Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Saudi bans Sale of Cats and Dogs as Pets
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:35 pm    Post subject: Saudi bans Sale of Cats and Dogs as Pets Reply with quote

SAUDI ARABIA: GOING TO THE DOGS (AND CATS)
In a bizarre attempt to expel Western influence from the kingdom, Saudi Arabia�s religious police, known as the �Muttawa,� have passed a law banning the sale of cats and dogs as pets. While the decree currently applies only to the Red Sea port city of Jiddah and the holy city of Mecca, the new law is clearly designed to curb the growing trend among Saudi citizens of having dogs and/or cats as pets � a habit which conservatives in the Kingdom see as the product of Western influence. The ban on dogs comes as no surprise, given the traditional perception among Muslims that dogs are unclean. The prohibition against cats, however, is more surprising, since according to Islamic tradition the Prophet Muhammad loved cats and encouraged Muslims to treat them well. (Associated Press, September 8, 2006; Fox News, September 8, 2006)

Good ol Saudi.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bizarre indeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hyalucent



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: British North America

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So he was a cat person, not a dog person?

That has got to be the most profound means of explaining of Islam that I have ever heard. Somebody could do a Comparative Religions MA thesis on that. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember au pairing for a family of blonde haired blued eyed muslims in Switzerland. When the husband (who was the only one who could speak English) showed me my new room he said with great concern "you can have a cat but please don't bring any pigs (I assume he meant pigmeat!), alcohol, men or dogs to this room, or the angels wont come to our house." The family doted on their pet cat. Their 4 year old would constantly comment to me about how dogs were very dirty and nasty but cats were clean and lovely. More recently an Arab told me that the Prophet liked cats so much that he let one give birth to kittens on his lap.

So I'm a little surprised at the Saudi ruling against cats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boodleheimer



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Location: working undercover for the Man

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

my grandparents and and their children (mom included) lived in Jeddah for a year. mom brought her cat. the cat was well-liked by the community. and i'm sure the cat loved the sand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
red dog



Joined: 31 Oct 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read the full story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14738358/, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Does it apply only to the sale of dogs and cats for profit, or would rescuers be prohibited from adopting out homeless dogs and cats? This is a message I got from a mailing list recently -- I think the author is Malaysian and I'm not going to edit anything.

Quote:
Reasons for Saudi's sale ban for pets-Malaysiakini
Arbibi Ashoy
Sep 25, 06 4:26pm
<_javascript: chgFontSize( 0)> <_javascript: chgFontSize( 1)>
<_javascript: chgFontSize( 2)>

I refer to the letter *Cats and dogs: Saudi's sale ban
unwise<http://www.malaysia kini.com/ opinionsfeatures /55899>
* by Anthony Thanayasan. I feel he has misunderstood the reason for the ban.
The ban is upon the sale of pets, not the feeding or grooming or showing
kindness to animals.

This ban is necessary for a number of reasons. First of all, pet owners
prefer exotic breeds or pedigrees compared to the local breeds or mongrels.
This means that these cats and dogs have to be imported. Animals carry
diseases and in a country where rain is lacking and where carcasses and
faeces are not washed away, diseases can spread easily.

Second, keeping pets is an alien culture there. While cats and dogs do roam
the streets, their numbers are small as the dessert is not a hospitable
place for them.

Third, buying and selling pets can be cruel. Pet shops keep cats and dogs in
small cages without any space for them to run. Transporting animals over
long distances is cruel. Subjecting pets to strange weather conditions can
be cruel.

Fourth, the law does not require pet owners to take their pets for medical
checkups and injections also in providing nutritious and well-balanced food.
There is no regulation requiring the maintaining of hygiene as well as
requiring owners to provide sufficient space for roaming.

Finally, keeping pets involve a lot of money. Many people do not even do the
minimum, that is spaying and neutering their pet. Their pets get pregnant,
they give birth and their litters are dumped in public places and left to
fend for themselves.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbert



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I assume goats and sheep are still allowed. Probably make better sexual outlets for them than comparatively smaller dogs and cats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dogbert wrote:
I assume goats and sheep are still allowed. Probably make better sexual outlets for them than comparatively smaller dogs and cats.


Shocked One wonders if you've spent some time in New Zealand me ol' chum?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbert



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big_Bird wrote:
dogbert wrote:
I assume goats and sheep are still allowed. Probably make better sexual outlets for them than comparatively smaller dogs and cats.


Shocked One wonders if you've spent some time in New Zealand me ol' chum?


