Emirati Man sentenced to 90 days of community service for feeding a live cat to his dogs

[Hyde]

That's so sad and shocking

Such a tyrant... He should have been imprisoned for 90 months

 

[Dawood Ibrahim]

I swear to Almighty , if I ever got a chance , iam gonna personally throw these ****** in front of Alaskan malamutes for a good 5 minutes

@Max @tps77 @Areesh @PaklovesTurkiye @2800 @haman10

IMO they should be lion dinner...

 

[azzo]

P.S - the UAE monarchy IMHO is the worse of all GCC monarch when it comes to tyranny and western boot-licking. They are also NOT open to internal GCC cohesion it seems and playing double game helping Iran.

The problem with the UAE is something I already touched upon. We have a UAE sheikh but is hidden (my guess under house arrest) by some other power hungry sheikh. Thus the established leader does not have a name or face. Who is leading the country?! Mohammed bin zayed? Khalifah bin zayed?! And what's with all the royalty deaths happening in the UAE?

So practically what we have in the UAE is a vacant seat with warring candidates trying to promote themselves to whomever hold some power within the country like businessmen, foreign ambassadors..etc etc

I think that is the reason behind all the stupid and contradicting policies by the UAE. So I would be careful not to consider the UAE a monarchy lead by a monarch, because as it stands right now, it's ruled from the shadows.

 

[salarsikander]

It's good to live in a stable country under a monarchy. A monarch is not a president, weak, shackled, and influenced by whoever has the most money, wither corporations or people. And not a inferiority complex ridden dictator who is an illiterate military person, uneducated and mostly from an underprivileged diaspora.

In essence you're rejecting the way in which 4 rightly guided khalifah were accepted ?

The system of monarch is doomed to fail. Because the whole land belongs to one person and the resident are just subject. He can legally withdraw their nationality as done in Bahrain protests. Its really a 16 century system which has no place in modern society

The problem with the UAE is something I already touched upon. We have a UAE sheikh but is hidden (my guess under house arrest) by some other power hungry sheikh. Thus the established leader does not have a name or face. Who is leading the country?! Mohammed bin zayed? Khalifah bin zayed?! And what's with all the royalty deaths happening in the UAE?

So practically what we have in the UAE is a vacant seat with warring candidates trying to promote themselves to whomever hold some power within the country like businessmen, foreign ambassadors..etc etc

I think that is the reason behind all the stupid and contradicting policies by the UAE. So I would be careful not to consider the UAE a monarchy lead by a monarch, because as it stands right now, it's ruled from the shadows.

Although Saudis has most stable monarchy system that seeks to support its local population well. Its only how after the Arabians were tricked by Some eastern treacherous country into Yemen war, other than that it was indeed the most stable country in whole of gulf or arabuan peninsula

 

[azzo]

Democracy is NOT just elections but have a lot more anti-islamic notions - like individual sovereignty, gender equality, absolute freedom of expression, the right to cause anarchy etc etc. And that is the reason why the West emphasize the Liberal & secular nature of democracy when lecturing Muslims.

And what makes this worse is all of these values are really subjective and are the subject of much philosophical and ethical debate.

What is freedom of expression? where does it starts and where does it is end. If there's no agreement on this subject but you, as different western countries, WENT AHEAD regardless and decided for yourselves. And with each country having their own view on where the line ends and where it starts, how dare you condemn us for attempting to draw our OWN line in this spectrum.

An example is bullying laws in the Canada or holocaust denial in the EU.

Let's examine holocaust denial for example. In the U.S. it is a matter of freedom of expression, but in the EU that expression is not protected and is punishable by law. "They draw the line here" as they say. Why then they are not condemned? does it hurt anyone? is "hurting" someone with your word is the criteria?! who gets to decide which speech "hurts" and how much and who is the subject of that pain?! doesn't false propaganda aiming to undermine an elected president considered "hurt"?! why can't it be protected by same such laws?


It's not just freedom of expression, but other subjective concepts also, such as dress codes. Where they condemn middle eastern societies for "subjugating" women, just for following their traditional clothing norms. When many western societies are ridden with "indecent" exposure laws and gender discrimination when it comes to exposing different parts of the body. THIS IS SUBJECTIVE, and is something inherent in YOUR culture and is no by any means a universal standard!

