Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Muslim taxi driver refuses disabled passenger because of guide dog Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    See, that's the problem with religion, it's open to interpretation.
    http://egyptianstreets.com/2014/05/1...lamic-scholar/
    * This is by an actual scholar from al-Azhar, the major Sunni institute.

    "
    According to Sheikh Gomaa, Islamic jurisprudence, which he says is based off Islam’s adopted teachings of Imam Malik ibn Anas, dictates that dogs come from a group of immaculate and clean animals that worship and are not impure or unclean."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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/2014/05/1...lamic-scholar/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    See, that's the problem with religion, it's open to interpretation.
    http://egyptianstreets.com/2014/05/1...lamic-scholar/
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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/2014/05/1...lamic-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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why does the Media always mention 'Muslim' Noone mentions anything if someones is Christian or any other Religion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.