last straw has been the following exchange of comments after I posted the above graphic "Atheist Dark Ages":

Inge Naning Communism is a political correct religion.Has nothing to do with atheism.

Nick D'Aloise Has nothing to do with atheism? That's a stretch.

Inge Naning It's about control.
Atheism is only about not to believe in a god.

Enza Ferreri Atheism is profoundly connected with communism, both ideologically (read your Marx again - or for the first time, as the case may be) and historically.

Inge Naning Karl Marx was a jew and a Bolshevik. The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Tsar was overthrown. Then the Bolsheviks came to power. If they used atheism dosent mean that atheists are communists. 90 % of inmates in a prison likes tomatoes. It doesn't mean that all people who likes tomatoes are criminals

Enza Ferreri Correlation doesn't imply causation, true. But, when Marx writes "Religion is the opium of the peoples" and later all states founded on his theories are atheist and ruthlessy persecute and massacre the faithful, you do have causation beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Louis Lalande I guess when Hitler said he was here to do the will of god that makes Christians Nazis? No? Oh, double standards.

I was about to reply to the last comment when I realised that, if I answered each individual comment, this business could go on forever.

It also made me accept that this subject is not suitabe for treatment by way of soundbites.

I don't blame these commenters for not knowing much of history, religion, logic and probably a lot more. The state of education these days is appalling. In addition, they have been subjected to atheist and communist propaganda, going hand in hand, maybe throughout their lives.

But I feel the duty to put things right. What Louis said is factually wrong and logically fallacious.

Let's start with facts. He writes: "when Hitler said he was here to do the will of god that makes Christians Nazis?".

What Hitler meant by "God" has nothing to do with Christianity. Hitler despised Christianity almost as much as Richard Dawkins does.

Nazism tried to establish a religion which was a mixture of different things, but fundamentally it was pagan, therefore much closer to current atheists' heart than to Christians'. It certainly was not Christianity. And the Nazis' actions are as diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Gospels as they can possibly be.

The Nazis were indeed enemies of Christianity and the Church.

I have already covered at length this subject, and, rather than repeating what I've written, I refer you to the articles linked to above.

This brings us to the logical defects of Louis' comment. The other commenter defending atheism, Inge, made recourse to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in logic when she claimed something - I'm interpreting - to the effect that the association of atheism with communism is coincidental. Very likely, judging from the context of all her comments, her total ignorance of Karl Marx and the fact that another atheist of my personal acquaintance had used exactly the same argument, this has all the appearance of a standard reply that ordinary atheists have learned from their betters (but are they their betters?).

Anyone with a minimum knowledge of Marx - Inge doesn't even have that: "Karl Marx was a Bolshevik", she shamelessly declares, whereas the Bolshevik, "majority", faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was established in 1903, when Marx had been dead and buried in London's Highgate Cemetery for 20 years - knows that atheism is one of his foundational principles, and that any society he envisaged had to be atheist as a sine qua non: no atheism, no Marxist society.

In addition, Marx is not only the most influential communist thinker but also the only one who inspired and informed all communist societies that ever existed.

Socialism and communism in general, anyway, are awash with atheism. One of the slogans of anarchism, also called "libertarian communism", for example, is: "No God, no state, no servants or masters."

Even contemporary communists, like John Lennon, imagined

there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

And no religion too...

Imagine no possessions...
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

When atheists who know next to nothing about Marx are confronted with these facts, they have to resort to something else. So they come up with a parallel with a supposedly "Christian" Nazism.

Beside being historically false, as I explained above, this pseudo-argument is also illogical.

I don't need to pursue this point as the claim is based on a factual untruth. But I want to, as it shows how often these supposed "freethinkers", who have made a stand for reason and logic, in defending atheism fail miserably on both.

Even if Nazism had been Christian - which is thoroughly false -, in this case postulating that the two - Nazism and Christianity - were related more than just coincidentally would indeed be a blatant example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There is nothing connecting them inherently, causally, ideologically, doctrinarily. So much so that it would have been impossible for Nazism to be Christian. Which is why it wasn't.

Ethics and Christianity Syllogism

Premise 1
Ethics consists in subordinating the short term to the long term. The longest-possible term is eternity. A doctrine that makes you think in terms of eternity provides the greatest-possible frame for ethical thought and behaviour.

Premise 2
An ethical doctrine that includes eternity will maximise ethical effects, provided that it teaches to do good. If it teaches to do bad, like Islam, it does the greatest opposite: it maximises evil thinking and doing. Christianity is an ethical doctrine that includes eternity and teaches to do good.

Conclusion
Ergo, Christianity maximises ethical thinking and doing, compared with both Islam and atheism or agnosticism.

Anti-Semitism Claims Are Made Too Often

No-one doubts that there will be people who hate Jews.

The most obvious example is devout and observant Muslims, who are commanded by their religion to do so. They are also ordered to hate Christians, but for some reason the latter injunction doesn't evoke even a fraction of the emotion inspired by the former, despite the fact that an infinitely higher number of Christians than Jews suffer the consequences of this today.

Incidentally - this is not relevant to the rest of the article -, I've found what I consider a better way to distinguish between Muslims of various degrees of radicalism. Rather than the self-contradictory expression "moderate Muslims", invented by the West for tactical (read "cowardly") reasons and not used by the Islamic world, I prefer to call "devout and observant Muslims" the Mohammedans who are usually referred to as "militant and extremist", with the implication that those of them who are not covered by this description are not Muslim in the truest sense.