They give themselves the freedom to decide how much is "too much" and still be free of condemnation, but they deny other cultures and societies that freaking SAME privilege.

Why is it okay for you but not for us? Does that make the EU, US or even Japan autocratic and undemocratic?!

NO. Because westerners are a selective bunch of hypocrites. And we are DONE trying to appease to them and their illogical and biased views.

In essence you're rejecting the way in which 4 rightly guided khalifah were accepted ?

How in the blue hell me favoring Monarchy over both democracy and dictatorship leads to me rejecting the rightly caliphate system"s"!

One, there was no one particular system used to pass down leadership to the 4 rightly guided caliphs, each one used a different approach. We are supposed to follow their lead on how they ruled, because they have all ruled justly, and by them having different approaches when it comes to appointing a leader only shows that Islam, generally, accepts any form of governance as long as it enjoys popular support. I think this is one of the greater aspects of Islam, that it recognized that governance and politics is something greatly affected by time and technological and social advancements, so it didn't pigeon-holed us into one "end all" political system that we must implement in whatever context. As each country, people, and culture has its own little differences and demand different forms of governing (tribal societies, none-tribal societies, sing ethnic, multi-ethnic etc etc)

 

[azzo]

Although Saudis has most stable monarchy system that seeks to support its local population well. Its only how after the Arabians were tricked by Some eastern treacherous country into Yemen war, other than that it was indeed the most stable country in whole of gulf or arabuan peninsula

No, we were not tricked by anybody. Houthi is an amred non-state actor. Houthis seized power in Yemen, and Houthis are a proxy of Iran. Houthis have had support from terrorist groups like Hezbollah for quite some time.

This selective reasoning trying to appease to you and others like you is also done. If you think AlQaida is dangerous and is bad and must go (we do to) then their Shite counterparts must go and be dealt with in the same way.

Hezbollat
IRGC
Houthis
Quds force
Al Jahsh al shabi
the other+50 militias in Iraq
etc etc

Anything that is bad in the so-called "Sunni" groups, Hezbollat invented in the 80's. From self-detonating into attacking foreign embassies and compounds.

JUst because they're shite you view them differently?

 

[salarsikander]

And what makes this worse is all of these values are really subjective and are the subject of much philosophical and ethical debate.

What is freedom of expression? where does it starts and where does it is end. If there's no agreement on this subject but you, as different western countries, WENT AHEAD regardless and decided for yourselves. And with each country having their own view on where the line ends and where it starts, how dare you condemn us for attempting to draw our OWN line in this spectrum.

An example is bullying laws in the Canada or holocaust denial in the EU.

Let's examine holocaust denial for example. In the U.S. it is a matter of freedom of expression, but in the EU that expression is not protected and is punishable by law. "They draw the line here" as they say. Why then they are not condemned? does it hurt anyone? is "hurting" someone with your word is the criteria?! who gets to decide which speech "hurts" and how much and who is the subject of that pain?! doesn't false propaganda aiming to undermine an elected president considered "hurt"?! why can't it be protected by same such laws?


It's not just freedom of expression, but other subjective concepts also, such as dress codes. Where they condemn middle eastern societies for "subjugating" women, just for following their traditional clothing norms. When many western societies are ridden with "indecent" exposure laws and gender discrimination when it comes to exposing different parts of the body. THIS IS SUBJECTIVE, and is something inherent in YOUR culture and is no by any means a universal standard!

They give themselves the freedom to decide how much is "too much" and still be free of condemnation, but they deny other cultures and societies that freaking SAME privilege.

Why is it okay for you but not for us? Does that make the EU, US or even Japan autocratic and undemocratic?!

NO. Because westerners are a selective bunch of hypocrites. And we are DONE trying to appease to them and their illogical and biased views.



How in the blue hell me favoring Monarchy over both democracy and dictatorship leads to me rejecting the rightly caliphate system"s"!

