Next time you see a horse riding the bus, don’t be surprised. It’s probably just a seeing-eye animal for a blind woman who belongs to an ancient sect that believes that dogs are ritually unclean and whose parents won’t allow her to bring a seeing-eye dog in the house at the risk of angering their god:
While most Muslims believe dogs can violate ritual purity, horses are seen as “regal animals,” says Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan chapter.Still, “there would be concerns about bringing a horse into certain establishments and areas of worship as well,” he said.
So when someone wants to bring her horse into a restaurant, into a dentist’s office, into a mall, or into the hospital, be welcoming! She’s probably just a blind person with 8th-century superstitions, or maybe an equiphile. Either way, who are you to judge?
I’m a new reader, but as a pretty diehard anti-theist I’m probably in full agreement with the thesis of your book. That said, I think you blew this one, at least in tone.
The idea of not using seeing eye dogs for religious reasons is worthy of derision, but there are other reasons for the switch. For instance, folks spend huge amounts of time with their service animals, and by all accounts the bond is intense, which makes the inevitable loss of the companion extremely painful. Horses can live past thirty years. Can you blame someone for picking a horse if that means they go through the grief less often? From my admittedly limited knowledge it is largely non-religious considerations of this type that drive experimentation with other service animals.
You seem to find the idea of a horse entering a dentist’s office or a restaurant much more surprising than a dog doing the same. Given that the horses in question are about the size of a dog, why should this be the case?
That horse looks bigger than a dog to me:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/04/miniature-horse-becomes-guide-for-blind-muslim-woman.html
But you’re right that if she’d asserted “lasts longer” or “allergic to dogs” or “dreamed of owning a pony ever since I was a little girl!” as her reason I probably wouldn’t have mentioned her.
(Although it still might have been hard to resist making a “equiphile” joke.)
I think it’s just because she’s sitting down. They’re pretty tiny, and I think the article gives it as 2.5 feet and 125 lbs. My dog is just shy of that height and about 20 lbs lighter, so I suppose I’m used to comparing against the large end of the spectrum.
And while I think she did say something to the effect of “last longer” in favor of the horse, there’s more than enough religious wackiness in the fact that the dog taboo was strong enough to get her to the point of saying something like “I had basically given up. I mean, I had been to the point where I thought, ‘I’m going to get nothing out of my life,” to justify the attention. And then there’s always the pull of the equiphile joke.
At any rate, sorry to get all huffy right off the bat. That’s usually not my speed.
If I were blind, I’d rather stumble around with a stick than own a dog. Dogs are foul creatures, and dog owners are pathetic people who apparently need the assurance of their own worth only a willing slave can provide.
Dogs are grotesque mockeries of wolves, animals bred by humans to be willing slaves who can be tortured with impunity. They are a species built for sadists by sadists. How many times has a dog owner bragged of the “unconditional love” and “legendary loyalty” of a dog for even the most abusive owner?
I don’t want dogs in my house, my business, or on my property. Horses, OK, as long as you don’t leave a mess on my floors or do other damage.
My opinions on this matter have nothing to do with any religion. They were formed from spending a great deal of time around dogs and dog owners, for many years.
If a species must be genetically manipulated into being a willing slave, why can’t it be humans? If it’s OK to do it to wolves, why not to people? Are people specially exempt, because God likes people better than wolves?
I can certainly agree that there’s a lot wrong with domestication in principle and moreover that as usually practiced directed breeding constitutes a horrifying abuse on an enormous scale. It’s not just that domesticated dogs are less intelligent than wolves, one might expect that as a natural side effect of removing some selective pressures. We go so far as to intentionally breed dogs with horrible disabilities and disposition to disease. It’s disgusting and ought to stop. File your complaint with the purebreed fetishists.
