04 August 2006

Dogs Life

I like dogs.

I don't happen to own one at the moment, which is a function of pure laziness on my part. I excuse myself by saying that I have been traveling too much, and that my life is too chaotic right at the moment to take on a responsibility of caring for another being.

There are heart-wrenching issues about that in the heat of summer. Dogs in cars. Dogs left alone in their yards in the blazing sun, sometimes without adequate water. It is a season for vigilance for the outside canines.

Big Pink is a pet-friendly building, and the Canine Advocacy group is an important factor in building life. They nearly went to war with the garden apartments behind the building, after the nasty official letter arrived, claiming our group was allowing dogs off the leash, and violating their territory.

There was quite a controversy, and some very deep feelings. Had the Dog Lovers had independent access to bottle-rockets, they might have started to launch them at random in retaliation.

The dogs keep their older owners alive and alert. They require walking and attention and exercise. In the furtherance of all these things, they dogs give them back to their owners.

And just for the record, let us dispense with the notion of “ownership.” I will grant you that there is a custodial aspect to the relationship between human and canine, and I am not exactly sure who is the alpha member in the relationship.

Dogs are a crucial component of our community, though the affection for them is not universal. I understand that there are people who do not like dogs, and I understand some of the reasons. After college I lived in an affluent neighborhood in Detroit.

The city was heading down the skids at the time, and dogs were used as an added security measure. It never failed to startle me when a hundred-and-fifty pound Rottweiller that protected one of the old mansions would hurl itself into an ivy-twined chain-link fence as I ambled by on my daily walk.

The sprint to the fence was completely silent, and the barking only began when the animal's muzzle poked through the fence, eager to rend me into hamburger.

I was bitten by a handsome Rhodesian hound of proud pedigree not that long ago, so I have generally abandoned the idea that I am any sort of Doctor Doolittle. I do know people who are, though, and despite the hysterical little ankle-biters and industrial-sized security beasts, I consider the relationship between human and canine to be an honorable, necessary and loving one.

That is not universal in the family of man.

I was leafing through some basic documents the other day on Islam, trying to get a clue on that great faith.

I strive for a balanced approach to things, and want to understand, if not accept, the tenets of a religion practiced by a billion people around this tired world. The collision between the people of the Book, Jews, Christians and followers of the Prophet, ranked by seniority, is one of those curious things.

The more I look at it the relations between these lined cultures, the less I understand.

The Last Prophet had a thing about dogs. There are no statements about dogs in the Quran, per se, but there is plenty in the ancillary holy texts. Particularly about jet black dogs.

The Prophet decreed that all dogs should be killed, and particularly the black ones, who were instruments of the devil. Theologians explain that this fatwah, or holy instruction, was made because of rabies, or some overpopulation in the local canine population.

Whatever the cause, the devout young men promptly went out into the town and began to slaughter the hounds. It is said that when the Mohammed found out what his followers were up to, he told them to knock it off. He realized that his decree would cost the shepherd the means to control the flock, and the owner of the grove protection for his olives or grapes.

Accordingly, the fatwah was modified. What the Prophet meant to say that that it was the domestic pet that was the instrument of the devil, not the watch dogs or hunters.

Having a dog as a pet was not actually prohibited, though if the animal was not a working beast, a punishment was imposed in the loss of at least one good deed each day.

Dogs also block the effectiveness of prayer.

Aisha was one of the Prophet's wives. She is regarded by the faithful as a holy woman whose insights are useful today, despite the schism between the Shia and Sunni. She made an interesting statement in one of her contemporaneous accounts of life with Mohammed. She apparently was annoyed when the Prophet said that the power of prayer was rendered impotent by a dog, donkey or woman walking between the worshipper and Mecca.

She complained that the Prophet has "made us (women) dogs.  I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla.  Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away, for I disliked to face him."

The trade in dogs was equated with usury and prohibited. The power of canines was significant, and evil. Some scholars claim that a puppy lying under a bed prevented an angel from visiting the Prophet one night. When the animal was removed, the conference occurred.

Accordingly, the dog became one of the unclean animals, whose flesh cannot be eaten. Because they make things they lick impure, the water they drink becomes unavailable for men or other beasts.

The Druze in Lebanon have a tradition that might explain it. I presume it is the Christian side of the sect, since the explanation is logical and heretical at the same time. They say that the reason for the fatwah was that Mohammed was attacked by dogs when he was a child, when he was appropriating a neighbor's eggs for a greater purpose.

I have no insight into that, and no axe to grind with the Great Faiths. Personally, I think they are much better viewed from a distance.

Copyright 2006 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com


Close Window