Muslim taxi driver refuses disabled passenger because of guide dog

Original post by The_JoKeR

You guys do realize there are different branches of each religion? I'm just speculating but maybe his branch is strict when it comes to this.

It's all about interpretation.

Reply 22

Original post by Good bloke

Well quite, but the Koran, alone among religious texts, claims to be the direct word of a deity and specifically forbids interpretation of its words, which means .that only a literal view of its meaning is favoured by that deity.

Well the Quran doesn't mention a lot of things, including dogs, hence the need for interpretation.

Reply 23

Original post by oShahpo

Also:
"Yet, Sheikh Gomaa went even further in his defence of dogs, stating that their loyalty allows them to be beneficial for protection, hunting and detection of explosives and drugs. The Sheikh added that guide dogs are extremely beneficial for those that are blind."
http://egyptianstreets.com/2014/05/14/dogs-are-not-impure-says-prominent-islamic-scholar/

Hmm. Bringing forth what modern interpreters of a mediaeval superstition opine (against the words of the book they favour) is a bit like arguing about how many angels can be collected together on the head of a pin. Completely useless.

Reply 24

Original post by Good bloke

Hmm. Bringing forth what modern interpreters of a mediaeval superstition opine (against the words of the book they favour) is a bit like arguing about how many angels can be collected together on the head of a pin. Completely useless.

No it absolutely is not. If you really are against extremist Islam, you'd want Muslims to follow an open, modern and liberal interpretation, right?
Yea religion is superstitious and backwards, but a good interpretation is better than nothing.

Also, there is nothing in the Quran about dogs so his interpretation is not against the doctrine.

Reply 25

Original post by oShahpo

Well the Quran doesn't mention a lot of things, including dogs, hence the need for interpretation.

Well, no. It specifically says that everything that is important is in the Koran. If it isn't there it isn't important. If it says nothing about dogs then a Moslem's behaviour with regard to them, and their proximity to them, is of no account and totally unregulated, regardless of what the chief superstits have to say on the matter.

Reply 26

Original post by Good bloke

Well, no. It specifically says that everything that is important is in the Koran. If it isn't there it isn't important. If it says nothing about dogs then a Moslem's behaviour with regard to them, and their proximity to them, is of no account and totally unregulated, regardless of what the chief superstits have to say on the matter.

Well the Quran doesn't mention dogs anyway. So my point still holds, that this is the action of a tosser and we shouldn't just blame all Muslims for it.

Reply 27

Al-farhan

Only in sensationalist media eh.
Out of all the tens of thousands of muslim cabbies throughout the decades they point out one guy who dislikes dogs and the mindless masses use that as the example of typical muslim taxi driver.

Reply 28

Original post by oShahpo

No it absolutely is not. If you really are against extremist Islam, you'd want Muslims to follow an open, modern and liberal interpretation, right?
Yea religion is superstitious and backwards, but a good interpretation is better than nothing.

Also, there is nothing in the Quran about dogs so his interpretation is not against the doctrine.

I don't want any educated person, in this twenty-first century, to fall prey to peddlers of superstitious nonsense of any colour. I merely argue from within the self-contained logic of the words of the supposedly perfect book, dictated to a supposedly perfect supposed prophet by a supposedly perfect deity that purport to lay down the rules of Islam.

I can't help it if the rules put forth by an ambitious and cunning mediaeval warlord in an attempt to control his superstitious desert-dwellers should be followed by large numbers of superstitious people in modern times, and also used to justify modern atrocities. However, the literalists at least have consistency and logic on their side. If you are going to believe such tommyrot, at least do it properly.

Reply 29

Original post by Al-farhan

the mindless masses use that as the example of typical muslim taxi driver.

Well, no. He is merely used as an example of how superstitious belief leads to unacceptable behaviour in some. Nobody has used him as a stereotype of all Moslems - completely the opposite, in fact.

Reply 30

Original post by oShahpo

Well the Quran doesn't mention dogs anyway.

The Koran mentions dogs several times actually. None of them ban contact with dogs and the general tenor is that, like slavery, dogs are perfectly acceptable in Islam.

Reply 31

Original post by Good bloke

I don't want any educated person, in this twenty-first century, to fall prey to peddlers of superstitious nonsense of any colour. I merely argue from within the self-contained logic of the words of the supposedly perfect book, dictated to a supposedly perfect supposed prophet by a supposedly perfect deity that purport to lay down the rules of Islam.

I can't help it if the rules put forth by an ambitious and cunning mediaeval warlord in an attempt to control his superstitious desert-dwellers should be followed by large numbers of superstitious people in modern times, and also used to justify modern atrocities. However, the literalists at least have consistency and logic on their side. If you are going to believe such tommyrot, at least do it properly.

I'd rather have idiots following a modern interpretation of an ancient religion, than have logically consistent literalists following an incompatible interpretation of an ancient religion.

Reply 32

Original post by Good bloke

The Koran mentions dogs several times actually. None of them ban contact with dogs and the general tenor is that, like slavery, dogs are perfectly acceptable in Islam.

Why are we arguing then?

Reply 33

Original post by oShahpo

Why are we arguing then?

Well, you have made a number of incorrect assertions and suggestions (e.g. no mention of dogs in Koran, interpretations are OK, clerics haven't supported the idea that dogs are bad, "nice" Islam is OK) and I have corrected you.

Reply 34

aadin_

1

Why does the Media always mention 'Muslim' Noone mentions anything if someones is Christian or any other Religion

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 35

Original post by Good bloke

Well, you have made a number of incorrect assertions and suggestions (e.g. no mention of dogs in Koran, interpretations are OK, clerics haven't supported the idea that dogs are bad, "nice" Islam is OK) and I have corrected you.

Yea I made the mistake of thinking that dogs are not mentioned in the Quran, you corrected me and we reached a similar conclusion.

As for interpretations, unless there is a tangible way to stop all religious beliefs, we should encourage good interpretations. Atheism did not spread in the West suddenly, it took years of liberal thoughts and reformation until the gap between religion and atheism became short enough for ordinary people to jump.

Reply 36

Dinklebot

Original post by aadin_

Why does the Media always mention 'Muslim' Noone mentions anything if someones is Christian or any other Religion

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because that is the reason the service was denied, because the driver was Muslim.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 37

Copperknickers

15

Original post by aadin_

Why does the Media always mention 'Muslim' Noone mentions anything if someones is Christian or any other Religion

Posted from TSR Mobile

Because the man said it was because of his Muslim religion that he was not allowing the dog into the taxi!

Reply 38

Al-farhan