Dogs of hell, dogs of heaven
Several years ago, when I was still in the grip of the Neocon idiocy, I wrote a lengthy piece lamenting the "fact" that Muslims were hopelessly uncivilized because they hated dogs.

Like all Neocon propaganda, this is an invalid conclusion from partly true facts. It's true that Mohammed disliked dogs and wrote his dislike into the form of rules. It's true that desert Arabs still dislike dogs. But most non-Bedouin Muslims (ie Turks, Persians, Egyptians) keep and love dogs in the same way that most non-Bedouin Christians do.

After I pried loose from the Neocon line, I was able to think in terms of constants and variables. You can find the same hatred of dogs and the same use of 'dog' as a metaphor for nasty and brutal in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and you can find it in all Western literature up to the 1800s. Think of the etymology of cynic, and all the old sayings about going to the dogs, laying down with dogs, etc. Those were not Muslim sayings.

Dogs had been helpful to farmers and hunters for a long time, but their helpfulness wasn't absorbed into common wisdom and language until the era of Dickens and Twain.

Before the switch, dogs were commonly treated as the guardians of Hell. Now we see them as the proper inhabitants of Heaven, who may occasionally allow an especially good human through the gates.

The true variable is not religion but type of culture. Nomadic warrior cultures have dogs but don't see them as companions. Dogs are just garbage collectors. Settled farm and village cultures learn to appreciate the herding work and civilizing influence of dogs.

Most Europeans had been settled villagers for 1000 years before their narratives and metaphors reflected their practical attitudes. Why?

Labels: Natural law = Sharia law

  ¶ 5:30 PM