Muslims and dogs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is Bangladeshi and I have yet to meet a Bangladeshi who owns a dog. They have dirty street dogs and everyone seems to ignore them.

I’m Bangladeshi and I have a dog. My SIL grew up there and her family had a dog. My dad had a dog growing up there. So don’t stereotype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman, a donkey or a dog can nullify prayers.

https://www.sahih-bukhari.com

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490 :
Narrated by 'Aisha
The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. 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."


Of course, when 83% of American Muslims have never heard of Sahih Bukhari, and don't know what a hadith is, canonical authority is no authority.

But if two of your pals from work say it's fine....who else's opinion matters, eh? There's no such thing as radical or moderate Islam. But there certainly are
observant or apostated Muslims.

K troll

Refute him if you can. Muslims are subject to Islam's canon, which is the Qur'an and the Sunna. The Sunna includes the Sahih hadith, which is where that's from.

Unfortunately, if your uninformed opinion conflicts with the Sunna your opinion is worthless. One can apostasize and believe as Kaffir do, but that doesn't change what Islam's canon says.

And it’s interpreted differently, just like Christianity is. Baptists don’t believe the same stuff as Episcopalians, and so on. Four schools of law in Sunni Islam. Stick to those. Not an internet interpretation of Al Bukhari.

Not an "internet interpretation" of Bukhari. A direct quotation and cite to him.



You will never find a Shafi'i jurist ruling as halal something that a Hanafi jurist ruled is haram. Not only was Bukhari, the most respected Sunni hadith compiler vastly familiar with islam's cannon, so were the founders of the four schools of fiqh. The latter ones of whom tended to have studied under the earlier ones.

Bukhari is Sahih for a reason. Nice try at deflection. Study harder, ditch the appeal to Kaffir epistemology, and let's talk again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman, a donkey or a dog can nullify prayers.

https://www.sahih-bukhari.com

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490 :
Narrated by 'Aisha
The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. 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."


Of course, when 83% of American Muslims have never heard of Sahih Bukhari, and don't know what a hadith is, canonical authority is no authority.

But if two of your pals from work say it's fine....who else's opinion matters, eh? There's no such thing as radical or moderate Islam. But there certainly are
observant or apostated Muslims.

The whole Hadith thing is Islam UN Islamic . Even when the foundational text is the Quran more and more people follow something someone 1000 years ago claimed to be the word of the prophet’s and there are 4 versions of it...total BS!




K troll

Refute him if you can. Muslims are subject to Islam's canon, which is the Qur'an and the Sunna. The Sunna includes the Sahih hadith, which is where that's from.

Unfortunately, if your uninformed opinion conflicts with the Sunna your opinion is worthless. One can apostasize and believe as Kaffir do, but that doesn't change what Islam's canon says.

And it’s interpreted differently, just like Christianity is. Baptists don’t believe the same stuff as Episcopalians, and so on. Four schools of law in Sunni Islam. Stick to those. Not an internet interpretation of Al Bukhari.

Not an "internet interpretation" of Bukhari. A direct quotation and cite to him.



You will never find a Shafi'i jurist ruling as halal something that a Hanafi jurist ruled is haram. Not only was Bukhari, the most respected Sunni hadith compiler vastly familiar with islam's cannon, so were the founders of the four schools of fiqh. The latter ones of whom tended to have studied under the earlier ones.

Bukhari is Sahih for a reason. Nice try at deflection. Study harder, ditch the appeal to Kaffir epistemology, and let's talk again.