The fact that dogs are tortured with impunity over the long term genetically and day to day is a stain on the humans that do it, not the dogs. Of course, all this is true to one extent or another of all domesticated species. So why does it bother you so much more in one case than in the others? Hopefully it’s not just the lack of an equine analog to this romantic, and totally nutty, lone wolf image you’ve got going on. Wolves are no different than dogs (or horses for that matter) in being highly social animals that form tight and complex communities. That’s all “legendary loyalty” is. It’s not servility. Wolves, like dogs, are perfectly capable of bonding with humans, they’re just more volatile and aggressive. Conversely, I think wolves and dogs share a more or less indistinguishable set of social expectations and behaviors. Servility simply doesn’t figure into it.
I think my basic point is this: a careful examination of humanities interaction with canines doesn’t reflect well on us, but it doesn’t follow that the interaction can’t be fruitful if we make a genuine effort to understand and communicate. Furthermore, I don’t buy the idea that, aside from the more extreme cases, have been modified in fundamental ways from the undomesticated state. Certainly there is no basis for moralizing about their slavish and debased souls. That’s a really bizarre variety of anthropomorphic wankery.
As far as why it’s not ok to enslave and genetically manipulate people, there’s no reason as far as most of human history is concerned. We do it all the time, if somewhat less than usual recently, and I’m pretty sure that on at least a few occasions god was in favor of it.
/procrastination and threadjacking
Chris, you’re coming across all reasonable-like and ruining my perfectly good over-the-top rant. I figured a blog named “your religion is false!” was a perfect place for inflammatory rhetoric.
Now everyone will listen to you instead of me… in topsy-turvy world, that is! Here on Earth, I expect a cadre of dog-lovers to arrive at any minute. I predict they will ignore your insightful post. Except maybe the wankery part.
Sigh… It’s depressing isn’t it? Taking on religious mumbo-jumbo differs from most of the debates in which I’ve participated in that (most of the time) I’m not embarrassed to associate with the people on my side. God help me if I ever have to make camp with the animal lovers for more than five minutes at a time.
What an idiotic post. Americans love dogs but Arabs in general hate them (dogs).
I think the stupid phenomon is that of Americans raising dogs in their homes. Oh well, they’re Americans .. no surprise!
hasenj,
I agree. I think Americans should start raising Muslims in their homes. Everyone should own one.
Whoop! I’ve been outdone – in three sentences no less!
Hm. As a Muslim woman, I find her aversion (and that of her family) stunningly idiotic. First, it is only a few schools that believe that contact with dog SALIVA requires washing before prayer. Second, dogs are not forbidden as pets except by lunatics. Lots of Muslim families have dogs; disaffection for them as pets has to do with cultural issues more than specifically religious ones.
What I’m saying is that her family are jerks.
I think Nahid is right on all counts. Particularly the fact that this is a regional cultural twitch that got picked up by religion and is now masquerading as a religious issue. I say regional because I encountered it among as many Greeks as Egyptians (sadly, that’s the extent of my personal sample), so I think its more of a med/middle eastern thing than an Arab thing. I’d be curious to know the real history of this one if anyone happens to know. It seems like cases in which religion institutionalizes local color always come with a good story. It’s pretty hilarious how many Greek and Roman pagan religious sites conveniently became shrines to one Christian saint or another that served the same superstitious function (healing, protection, etc ) under the new metaphysical management.
ah, was wondering why some of the reasons that equines were being used.
thanks for all the research and work done on your posts, Mr J.
Charlie :”I expect a cadre of dog-lovers to arrive at any minute. I predict they will ignore your insightful post. Except maybe the wankery part.”
WAS WONDERING why my ears were ringing, and calling me over to this post!
*j/k*
nah, i can agree with most of what Chris writes, do say seems little bit narrow on the view, prolly just the side-effect of reading and not knowing the chap. Even extends to race horses, breeding them for such speed that now they break down, faster and harder than ever, due to shot leg strengths of the sort. Perhaps if and when technology is applied more can be undone of what we done. But I don’t see any of that ever happening till other more serious issues are addressed.
Anyways the hatred to dogs from a religion? Something about washing if dog drools on you, before prayer?
Is this religion dunce or am I taught out of wacky facts, as the dogs mouth more clean than a humans?