One, there was no one particular system used to pass down leadership to the 4 rightly guided caliphs, each one used a different approach. We are supposed to follow their lead on how they ruled, because they have all ruled justly, and by them having different approaches when it comes to appointing a leader only shows that Islam, generally, accepts any form of governance as long as it enjoys popular support. I think this is one of the greater aspects of Islam, that it recognized that governance and politics is something greatly affected by time and technological and social advancements, so it didn't pigeon-holed us into one "end all" political system that we must implement in whatever context. As each country, people, and culture has its own little differences and demand different forms of governing (tribal societies, none-tribal societies, sing ethnic, multi-ethnic etc etc)

The khalifas were accepted by popular vote that is. Hazrat umar bin khattab governance in Arabia is a benchmark which is still followed and studied today. That is quite different from monarchy my good habibi. In monarchy one man rules everything. Too much power under one hand is dangerous. Though an Arab ( hejazi or najadi) in this context has come far away from days of all jhalliyah. Even during dark days Arab were fond of poetry and what not. And after advent of Islam, it was Arabs who designed the system through out the gulf to support medical advancement, who build schools and libraries and countless other invention. IMHO, Arabs should not be confined to monarch. But then again if people of Arabia are happy with the said ruler then there is nothing wrong. As I be previously mentioned Saudia Arabia has most stable monarch in whole of gulf. And all saud tribe is supported by everyone there.

A thread about a dead cat gets more comments and views (outrage as well) than threads about people actually dying in the region in great numbers. It just shows how "big" the problems of the UAE are in comparison and peoples priorities here and elsewhere.

Sad.

Good thing is an action was taken on it.

 

[django]

crime
Man who fed cat to dogs ordered to clean Dubai Zoo for 90 days

The Emirati man and his two employees have been ordered to clean Dubai Zoo for four hours for 90 days

Ali Al Shouk, Staff Reporter

d15:27 March 15, 2017

https://twitter.com/x/status/841985112623456257

Zoo


The man has been ordered to clean the zoo for four hours for 90 days

Image Credit Dubai Media Office






Dubai: The Emirati man who uploaded a gruesome video showing a live cat being fed to his hungry dogs has been ordered to clean Dubai Zoo for four hours every day for 90 days.



The punishment was ordered by His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, a day after the man and his two employees were arrested by Dubai Police at a farm.



Dubai Media office said: “By orders from Mohammad Bin Rahid, the men involved in cat cruelty incident to clean Dubai zoo facilities for four hours daily for three month as community service because of their savage and cruel behaviour which is against our values and Islam that always courage to be mercy on animals.”



On Tuesday, the three men were arrested by Dubai Police after the Emirati man posted the gruesome video of feeding a cat to dogs.














On Wednesday, Major General Abdullah Khalifa Al Merri, Dubai Police chief, praised Shaikh Mohammad’s order for community service punishment.



“Shaikh Mohammed keen to protect the Emirati values which emphasise on mercy and reject any form of violence even against animals. The inappropriate conduct is not acceptable and punishable by the law,” Major General Al Merri said.



“The community service orders the person to serve the society and also helps to raise awareness about the negative side of such offences. The punishment will act as a deterrent for all.”



On Tuesday, he had identified the man behind this horrible video and arrested him for killing the cat.



The shocking video, that showed a man holding a live cat in a cage and feeding it to two dogs, outraged residents and officials from different departments.

@Signalian @Doordie @Djinn @SherDil @war&peace

Is that it! 90 days, 4 hours per day

Yar of course, I won't watch it.. despite the fact I have strong nerves but still I can't stand the gore, the violence and such an insane and gruesome act..
But I think once or twice in those 90 days he will get into dangerous situation and it is very well possible a beast may attack him if the caretakers made a mistake ( may be deliberate "mistake") and let door open..

Let us hope so.Kudos sir

 

[Mentee]

Is that it! 90 days, 4 hours per day

Django bhai m NY yeh thread billi ki taazeat k ley bnaya tha laikin do muftay badshahat jaysi biddat Ko jaiz krny k ley apna till lganay sy baaz nae a ry
@The Sandman @Hell hound @RealNapster @tps77

 

[azzo]

The khalifas were accepted by popular vote that is. Hazrat umar bin khattab governance in Arabia is a benchmark which is still followed and studied today. That is quite different from monarchy my good habibi. In monarchy one man rules everything. Too much power under one hand is dangerous. Though an Arab ( hejazi or najadi) in this context has come far away from days of all jhalliyah. Even during dark days Arab were fond of poetry and what not. And after advent of Islam, it was Arabs who designed the system through out the gulf to support medical advancement, who build schools and libraries and countless other invention. IMHO, Arabs should not be confined to monarch. But then again if people of Arabia are happy with the said ruler then there is nothing wrong. As I be previously mentioned Saudia Arabia has most stable monarch in whole of gulf. And all saud tribe is supported by everyone there.