Yes, but AFAIK the kiwis haven't banished their puppies and kitties yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Red Dog - thanks for your post. It was quite interesting, and does more throw more perspective on the issue.

It does seem that when pet keeping becomes fashionable in a culture where there has been little tradition of it (like Korea for example) animals do seem to suffer on a large scale. That's not to say that there isn't terrible neglect and cruelty in the West of course, Crying or Very sad but at least it's frowned upon by the majority and we have animal rescue groups.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BB, you just made a distinction between Western nations and others regarding cruelty to animals. Extremely sensible. You accepted cultural differences that can lead to moral issues, from the eyes of a Westerner.

My question is this,

Why do you not afford the same logic and concern for women in non-Western nations?

If we were posting about women in Saudi you would have made some cynical dumba$s remark about the poster and ignored the topic.

Do you care more about animals then you do non-white/Western women?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BJWD wrote:
BB, you just made a distinction between Western nations and others regarding cruelty to animals. Extremely sensible. You accepted cultural differences that can lead to moral issues, from the eyes of a Westerner.

My question is this,

Why do you not afford the same logic and concern for women in non-Western nations?

If we were posting about women in Saudi you would have made some cynical dumba$s remark about the poster and ignored the topic.

Do you care more about animals then you do non-white/Western women?


As usual, you have no inkling at all about my thoughts on the matter. I used to take part in awareness campaigns for women under the Taliban, long before you'd ever heard of Afghanistan, sometime back in the 90s, when the US was backing the regime.

However, I don't see how bombing the shit out of innocent arab women and children in occupied Palestine/Lebanon/Iraq/Afghanistan actually helps women's rights. Please tell how this assists women's emancipation? The brave Afghanistan women themselves who risked their own lives to campaign against the Taliban begged the US not to bring more war to their country. Apart from in showcase Kabul, women's plight in Afghanistan is now even worse than before. And how does a hate campaign against the muslim population of the West help female muslims. I don't see how it does. Further more, you have the impression that all muslim women are oppressed. In fact, I personally know many muslim wives who have very amicable and equal relationships with their husbands. It's simply not the case that all muslim men are beating and raping their wives. Those that are have many equivalents in the West, where believe it or not, we still haven't properly faced up to the problem.

Also, when you try to impose feminism on a foreign culture from outside, it becomes synonymous with foreigness, and all people (including the women) will resist it out of national pride. You then make it harder for the women in that country trying to change things. A friend of mine went back to Libya recently, and was astonished at how many female friends he knew who'd started taking up the hijab, when previously they hadn't worn it. When he questioned them on it, they pretty much came up with the same reason - they saw it as an act of defiance against the West, who they feel are bullying and lecturing them. This is typical human resistance. I've also noticed young muslim women taking up the hijab here in the West, despite the fact their own mothers never wore it. It's a way of saying F You, to a society that has begun to single them out and pick on them. It's become a way to rebel.

Lastly, I didn't say that Western countries necessarily treat their animals better than non-Western ones. That's simply you own inference at work. In some Western European countries, they are only now beginning to face up to animal cruelty. It's more a matter of countries developing, and then having the luxury of being able to turn their minds to these matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) Why say "when the US was backing"... Makes me think you only protest when Americans can be blamed? Or maybe Joooos too?

FYI, I had family members working for aid groups in Afganiland around that time. Well aware, I was.

2) I don't see how bombing them does them any good either. I'm antiwar in every way. I never said that helps women's rights. You are using a straw man. Because we disagree, I must be pro-war, and think that bombs = women's lib. Haha. This is the easiest reply I've ever done.

3) Yeah, now it is those who criticize mussies who are responsible for the 900 year-old oppression of mussie girls? So, we should stay quiet? If we "tolerate" their violence it will go away?

4) The West hasn't properly faced up to the problem. Tis true. The muslim world doesn't think it is a problem. Tis also true.

5) They wear the hijab because 1) the muslim boys assault them if they don't and 2) they feel (rightly) that they don't belong in the West.

6) Nope, you didn't say that they treat them better. You said that we had organizations that try to help while others don't. That is a distinction you won't apply anywhere else.

You are fast becoming a joke.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BJWD wrote:
1) Why say "when the US was backing"... Makes me think you only protest when Americans can be blamed? Or maybe Joooos too?
Don't such a twit. I made that point to show the hypocrisy of the US, who suddenly became such advocates of women's rights in Afghanistan when it became convenient to stir up public support for a war.