Also is this the religion that still can’t just get it across its black rock is nothing more than a meterite, not a holy of holy’s sign from heaven, thrown to earth from gods hand of paradise nutty fact of theirs?
As for this moderate religious person, calling the other sect a loony…
Perhaps if you’d self reflect, then study up on the roots of your ‘more’ noble version of religion, and accept its more of a waste and hinderance to the human race, the loony sects would not feel as justified when standing alone instead of hidden in the mist of the ‘moderate’ base that surrounds them!
Seriously, going around insulting other oddities…Nahid!
*yawns*
Your Mo’s are stepping beyond any tolerance level of a respectful kind can give!
Why do I not see your ‘moderate’ self, out there stopping this awful silencing of religious redicule law thats in effect in england and else where
You’d be punished for saying this sect of hers is looney!
That is insanity, i believe.
If your not up in arms over how muslims plead its a punishable fine, and jail time, for speaking the truths as I see them, just like yourself saying this womans more a loon than your own loonecy.
Piss me off, seeing the recent debates, how catholic, now hugs mo’s to attack those who know both are based on falsehoods and superstupideez of all sorts!
Peace
JC
“Anyways the hatred to dogs from a religion? Something about washing if dog drools on you, before prayer? Is this religion dunce or am I taught out of wacky facts, as the dogs mouth more clean than a humans?”
There’s no dog-hatred, it’s just a question of ritual purity. As I mentioned, it’s a cultural thing, not a Muslim thing.
A lot of people follow religions. Why do you care they do or don’t appreciate dogs?
“Also is this the religion that still can’t just get it across its black rock is nothing more than a meterite, not a holy of holy’s sign from heaven, thrown to earth from gods hand of paradise nutty fact of theirs?”
Ironically, Muslims also believe the black rock is nothing more than a meteorite. It was chosen as a direction to face for prayer and has no further meaning. In fact, the black stone was stolen by the Qarmatians around the 10th century and the world’s Muslims didn’t care. It wasn’t recovered for about 70 years. The rock is a rock. It’s an arbitrary point.
“As for this moderate religious person, calling the other sect a loony…”
Not exactly how I’d characterise the situation, but okay.
“Perhaps if you’d self reflect, then study up on the roots of your ‘more’ noble version of religion, and accept its more of a waste and hinderance to the human race, the loony sects would not feel as justified when standing alone instead of hidden in the mist of the ‘moderate’ base that surrounds them!”
Well, that’s your personal belief. I didn’t characterise a hierarchy of “nobility” of faiths and sects as far as I am aware. Of course, I do believe my own faith is best for me.
“Why do I not see your ‘moderate’ self, out there stopping this awful silencing of religious redicule law thats in effect in england and else where”
Actually, I’m as active as a NON-BRITON could be on that issue. I’m an activist on many issues, but I am an American, so I can only do so much on issues that relate to governments that aren’t my own.
I also query as to why I am required to answer for all Muslims.
“If your not up in arms over how muslims plead its a punishable fine, and jail time, for speaking the truths as I see them, just like yourself saying this womans more a loon than your own loonecy.”
Hey, I’m an American. Free speech, man. I support your rights to burn the flag, for women to go topless where men have the same right and for people to criticise each other every which way but up.
“Piss me off, seeing the recent debates, how catholic, now hugs mo’s to attack those who know both are based on falsehoods and superstupideez of all sorts!”
I also am aggravated by religious extremism.
Nahid,
Do apoligize on any bad overtones, I’m only human, and hard to keep from letting preasures of life, bleed onto other issues at hand.
Thank ya’s on helping me understand your positions better.
heh, ahhh, i wouldn’t say those are my favorite past times, but I have taken plenty of heat, and heckling over ‘crazy thoughts’ for only sharing dreams of how to make the world a better place for all.
If its not a hassle, prolly never may come of need, but would you mind if I add you as a future contact, for any other questions and/or thoughts I have clouding my mind?
Take care
JC