Japan's fashion rebellion goes West

[Malthus]

I've never heard of the dogs thing. Are you certain it's correct?

You have never heard of it?  Muslims, well mostly Arabs, dislike of Dogs is pretty famous.

Google 'Dogs Islam'

examples: http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015602&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Blah blah and so forth.

Dogs=bad but naturally Muslims now rush to say the Quran actually wants us to be nice to all animals.

Oh this is largely comes from Mohammed telling his followers to kill all the Dogs in Medina because the archangel Gabriel didn't like them.

And I largely think this is another one of those issues you get into where you hold one culture, 8th century Arabs, as eternally right and better than other cultures.

I dunno, seems that there is a cultural dislike of dogs at some point far back in Islamic history, but the links you posted all contradict the notion that Muslims can't keep dogs. Evidently they can and do, and are supposed to treat them well. 

[Valmy]

I dunno, seems that there is a cultural dislike of dogs at some point far back in Islamic history, but the links you posted all contradict the notion that Muslims can't keep dogs. Evidently they can and do, and are supposed to treat them well. 

Oh come on Malthus lighten up.  They directly mention the tradition and its religious basis.  They take other sections of Quran saying you must treat animals well and so forth to pacify modern sensibilities.

'You know all that anti-dog stuff?  Well ignore it and concentrate on this other section'  But it is sort of funny.

This is sort of like saying Jews are evil for slaughtering Amorites.  It was meant light heartedly.  Some old stuff meant to be eternally true gets a little embarrasing over time.

[Malthus]

I dunno, seems that there is a cultural dislike of dogs at some point far back in Islamic history, but the links you posted all contradict the notion that Muslims can't keep dogs. Evidently they can and do, and are supposed to treat them well. 

Oh come on Malthus lighten up.  They directly mention the tradition and its religious basis.  They take other sections of Quran saying you must treat animals well and so forth to pacify modern sensibilities.

'You know all that anti-dog stuff?  Well ignore it and concentrate on this other section'  But it is sort of funny.

This is sort of like saying Jews are evil for slaughtering Amorites.  It was meant light heartedly.  Some old stuff meant to be eternally true gets a little embarrasing over time.

I was simply confused by you saying that Muslims could not keep dogs as pets; I know some religious Muslims who have a pet dog, and I was wondering if it was actually literally true that they could not.

Why "lighten up"?

[Warspite]

I thought the French eat horses.

And it's delicious, a really tasty meat

Horse tastes more like steak than steak does.

[Valmy]

I was simply confused by you saying that Muslims could not keep dogs as pets; I know some religious Muslims who have a pet dog, and I was wondering if it was actually literally true that they could not.

Why "lighten up"?

Well they can keep them for hunting and so forth under specific circumstances.  They are just seen as un-pure animals to have around traditionally.  It states dogs block access to you by the Angels.

"Lighten up" because you seemed to be taking my joking about the dog thing a little too seriously but now I understand why.

Just like most of the ancient Jewish traditions modern Muslim theologians can rationalize around the Dog thing as the articles I have posted have shown.  I bet in very conservative Muslim communities they are still not allowed though.

[Syt]

when our brains weren't as connected up, and we all halucinated the existance of gods daily.

You receive one Spider Jerusalem point.

[Josquius]

I'm not. It seems though that you are.

I'm not the one proclaiming my distain for a goodly portion of the world's population based on their choice of entree. 

I'm not making a big deal of it at all, you're just questioning me on it so I'm answering. I don't really care, its just a minor odd thing, I've certainly not proclaimed my disdain for them.

Seems to me that it is more or less an arbitrary cultural choice: some people like to eat one thing, and others another; if a Hindu dislikes eating beef, or a Jew or Muslim pork, what difference does it make? That it's not rational? Since when are food preferences rational?

As long as they aren't trying to force you not to eat what you want, that is. 

Yes, its irrational, that's what I'm saying. That they would stick to this minor, unimportant irrationality whilst forsaking the rest of their religion though is odd.  Especially given this is a part of the religion founded in sound rationality that is now outdated; like not drinking alcohol which most of them have no problem breaking.
Food preferences normally are rational. People have different taste buds, different needs and care about their health to varying amounts.

You haven't met enough Bosnians.

hmm...given that Slavic food does seem to be heavily pork based that does raise questions about them that I'd never considered before. have they ever followed that?



Muslims and dogs: IIRC its the saliva that is unclean, not the dogs themselves. With many breeds this isn't really a issue.
Also its definatly fine to keep dogs as long as they're outside. Traditionally in the middle east people tend to have loads of them on the farm.

[Malthus]

I'm not. It seems though that you are.

I'm not the one proclaiming my distain for a goodly portion of the world's population based on their choice of entree. 