Please don't try to lecture me about history. Muslims in the "Saqifa" (the heads of the many groups of the muslims) agreed on Abu bakr "ra".

Abu bakr (ra) anointed Umar (ra) against his will. (you see the difference)

Umar (ra) suggested a list of six people who Muslims can decide on one of them to be Caliph, and he excluded his son. (another different system)

Uthman (ra) was killed, and the caliph just automatically went to Ali (ra) with refusal from Mowaiya (ra) (another system)

So you see the trend here? and by the way, they all had absolute power.

 

[salarsikander]

Please don't try to lecture me about history. Muslims in the "Saqifa" (the heads of the many groups of the muslims) agreed on Abu bakr "ra".

Abu bakr (ra) anointed Umar (ra) against his will. (you see the difference)

Umar (ra) suggested a list of six people who Muslims can decide on one of them to be Caliph, and he excluded his son. (another different system)

Uthman (ra) was killed, and the caliph just automatically went to Ali (ra) with refusal from Mowaiya (ra) (another system)

So you see the trend here? and by the way, they all had absolute power.

I didn't known that shedding light on a bit of Arab history would offend you. Thou I find no reason why it should. And thanks for pointing out the khalifa system in a clear concise manner. Again back to my point if Arabs are satisfied with accepting anyone tribe to rule Arabia, so be it. In effect the tribal system is electing a vote to the ruler, right ? Correct me if I am not mistaken

 

[azzo]

I didn't known that shedding light on a bit of Arab history would offend you. Thou I find no reason why it should. And thanks for pointing out the khalifa system in a clear concise manner. Again back to my point if Arabs are satisfied with accepting anyone tribe to rule Arabia, so be it. In effect the tribal system is electing a vote to the ruler, right ? Correct me if I am not mistaken

The tribal system is based on alliances and agreements, the heads of Arabia tribes reached a consensus on who would rule and the results is what you see now. A stable rule.

This was the case in Arabia since ancient times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Peninsula

Tribal alliances are so important here. The Prophet (sa) knowed this, the Caliphs, and the many monarchies that followed. No was able to rule Arabia without mediating an agreement between the many warring tribes of Arabia, and once that agreement is made, a really strong system of governance gets formed.
Also if this agreement falls, Arabia changes to its other state, endless tribal wars where one who is not part, or at least allies himself with one tribe, perish.

Also Al-Saud is not a tribe, It's a family, and they're not even the heads of their tribe. It's not about status as a tribe or your status within your tribe. It's about having someone that all tribes agree on.

P.S.:Al-Saud are part of Anzah tribe, Al-khalifah of Bahrain and Al-Sabah of kuwait are too. And the heads of Anzah tribe are called Alsha'lan.

 

[salarsikander]

No, we were not tricked by anybody. Houthi is an amred non-state actor. Houthis seized power in Yemen, and Houthis are a proxy of Iran. Houthis have had support from terrorist groups like Hezbollah for quite some time.

This selective reasoning trying to appease to you and others like you is also done. If you think AlQaida is dangerous and is bad and must go (we do to) then their Shite counterparts must go and be dealt with in the same way.

Hezbollat
IRGC
Houthis
Quds force
Al Jahsh al shabi
the other+50 militias in Iraq
etc etc

Anything that is bad in the so-called "Sunni" groups, Hezbollat invented in the 80's. From self-detonating into attacking foreign embassies and compounds.

JUst because they're shite you view them differently?

Should have used sucked into war than tricked. Although they're still receiving support and assistance from the snake head whereas suadi stopped supporting all qaida after or shortly before 9/11.

And yes both must go and for good reason. Arabia has done commendable efforts in reducing the support, while Iran support has seen quite a surge. Though the last thing in want to see is Hejaz getting sucked into superiority wars. The entire middlemeast is burning thanks to collective effort of Iran and Arabia

 

[Hell hound]

billi ki taazeat

@Zibago

Django bhai m NY yeh thread billi ki taazeat k ley bnaya tha laikin do muftay badshahat jaysi biddat Ko jaiz krny k ley apna till lganay sy baaz nae a ry
@The Sandman @Hell hound @RealNapster @tps77

rip billi may the monster get what he deserved in this world and akhret

 

[Mentee]

@Zibago

Bhai meray maano billi ki