Quote:
2) I don't see how bombing them does them any good either. I'm antiwar in every way. I never said that helps women's rights. You are using a straw man. Because we disagree, I must be pro-war, and think that bombs = women's lib. Haha. This is the easiest reply I've ever done.


Then what is it that I've written that has convinced you that I don't give a damn about muslim women's rights? All that I can think of that I've written on these forums is that I've been against the war on muslims.

Quote:
3) Yeah, now it is those who criticize mussies who are responsible for the 900 year-old oppression of mussie girls? So, we should stay quiet? If we "tolerate" their violence it will go away?
The problem is that mouthing off about it sanctimoniously isn't helping them. How do you propose helping them? If you're not able to help them by mouthing off, which it seems to me you clearly can't, then perhaps you ought to find another way. Quietly channelling donations to women's charities in muslim countries might have been a way forward. Or putting gentle diplomatic pressure on muslim countries that we are allied with. But because we've gone for this crazy stupid "War on Terror" and made ourselves the enemy of millions of muslims by having killed so many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then abetted the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Lebanon, we have made it more difficult to change things.

Quote:
4) The West hasn't properly faced up to the problem. Tis true. The muslim world doesn't think it is a problem. Tis also true.

Yeah right. The muslim world being one homogenous mass of harmonious thought. There is a push for women's rights in many Islam countries, but it has started off slowly, like it did in the West. Now we've damaged any chance of it snowballing anytime soon.

Quote:
You are fast becoming a joke.
Then I'm becoming like you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big_Bird wrote:
BJWD wrote:
1) Why say "when the US was backing"... Makes me think you only protest when Americans can be blamed? Or maybe Joooos too?
Don't such a twit. I made that point to show the hypocrisy of the US, who suddenly became such advocates of women's rights in Afghanistan when it became convenient to stir up public support for a war.

Quote:
2) I don't see how bombing them does them any good either. I'm antiwar in every way. I never said that helps women's rights. You are using a straw man. Because we disagree, I must be pro-war, and think that bombs = women's lib. Haha. This is the easiest reply I've ever done.


Then what is it that I've written that has convinced you that I don't give a damn about muslim women's rights? All that I can think of that I've written on these forums is that I've been against the war on muslims.

Quote:
3) Yeah, now it is those who criticize mussies who are responsible for the 900 year-old oppression of mussie girls? So, we should stay quiet? If we "tolerate" their violence it will go away?
The problem is that mouthing off about it sanctimoniously isn't helping them. How do you propose helping them? If you're not able to help them by mouthing off, which it seems to me you clearly can't, then perhaps you ought to find another way. Quietly channelling donations to women's charities in muslim countries might have been a way forward. Or putting gentle diplomatic pressure on muslim countries that we are allied with. But because we've gone for this crazy stupid "War on Terror" and made ourselves the enemy of millions of muslims by having killed so many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then abetted the wholesale slaughter of innocents in Lebanon, we have made it more difficult to change things.

Quote:
4) The West hasn't properly faced up to the problem. Tis true. The muslim world doesn't think it is a problem. Tis also true.

Yeah right. The muslim world being one homogenous mass of harmonious thought. There is a push for women's rights in many Islam countries, but it has started off slowly, like it did in the West. Now we've damaged any chance of it snowballing anytime soon.

Quote:
You are fast becoming a joke.
Then I'm becoming like you.


1) Why did you do that? I never mentioned the USA. Do you need pills for your obsession?

2) When crimes of muslims are brought up, you denounce the messenger and ignore the crime. Then talk about yourself. You don't care about women's rights. You only care about protecting multiculturalism. The only stand you are willing to take is the stand that all others are 'wrong' and 'retarded' even though you have not defined your position.

3) We help them by leaving them alone. Leading by example. Sorting out our own garbage and extending full individual rights to all citizens regardless of race, sex or other while at the same time keeping those who come from cultures who are totally opposite of our own out. We don't pretend that allowing them to live in the West will fix their culture and accept that they have their own path to individual liberty. America was supposed to be a light on a hill, leading the way. I very firmly believe in the American Idea and even more strongly feel that we must never impose our way of life on others. BUT, we must also NEVER let them impose theirs on us. This is why I talk of separation until they are sane.

4) It doesn't have to be "one voice". You can look for patterns of behaviour. Do you know what that means? It means you ask the question "who is more likely to be abusive to their women" and then ask questions about why this is the case. Don't be a wimp.

I can't believe I have to hold your hand thru this week after week.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International