I'm not making a big deal of it at all, you're just questioning me on it so I'm discussing. I don't really care, its just a minor odd thing.

Seems to me that it is more or less an arbitrary cultural choice: some people like to eat one thing, and others another; if a Hindu dislikes eating beef, or a Jew or Muslim pork, what difference does it make? That it's not rational? Since when are food preferences rational?

As long as they aren't trying to force you not to eat what you want, that is. 

Yes, its irrational, that's what I'm saying. That they would stick to this minor, unimportant irrationality whilst forsaking the rest of their religion though is odd.  Especially given this is a part of the religion founded in sound rationality that is now outdated; like not drinking alcohol which most of them have no problem breaking.
Food preferences normally are rational. People have different taste buds, different needs and care about their health to varying amounts.

I disagree that food preferences are generally rational. Thing is that food preferences are often based on cultural notions of what is "gross". The notion that some particular animal is "gross" to eat isn't based on taste or nutrition necessarily - horse meat actually tastes quite good, for example. I've never had dog, but I understand it tastes much like pork.

The cultural notions of gross-ness can easily outlive the actual religion or other conditions that inspired them. An atheist who was brought up kosher may find the thought of eating pig "gross" even though he doesn't believe in any religious prohibitions. That's because pigs are, in Judaism and Islam, associated with *filth*, because they are supposed to enjoy wallowing in mud and eating garbage. It would be much like eating *rat*.

One could easily say "but these rats are bred in clean conditions and are totally healthy" - that may be true but many will still not wish to dine on tasty rat.

[Valmy]

One could easily say "but these rats are bred in clean conditions and are totally healthy" - that may be true but many will still not wish to dine on tasty rat.

I would.

But then I will eat anything if prepared in a tasty manner.

[garbon]

I was simply confused by you saying that Muslims could not keep dogs as pets; I know some religious Muslims who have a pet dog, and I was wondering if it was actually literally true that they could not.

On old Languish we had an article about Saudi Arabia closing down pet stores as they didn't want people buying dogs. I think they were saying people had to give up their dogs as well and there was testimony from people saying that they'd hide their dogs then.

[Malthus]

One could easily say "but these rats are bred in clean conditions and are totally healthy" - that may be true but many will still not wish to dine on tasty rat.

I would.

But then I will eat anything if prepared in a tasty manner.

I've actually had rat, when I was in China. It wasn't recognizable as such, and we only found out what it was after we had eaten it.

Wasn't bad, as I recall.

[Josquius]

I disagree that food preferences are generally rational. Thing is that food preferences are often based on cultural notions of what is "gross". The notion that some particular animal is "gross" to eat isn't based on taste or nutrition necessarily - horse meat actually tastes quite good, for example. I've never had dog, but I understand it tastes much like pork.

The cultural notions of gross-ness can easily outlive the actual religion or other conditions that inspired them. An atheist who was brought up kosher may find the thought of eating pig "gross" even though he doesn't believe in any religious prohibitions. That's because pigs are, in Judaism and Islam, associated with *filth*, because they are supposed to enjoy wallowing in mud and eating garbage. It would be much like eating *rat*.

One could easily say "but these rats are bred in clean conditions and are totally healthy" - that may be true but many will still not wish to dine on tasty rat.

That could help in explaining it.
Why though don't the same cultural hang ups persist over alcohol and other things?

Eating rat- I wouldn't actively seek it out but if it was put in front of me I'd try it to see what its actually like. My only hang ups are over my having rodents as pets and liking them rather than any idea of them being dirty (the same as why eating dog would be a huge no for me).

[Malthus]

I was simply confused by you saying that Muslims could not keep dogs as pets; I know some religious Muslims who have a pet dog, and I was wondering if it was actually literally true that they could not.

On old Languish we had an article about Saudi Arabia closing down pet stores as they didn't want people buying dogs. I think they were saying people had to give up their dogs as well and there was testimony from people saying that they'd hide their dogs then.

This issue though is whether this is like religious Jews not eating pork (something they all do) or more like the Taliban insisting on putting pants on donkeys in Afganistan. 

[ulmont]

One could easily say "but these rats are bred in clean conditions and are totally healthy" - that may be true but many will still not wish to dine on tasty rat.

"sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker."

[Malthus]

That could help in explaining it.
Why though don't the same cultural hang ups persist over alcohol and other things?

Eating rat- I wouldn't actively seek it out but if it was put in front of me I'd try it to see what its actually like. My only hang ups are over my having rodents as pets and liking them rather than any idea of them being dirty (the same as why eating dog would be a huge no for me).

My guess is that the reward factor for breaking the taboo is much less. Not eating pork is a much smaller price to pay than never drinking.