Going back to the main topic, the reason why Islamic Jew-hatred provokes much more indignation than Islamic Christian-hatred is not difficult to understand. It's because anti-Semitism is - or rather has become - another buzzword of the politically-correct language of today's ideological orthodoxy. According to this prevailing dogma, being against Christians does not even remotely approach the same level of sinfulness as attacking Jews.

Accusations of anti-Semitism, without reaching the absurdity and scope of charges of Islamophobia, have nevertheless something in common with them. They say: there is a protected group here, designated as victim, that shouldn't be messed with, or else.

This is not healthy, as it doesn't effectively distinguish real Jew-haters from people who simply have criticisms to make which, as in the case of Islam or Muslims, may be directed at Judaism or Jews.

This is something I have observed over time, but a particular direct experience of it brought it home to me more forcefully.

It all started with the short post "Wrong to Have Animals Killed in War" I wrote on this blog a couple of months ago, prompted by the news of an Israeli military dog killed in a Gaza blast who saved her handler's life.

This elicited two responses which - although one is anonymous - I think came from the same people, as they are worded almost identically.

The first you can see on the post page as a comment:

time I took my Jewish support away from LIbertyGB
there were dogs used in WW2
the Isola da [sic] Elba is over-run with homeless cats
they eat live animal sushi in Japan
but look...can we talk about all this instead of being enemies?

The next day an email was received by my party Liberty GB from two Jewish ladies who were supporters, asking: "Can you please remove this blog?"

The rest of the email is a repetition of the above comment, and ends with: "Why pick on us Jews, clearly singled out?"

Now, one can disagree with my opinion. I have been involved all my life in the movement for animal equality, and I know we are a minority. But no-one can say that my post was anti-Semitic.

Predicting that in these days of heightened sensitivities about anything somebody could - wrongly - read it that way, I wrote (and this is the whole of my comment, the rest of the post being two lines of news):

I have to say that I consider immoral to have dogs or other animals take part in military operations - be it Israeli or any other - as they cannot give their consent.

The "non-anti-Israel" disclaimer is one fifth of the entire text.

I didn't scour the annals of war history to find an apt anti-Semitic episode I could exploit in order to express my hatred of Jews, as these ladies seem to believe. The reason why the post was about an IDF (Israel Defence Forces) canine is simply because it's seeing that news item that inspired it. If I had spotted a similar event in the context of any other army I would have written the same, mutatis mutandis.

What is sinister about these responses is their demand of the removal of my blog, whatever that meant. I'm not sure if these ladies actually know how these things work, but it's immaterial. The spirit of strict censorship - anything we don't like must be removed - is there in full view.

Also unpleasant is the remark "the Isola da [sic] Elba is over-run with homeless cats". Since I am Italian, it looks like a clear tit-for-tat and ad hominem attack. They can be excused for not knowing that I am a lifelong animal activist, but not for neglecting to try to find out something about the context before launching themselves into indictments for anti-Semitism.

Just browsing my blog would have shown them that I've written in support of Israel several times, and would have displayed my animal-rights credentials.

It's a small thing, you may say, and I would agree, if it were not indicative of a much wider and greater phenomenon, of which I was reminded when I read the following in Takimag:

He [American Congressman Jim Traficant] also gained infamy (along with Patrick Buchanan) for opposing the deportation to Israel of John Demjanjuk, whom Traficant insisted had been misidentified as notorious concentration-camp guard “Ivan the Terrible.”

Since Patrick Buchanan is the author of a book I'm reading with great interest, Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, that made me curious to find out more.

It turned out that the case of Ukrainian John Demjanjuk, first sentenced to death by an Israeli court for being the infamous "Ivan the Terrible" guard in Treblinka, the German concentration camp, and years later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Israel because Ivan Marchenko had been established as the real "Ivan the Terrible", is very interesting.

In the clearly not anti-Semitic Kyiv Post, Ukraine’s English-language newspaper, lawyer Andriy J. Semotiuk writes:

While I was not immersed in the case, over the years I became increasingly alarmed by the legal deficiencies that were evident in the prosecution of his case in the United States, then in Israel and finally in Munich.

I don't want to reproduce here all the story of Demjanjuk and his case, which you can follow by reading the links.

Gitta Sereny, an Austrian author of Jewish descent who investigated and wrote extensively about the Third Reich's extermination camps and is another unlikely anti-Semite, had this to say:

From the start of the trial I was concerned that a man was being tried whose identity was in question. My friend Albert Spiess, the German prosecutor of the Treblinka trial and the trial of Franz Stangl, commandant of Treblinka, considered the identification procedure that had been applied in Israel and which produced the identification of Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible to be unacceptable. He had told the Israelis, who had invited him to testify at the trial, that he would have to say so in court, at which point the invitation, not surprisingly, was withdrawn.

So, Buchanan and Traficant, who as the Takimag article says gained "infamy", were right all along: Demjanjuk had been misidentified as "Ivan the Terrible", and the latter was finally found to be another man, Marchenko.

That didn't save Buchanan and Traficant from being accused of anti-Semitism over this episode.

I repeat what I said earlier: anti-Semitism, like anti-Christianity, exists. But it is bandied about too often and too often wrongly.

The kind of defensiveness that leads to imputations of Jew-hate whenever there is a disagreement is too similar to "Islamophobia" for comfort, and doesn't help to isolate and address the real anti-Semitism as it confuses the latter with so many "cry wolf" false alarms.