It's about Islamic law, not about Islamic lore.
Reader comment on item: Muslim Taxi Drivers vs. Seeing-Eye Dogs
Submitted by James Vesce (United States), Nov 27, 2006 at 12:30
If one pokes around a little on www.sistani.org , "The Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Sistani", one comes away with the following impression: Islamic law holds that dogs are as "unclean" as swine.
Cab drivers who refuse to transport blind fares using guide dogs are doing so because they are applying Islamic law. Describing it as Muslim "lore" or Arab culture misses the point.
When CAIR argues that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer", they're not informing you that bathing before prayer is standard practice, and prescriptions for cleansing are available for any Muslim who thinks he needs any special cleansing.
What would happen if CAIR tried to field questions about Ayatollah Sistani's website describing non-Muslim infidels as being just as unclean as dogs and swine?
These Muslim cabbies are just being terrifically difficult, requiring us to accommodate Islamic law, and we're letting them get away with it. If it were anybody else, we wouldn't put up with such foolishness.
Since they carry human infidels, if they were actually following Islamic law and not just being petulent, they'd be cleansing and purifying just as much for contact with infidels as they would have to for contact with dogs. I guess they've decided that it isn't politically expedient to raise that point in the US yet.
Any religion that prevents people from enjoying the pleasures and advantages of human-dog partnerships is difficult for me to understand. It tells me a lot about them intuitively, though
I guess Lassie re-runs and "Old Yeller" Disney movies aren't aired very much by Al Jazeera.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (129) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes