I say, and from God comes the help:
Firstly, the mention of dogs is found in the Quran in two Sūrahs by name and in one Sūrah by description. In Sūrat al-ʼAʽrāf, Allah compares the condition of the misguided to that of a dog, as He says: “So his example is like that of the dog: if you chase him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants.” [Al-ʼAʽrāf: 176]. In Sūrat al-Kahf, the dog is mentioned several times, such as in the verse: “And their dog was stretching his forelegs at the entrance [of the cave]” [Al-Kahf: 18]. The third mention of the dog is in Sūrat al-Māʼdah, where the mention is in the context of hunting with trained animals, as Allah says: “and what you have trained of hunting animals (mukallibīn)” [Al-Māʼdah: 4]. Aṭ-Ṭāhir ibn ʼAāshūr said: The word “hunting animals (mukallibīn)” is a description derived from the solid noun and is derived from the name of the dog, which is commonly used in hunting. Therefore, using this word to describe the pronoun “you” in the verse is not limited to dogs, but rather includes other animals such as leopards and falcons.
Secondly, dogs are mentioned in the Sunnah on several occasions:
– Among them is the indication that there is nothing wrong with dogs. ʽAbdullāh ibn ʽUmar narrated: “I used to stay overnight in the mosque during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), when I was a young man and unmarried. The dogs used to urinate and move around in the mosque, and they (the companions) did not sprinkle water over any of that.” This Ḥadīth is reported by Abū Dawūd, Ibn Ḥibbān, and Ibn Khuzaymah, and its chain is rendered connected by Al-Bayhaqi in “Al-Kubrā”.
– Likewise, among these narrations what is mentioned about the ruling of cleanliness, including:
1. Abū Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “If a dog licks the vessel of any one of you, let him throw (the contents) away and wash it seven times.” [Narrated by Muslim]
Al-Bukhāriy’s wording for the same previous Ḥadīth is as follows: “If a dog drinks from the utensil of anyone of you it is essential to wash it seven times.” [Narrated by Muslim] In another narration with Muslim’s wording, it is mentioned as follows: “When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time”
– Among such narrations is what is mentioned about killing the dogs. Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim narrated from Nāfiʽ from ʽAbdullāh who said: “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.”
– Among such narrations is what mentioned about excuses for having a dog. Muslim and Aṭ-Ṭabarāniy, in (Al-Muʽjam al-Kabīr), narrated from Sālim from his father from the Prophet (peace be upon him) who said: “He who kept a dog other than one meant for hunting or for watching the herd, lost two qirat (carat) of his reward every day.”
– Among such narrations is what is mentioned about keeping the angels of mercy away from entering homes. It is narrated in the two Ṣaḥīḥ books and others from Abī Ṭalḥah (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace be upon him) who said: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image.”
This is a summary of what is mentioned in the Sunnah, and there are other hadiths that we have not mentioned.
Secondly, the purity and impurity of dogs have been a subject of disagreement among the scholars of the different Islamic schools of thought. This disagreement can be divided into two opposing views and a middle view. The first of the two opposing views consider dogs to be entirely impure, and this view is held by the Shāfiʽiy and Ḥanbaliy schools of thought (in one of their narrations). The second of the two opposing views consider dogs to be entirely pure, and they this view is held by the Mālikiy and Ẓāhiriy schools of thought. The middle view holds that dogs are pure except for their saliva, which is impure. This view is held by the Ḥanafiy and the authentic narration of the Ḥanbaliy school of thought.
Thirdly, the opinion of the scholars regarding the price of dogs is mentioned in several Ḥadīth, including what Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim narrated from Abī Masʽūd al-ʼAnṣāriy (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) forbade the price paid for a dog, the hire paid to a prostitute, and the gift given to a soothsayer.
Therefore, the majority of scholars have concluded that it is not permissible to sell or buy dogs under any circumstances. This is the opinion held by the Shāfiʽiys, Ḥanbaliys, and other scholars. On the other hand, the Ḥanafiy school of thought has allowed selling and buying dogs that are authorized for guarding, herding, and farming.
Fourthly, our fatwa (religious ruling) on this matter is that owning a dog for a predominant benefit is permissible, whether for the purposes that are mentioned in the Sunnah or for other purposes, such as using them to track criminals, guide the blind, alert of guests’ arrival, and other similar purposes.
The second matter is that we hold the opinion of the Mālikiy school of thought and those who agree with them regarding the purity of dogs as a whole, and this is based on the following reasons:
-The permission to hunt with dogs, which requires biting and mixing of their saliva with the prey, and nothing that is prohibited can be used in such a manner.
– The previous Ḥadīth narrated by Ibn ʽUmar regarding the dogs passing through the mosque and not washing what they have touched.
– In (Sunan ad-Dāraquṭniy), it is narrated from Abī Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was asked about cisterns that are placed between Macca and Medina from which dogs and wild animals drink. He replied: “They have in their bellies what they have taken, and what remains is pure for us and drinkable.”
– In (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhāriy), it is narrated from Abī Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A man saw a dog eating mud from (the severity of) thirst. So, that man took a shoe (and filled it) with water and kept on pouring the water for the dog till it quenched its thirst. So Allah approved of his deed and made him to enter Paradise.” If dogs were impure, there would not be any reward for them.
Therefore, there is no objection to buying and raising dogs, and they are not impure. However, it is precautionarily recommended to wash the container in which they drink.
Further elaboration:
Some friends have requested that I provide further comments on the issue of the permissibility of owning dogs, as I have mentioned evidence supporting its permissibility but have not provided a response to the evidence of those who consider it prohibited.
Therefore, with the help of Allah, I say that those who prohibit owning dogs have relied on some evidence that they believed indicates prohibition of owning dogs or impurity of dogs, and I will calmly discuss this evidence.
The first evidence is what Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim narrated from Abī Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever holds (amsak) a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle.”
In addition, ʽAbdullāh ibn Mughaffal (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever owns (ittakhadh) a dog for any purpose other than the purpose of hunting, herding, farming, two Qirat of the reward of his good deeds are deducted daily.” [Narrated by At-Tirmidhiy and rendered Ḥasan (good) by An-Nasāʼiy and Ibn Mājah] This Ḥadīth has also other narrations mentioned by Imam ʼAḥmad, Muslim, An-Nasāʼiy and others. All the narrations have been narrated by a group of companions including Abū Hurayrah, Abū Salamah, ʽAmr ibn Dinār, and Abī Khāzim. Therefore, this Ḥadīth is authentic in terms of chain of transmission, not only because it is narrated by Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, but because it has many confirming narrations.
However, we notice that the wordings of the previous narrations of the Ḥadīth are not consistent and differ in some matters, such as:
1. The wording of the Ḥadīths varies in using different expressions such as “taking,” “owning,” “holding,” and “tying,” and although these expressions are close in meaning and some can be interpreted as others, each expression has a unique connotation that can be inferred from it. The expression “owning” implies possession, which in some of its connotations involves luxury, the desire for accumulation, and hoarding without reason or necessity. The word “tying” implies confinement, sometimes coupled with neglect and lack of care, which is also sensed in the word “holding.”
2- The narrations of the Ḥadīth differ in the excuses that exempt from the loss of reward or good deeds, as some mention two excuses, while others mention three. Those who mention two excuses include farming or hunting, and hunting or herding. Those who mention three excuses include hunting, farming, and herding. Was this mentioned by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in different variations, or is it a single source of information and the difference is due to variations in the narrations according to the memory of the narrators? Some narrators mentioned it in its entirety, while others limited it to some of the excuses.
3- The narrations also differ in the type of good deeds that are diminished, whether it is the action itself or the reward for it. The two expressions have different connotations. Likewise, the narrations do not clarify whether the loss occurs in the past action or reward, or the future action or reward.
4- The narrations also differ in the amount of good deeds that are diminished. While most of the narrations mention the loss of two Qirats, some mention only one Qirat. Additionally, the expression “Qirat” is a general term, and it is not known from the text what amount it refers to. Is it the same as the Qirat mentioned in the funeral prayer or is it a different amount?
5. Similarly, it is not clear from the Ḥadīth whether the dog mentioned here applies to the species itself or to the individual dog. If it applies to the individual dog, does the loss increase with the number of dogs owned? For example, if someone has several dogs or a family of dogs that are not used for the mentioned excuses, is their reward or good deeds diminished by the number of dogs they own, or is it reduced once for all the dogs owned?
6. Similarly, it is not clear from the texts of the Ḥadīth whether the loss of reward occurs simply by owning the dog or by the absence of an excuse for owning it. For example, if someone buys a dog with the intention of hunting but never goes hunting due to being occupied or sick or for other reasons, is the intention enough here, or is it necessary to actually engage in the action of hunting?
These are some of the issues we have noticed in the narration of the mentioned Ḥadīth, and some of the scholars who specialize in hadith commentary, such as Ibn Ḥajar and An-Nawawiy, have realized some of them and attempted to answer them, while remaining silent on others.
I mentioned these issues to indicate that even though the Ḥadīth is direct, it is not conclusive in its meaning of prohibition, and it is not suitable to be relied upon as the sole evidence. The most common thing said about it is that it can be used as an advisory, as we will explain, God willing.
Firstly, does the loss of reward or good deeds mean prohibition? This is an important issue that we must pay attention to, and we should look at what has been mentioned in similar cases where the loss of reward is implied. Then, we should see if we can understand from it the meaning of prohibition.
– Al-Bukhāriy narrated a Ḥadīth with its chain of transmission from Abī Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Any person who takes a bath on Friday like the bath of Janaba and then goes for the prayer (in the first hour i.e. early), it is as if he had sacrificed a camel (in Allah’s cause); and whoever goes in the second hour it is as if he had sacrificed a cow; and whoever goes in the third hour, then it is as if he had sacrificed a horned ram; and if one goes in the fourth hour, then it is as if he had sacrificed a hen; and whoever goes in the fifth hour then it is as if he had offered an egg. When the Imam comes out (i.e. starts delivering the Khutba), the angels present themselves to listen to the Khutba.” Muslim narrates in his wording the following: “and when the Imam sits (on the pulpit) they fold up their scrolls and get ready to listen to the sermon.” This Ḥadīth indicates the difference in the rewards of those who attend Friday prayers, either with an increase or a decrease. Whoever comes early and attends the prayer first earns the greatest reward, while whoever comes late loses some of their reward compared to the first group. Whoever comes even later than that loses even more of their reward, which continues to decrease until the reward for coming early is exhausted, and there is no more virtue left for the general public. Does this Ḥadīth imply that coming second is prohibited or disliked due to the loss of reward compared to the first group? Does it also imply that those who do not come early, even if they receive a reward equivalent to that of an egg, are sinful for not rushing to attend the Friday prayer?
– Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, in his wording, from Abī Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah said: “He who attends the funeral till the prayer is offered for (the dead), for him is the reward of one Qirat, and he who attends (and stays) till he is buried, for him is the reward of two Qirats. It was said: What are the Qirats? He said: They are equivalent to two huge mountains. Sālim ibn ʽAbdullāh added: Ibn ʽUmar used to pray and then depart (without waiting for the burial of the dead). When the tradition of Abū Hurayra reached him, he said: “We have lost many Qirats.” The basis for inference here is that whoever does not attend the funeral or the funeral prayer at all will lose two Qirats, and whoever only attends the prayer without attending the burial will lose one Qirat. Does this mean that someone who does not attend either the funeral or the prayer is sinful or doing so is disliked? Is the same said for someone who only loses one Qirat by not attending the burial?
– Muslim and Sunan compilers narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If anyone prays the evening prayer in company, it is as though he had remained awake in prayer half the night; but if anyone prays the Morning Prayer in company, it is as though he had prayed the whole night.” This Ḥadīth indicates that the complete reward for performing night prayer is obtained by performing both prayers, and whoever misses one of them will lose some of their reward, and whoever misses both will lose the reward for performing night prayer altogether. Does this mean that someone who does not pray in company is sinful, with the possibility of having an excuse? Does the loss of reward here imply dislike or prohibition? Therefore, relying on the issue of loss of reward or good deeds alone is not a suitable evidence, nor does it indicate prohibition or dislike. The principle is that whoever leaves the recommended acts will lose some of their reward, but we do not say they are sinful, and whoever leaves the optional acts will lose some of their reward, but we do not say they are sinful.
Secondly, does the mentioned loss of reward occur merely by owning a dog, with the absence of the excuses mentioned in the narrations, or are there other reasons for the loss of reward for owning a dog? Here I will quote a text from Imam Ibn ʽAbd al-Barr: “The reason for the loss of reward mentioned in this Ḥadīth, in my view and Allah knows best, is related to the religiously scrupulous practices related to dogs, such as washing a container seven times if a dog licks it. These practices are difficult to implement and difficult to avoid because the person who owns the dog cannot be certain that the dog has not licked the container. By neglecting these practices, the person commits a sin and disobeys God, leading to a decrease in their reward… Alternatively, the loss of reward may be due to the person not treating dogs kindly, as it is known that any act of kindness towards creatures is rewarded.” What Ibn ʽAbd AL-Barr mentioned is a possible explanation for the loss of reward, not merely by owning a dog. Another possibility is that the loss of reward may be due to dogs barking, biting, or causing fear, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing fear. However, a dog trained for hunting, farming, or herding is friendly and does not have this meaning. The Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us of this possibility as a precaution. This also means that the loss of reward is not absolute, but rather depends on the particular circumstances, which is different from the previous interpretation.
Thirdly, the permissible excuses mentioned are hunting, herding, and farming. The question is: are these things intended for their own sake, or did the Prophet use them as examples to measure people’s needs and circumstances? Those who look at the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in similar cases find that the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned things not for their own sake, but for representation purposes, with the possibility of analogy if the need arises. I will give only two examples:
The first example is the prohibition of the six commodities in ribā al-faḍl, which are gold, silver, dates, salt, wheat, and barley. Are these things mentioned in the Ḥadīth intended for their own sake, or did the Prophet (peace be upon him) use them because of their popularity at that time? For example, is excess permissible in exchanging iron, copper, sapphires, pearls, and platinum, which are more valuable than gold? The majority of scholars from the four schools of thought have concluded that all of these should be analogous to the six mentioned commodities, and that ribā al-faḍl applies to other things as well, even though the wording of the Ḥadīth only mentions the six.
The second example is the obligation of Zakāt al-Fiṭr, which the Prophet (peace be upon him) made mandatory as a sāʽ [a unit of measurement] of dates, barley, raisins, or dried milk. Can we word out analogy and pay it as corn, wheat, rice, or fruit, which are a common part of people’s daily sustenance but are not mentioned in the Ḥadīth? The majority of scholars say that we can use analogy for Zakāt al-Fiṭr. Ibn al-Qayyim said in (ʼIʽlām al-Muwaqqiʽīn): “If their daily sustenance is not from grains, such as milk, meat, and fish, they should pay Zakāt al-Fiṭr from their daily sustenance, whatever it may be. This is the view of the majority of scholars, and this is the correct opinion that cannot be disputed.”
Therefore, if analogy is permissible regarding the specification that is mentioned in the text for sharing an underlying cause with other cases, then there is no harm in expanding the analogy to cover excuses other than what is mentioned in the Ḥadīth. An-Nawawiy said in (Sharḥ Muslim): “There is a difference of opinion regarding the permissibility of owning dogs for purposes other than the three excuses, [i.e., hunting, herding, and farming,] such as guarding houses and roads. The correct view is that it is permissible to use analogy based on these three excuses because of the underlying cause mentioned in the Ḥadīth, which is need.” Ibn ʽAbd al-Barr said in (At-Tamhīd): “I believe that owning dogs is permissible for all benefits and to prevent harm if a person needs it.” Ibn Ḥajar said: “The correct view according to the Shāfiʽiy school of thought is that it is permissible to own dogs for guarding roads and for other purposes that serve the same purpose as mentioned in the text.” Therefore, there is no harm in owning a dog to guide a blind person on the road, or to recognize criminals and smugglings for police work, or for an old woman or man who is left alone in the house and has no one to talk to or keep them company except their dog. It is also not prohibited to use dogs in war against enemies, as the Russians did with the Germans in World War II. These things and others that have an excuse can be assessed based on what is mentioned in the text. This relates to the first evidence, which is the loss of reward and good deeds.
The second evidence that the opponents rely on is what is mentioned in the Sunnah regarding the angels not entering a house where there is a dog. I will now elaborate on this claim from two perspectives:
Firstly: from the perspective of tradition, several narrations have been mentioned in the authentic books that state that angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog. One of these narrations is:
– Al-Bukhāriy narrated with its chain of transmission from Sālim ibn ʽAbdullāh from his father who said: “Once Gabriel promised to visit the Prophet (peace be upon him) but he delayed and the Prophet (peace be upon him) got worried about that. At last he came out and found Gabriel and complained to him of his grief (for his delay). Gabriel said to him, “We do not enter a place in which there is a picture or a dog.”” In Muslim’s wording, it is mentioned as follows: “You promised me and I waited for you, but you did not come, whereupon he said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come).”
– ʽAḥmad narrated with its chain of transmission from Abī Ṭalḥah al-ʼAnṣāriy that the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) said: “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”
– Ibn Mājah narrated with its chain of transmission from ʽAliy ibn Abī Ṭālib that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”
These are some narrations of the Ḥadīth, and we can understand from their apparent meaning the following:
1- That some narrations specifically mentioned Jibrīl among the angels.
2- That others referred generally to all those who are called by this name (angels).
Secondly, from the perspective of the jurisprudence of Ḥadīth, I say:
1- The issue of angels not entering a particular house or refraining from accompanying a group of people has been mentioned in various contexts in the Sunnah, including:
– An-Nasāʼiy mentioned with its chain of transmission from ʽAliy ibn Abī Ṭālib that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a picture, a dog, or a Junub (i.e., a person who is sextually impure).” Although some have weakened this Ḥadīths, others have considered it authentic, and it has supporting narrations that strengthen it. Furthermore, the addition here mentions sexual impurity (janabah).
– Abū Dawūd narrated with its chain of transmission from ʽAmmār ibn Yāsir (may Allah be pleased with them) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “There are three whom the angels do not approach, the dead body of an infidel, one who is smeared with khalūq (yellow or red perfume mostly composed of saffron), and one who is sexually defiled unless he performs ablution.” This narration adds the dead body of an infidel and smearing with khalūq.
– Muslim narrated with its chain of transmission from Abī Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah said: “The angels do not go along with a travelling company in which there is a dog or a bell.” This narration mentions the bell, which is what is hung on the neck of a camel and produces a sound.
– ʽAbd ar-Razzāq narrated in (Al-Muṣannaf) from ʽAāʼishah that a female servant entered upon her and had anklets on her feet that were making noise, so Aisha said, “Take away from me the one who separates the angels.” This Ḥadīth has supporting narrations according to Aṭ-Ṭabarāniy.
– Aṭ-Ṭabarāniy narrated in (Al-ʼAwsaṭ) from ʽAbdullāh ibn Yazīd that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “No urine should be left in a container in the house, for verily the angels do not enter a house in which there is urine in a container, and do not urinate in a bathing container.” This narration mentions urine -I apologize for the explicitness- and this means that angels do not enter places of urination, such as bathrooms and toilets.
Therefore, we are facing several reasons that prevent angels from entering houses:
– Images – Dogs – Sexual impurity (janabah) – The corpse of a disbeliever – khalūq- The sound of bells and anklets – Urine.
The question here is: Do these narrations agree with what has been established in the authentic Sunnah, which permits some of the aforementioned actions that prevent angels from entering houses? For example, if we take sexual impurity (janabah), can the Prophet, peace be upon him, remain in a state of janabah while knowing that angels refrain from entering, which makes staying in such a state forbidden? Sexual impurity (janabah) can occur for two reasons:
– Wet dreams and their equivalents.
– Sexual intercourse, whether from a man or a woman.
At-Tirmidhiy, An-Nasāʼiy, Abū Dawūd, and Ibn Mājah narrated from ʽAāʼishah that she said: “Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to sleep in the state of sexual impurity without touching water.”
Muslim narrated from ʼUmm Salamah that she said: “the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) (was at times) junub on account of intercourse and not due to sexual dream, and the dawn broke upon him, but he neither broke the fast nor recompensed.” In the wording of Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, the following is mentioned: “…in Ramadan, but he would continue fasting.”
These narrations indicate, in their wording, that the Prophet, peace be upon him, sometimes did not rush to perform ghusl (full ablution) from sexual impurity (janabah). So can we say that the Prophet, peace be upon him, committed a forbidden act because his delay in performing ghusl prevented angels from entering his house? Is this valid in our minds? Does a person commit a sin by delaying ghusl as long as they do not miss a prayer just because angels do not enter their house?
So what do we say about Ḥanẓalah, who was called “the one washed by the angels”? His story is well-known: he responded to the call for jihad without performing ghusl from sexual impurity (janabah), and he was a newlywed. After he was martyred, the angels washed him. So why did the angels not avoid him?
2- What is said about sexual impurity (janabah) is also said about dogs. This is because the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed people to keep dogs if there was a reason such as for hunting, guarding, or herding. We have worked out analogy for other reasons. So, can it be reasonable that the Prophet, peace be upon him, allowed us to keep dogs and then prevented us from taking the means to do so, and therefore, he allowed us to keep dogs and then prevented us from doing so by stating that the angel refrain from entering houses? This is like someone saying, “You should engage in jihad, but it is not permissible for you to buy a sword.” Perhaps someone might say, “The narration about angels not entering is general, but the narration allowing the keeping of dogs is specific to certain reasons.” We say: Yes, this is a valid understanding, and it is what Imam Al-Khaṭṭābiy concluded when he said, “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image that is prohibited to be kept. As for dogs and images that are not prohibited to be kept, such as dogs that are used for hunting, herding, or guarding and images that are used for decoration rugs, cushions, and the like, angels are not prevented from entering because of them.” Nevertheless, we say that this specification should not be limited to the reasons mentioned in the Ḥadīth as we have previously established that they are for representation or for inclusive restriction, not for exclusive restriction.
3- This Ḥadīth cannot be applied in a general sense because the general meaning contradicts the established fact, meaning that the word “angels” cannot include all angels, but rather certain types must be exempted. This is because we know that every person has two angels who record his good deeds and bad deeds, and they never leave him. Allah Almighty says: “Man does not utter any word except that with him is an observer prepared [to record].” [Qāf 50:18], “No! But you deny the Recompense. And indeed, [appointed] over you are keepers, Noble and recording;” [Al-ʼInfiṭār 82:9-11], and “There is no soul but that it has over it a protector.” [Aṭ-Ṭāriq 86:4] Ibn ʽAbbās said regarding the verse: ” There is no soul but that it has over it a protector.” [Aṭ-Ṭāriq 86:4], “It has a guardian angel.” In (At-Tashīl li ʽUlūm at-Tanzīl) by Ibn Juzayy, it is stated: “The meaning according to the majority is that every soul of the children of Adam has a guardian who records its deeds, meaning the recording angels.” So, can we say that the recording angels do not enter a house because there is a dog in it? Or can we say that the Angel of Death refuses to enter a house because there is a dog in it? This implies that people would evade death with dogs!!!
Therefore, the angels mentioned in the Ḥadīth cannot include all angels. Rather, they are a specific type, and scholars have differed in identifying them. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned that the Ḥadīth refers to the angel of revelation and he cited the narrations that speak of Jibrīl, and the meaning is that revelation is prevented from descending upon the Prophet in the presence of a dog, as a way of honoring revelation. This also applies to other things such as sexual impurity, the sound of bells, and urine, as each of them prevents the descent of revelation. Perhaps the angels mentioned in the Ḥadīth may be the angels of blessing and mercy, not the angels in general, as the majority of scholars have suggested. However, the apparent meaning is that the general sense is not intended.
Fourthly, what I mention as a comment on the hadith is that the prevention of angels from entering does not mean that the cause, which is owning a dog, is forbidden as some may think. This is because angels are special creatures that are affected by some things, and this is to honor angels, not to forbid such things. The evidence for this is:
– An-Nāsāriy, in (As-Sunan al-Kubrā), and Aṭ-Ṭabarāniy narrated a Ḥadīth, whose wording is mostly mentioned by Al-Bukhāriy and Muslim, on the authority of Jābir ibn ʽAbdullāh that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “He who eats onion and garlic and leek, should not approach our mosque for the angels are harmed by the same things as the children of Adam.” Therefore, shall we consider eating onions forbidden because angels are affected by it? Perhaps someone might reply in affirmation. To such person I reply with the Ḥadīth that is narrated by Muslim that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “O people, I cannot forbid (the use of a thing) which Allah has made lawful, but (this garlic) is a plant the odour of which is repugnant to me.” This is the greatest Prophet, who hates something for the sake of the angels, but it does not become forbidden just because it is disliked. So how can we forbid something just because it hurts some types of angels?!
The question to those who use the Ḥadīth as evidence for prohibition is: Is it permissible for us to enter a house that has a dog or a picture in it? Ibn Qudāmah answered this when he said: “Ibn ʽAāʼidh narrated in (Futūḥ ash-Shām) that when the Christians prepared food for ʽUmar (may Allah be pleased with him) upon his arrival in Sham (Syria), they invited him. He asked, “Where is it?” They replied, “In the church.” He refused to go and said to ʽAliy, “Go with the people and let them eat.” So ʽAliy went with the people, entered the church, and ate with the Muslims. ʽAliy looked at the pictures and said, “There is no harm for the Commander of the Believers if he entered and ate.” This is a consensus among them on the permissibility of entering and eating in a place with pictures (like a church). Since entering churches is not forbidden, likewise, entering houses with pictures where angels do not enter does not make it forbidden for us, as if there were a dog in it. It is not forbidden for us to be in the company of someone with a bell, even though angels do not accompany them. Rather, leaving the invitation for the sake of avoiding those things is a punishment for the doer and a warning to him. Allah knows best.” This is the end Ibn Qudāmah’s words in (Al-Mughniy), which needs no further comments.
5- Angels have their own unique actions, and we are not commanded to imitate them. They do not eat, drink, marry, or disobey Allah, and they only have one way which is obedience. Therefore, it is impossible to compare them to those who engage in all of these actions.
6- The reason why angels do not enter a house where there is a dog is not because of the dog itself, as dogs are present everywhere just like angels. Rather, the reason, as mentioned by Imam An-Nawawiy, is due to the impurities, bad odor, insects, and other such things that may be associated with the dog.
Therefore, I say:
1- The Ḥadīth cannot be applied to all dogs because some dogs are permitted, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not permit something that is forbidden.
2- The mention of angels in the Ḥadīth does not include all angels without exception.
3- The fact that angels dislike something or abstain from it does not mean that this thing is forbidden.
4- We should not look at the actions of angels as a model of worship since these actions are beyond our ability, and we are not commanded to imitate them in their affairs.
5- The reason for the angels’ abstention from entering houses wherein dogs is possible and not specific to dogs since they are present everywhere.
6- The angels abstain from entering for reasons other than the dog, and yet we do not say that it is forbidden. In general, this Ḥadīth is not suitable to be used as evidence for prohibition.
The third evidence used by those who oppose owning dogs is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs, and they said: if they were not forbidden, killing them would not have been allowed.
I would like to comment on this argument in the same way I used earlier:
Firstly, from the perspective of tradition, the order to kill dogs is mentioned in more than one Ḥadīth, including:
– Muslim narrated with its chain of transmission from Mālik from Nāfiʽ from Ibn ʽUmar that the
Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) ordered dogs to be killed.
– In another narration, it is narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered dogs to be killed, and he sent (men) to the corners of Medina that they should be killed.
– In another narration, it is narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.
– In another narration, it is narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs except the dog tamed for hunting, or watching of the herd of sheep or other domestic animals. It was said to Ibn ʽUmar (Allah be pleased with them) that Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) talks of (exception) about the dog for watching the field, whereupon he said: Since Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him) possessed land.
– Jābir narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we were even killing a dog which a woman brought with her from the desert. Afterwards God’s messenger forbade us to kill dogs, saying, “Confine yourselves to the type which is pure black and has two spots, for it is a devil.”
– ʽAbdullāh ibn Mughaffal said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and then said: what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina)? How dogs are nuisance to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds.”
– In another narration by ʽAbdullāh ibn Mughaffal, the following is said: “He permitted the keeping of dogs for (the protection of) herds, for hunting and (the protection of) cultivated land.”
Therefore, the authentic narrations state the following:
1- That the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs, and this is general for all dogs.
2- That he exempted from killing the hunting, farming, and grazing dogs at a certain stage.
3- That at another stage, he exempted all dogs except for the black dog, because Satan transforms in its shape.
4- That at a later stage, he forbade them from killing dogs and said: “What is the matter with them and the dogs?” meaning, why did they go too far in killing them.
Secondly, from the perspective of the jurisprudence of Ḥadīth, one who contemplates these narrations finds that killing dogs was not due to the reason that owning them is prohibited. This is because the Prophet ordered their killing for a specific reason, and when that reason was no longer present, he prohibited them from killing dogs except for the rabid dog. This is mentioned in the following Ḥadīth: “Five kinds of animals are vicious and harmful, and they may be killed outside or inside the sacred area of Ihram (Sanctuary). These are: the scorpion, the kite, the crow, the mouse, and the rabid dog.” If killing dogs was due to their prohibition, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not have forbidden his companions from continuing to kill them.
Abū Dawūd and others narrated from Al-Ḥasan from ʽAbdullāh ibn Mughaffal who said: the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.” Therefore, dogs, like other animals, are part of Allah’s creation and it is not appropriate to eliminate them from the earth.
Thirdly, Imam An-Nawawiy said in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: “They differed regarding killing that which causes no harm. Imam al-Ḥaramayn among our companions said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) initially ordered the killing of all dogs, then he abrogated that and prohibited killing them except for the black dog, then the Sharīʽah settled on prohibiting the killing of all dogs that do not cause harm, whether black or otherwise. This is supported by what is mentioned in the Ḥadīth of Ibn al-Mughaffal.”
This is what al-Nawawi concluded that the Prophet abrogated his first order with the second and that the ruling settled on that. However, what is meant here is not to say that there was abrogation, but rather to say that there was ijtihad by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to protect the interests of the people who were ordered to kill dogs for reasons that may have included the large number of dogs in the city, their aggression towards people, or the mixing of rabid dogs with others, which required a generalization. Killing was a ruling based on the ruler’s ijtihad for a reason, and when the reason disappeared, the Prophet (peace be upon him) lifted the ruling.
This approach is more preferable than the view of abrogation, as it opens the door to ijtihad (personal reasoning) when the reason reappears again. So, if dogs become too numerous and breed excessively, which is known as an epidemic, then there is no harm in killing them and limiting their numbers. If dogs become a danger and rabies spreads among them, it is permissible to kill them to prevent harm and prioritize human life. Al-Qāḍiy ʽIyāḍ mentioned the difference of opinion among scholars regarding this matter between abrogation and other types, and he said: “Many scholars have concluded that the Ḥadīth should be taken into account in killing dogs, except for hunting dogs and others. This is the view of Mālik and his companions. Those who hold this view differed whether the ruling of hunting dogs and the like is abrogated in light of the first general ruling on killing dogs, or whether killing was general for all dogs except for those exceptions. Others have concluded that it is permissible to take all dogs. The ruling of killing and prohibiting owning them was abrogated, except for the black dog.”
Therefore, I say that the Prophet’s order to kill dogs, whether it was ijtihad or an abrogated ruling, does not indicate the prohibition of owning them in the presence of permissive texts. The most that can be inferred from it is the dislike of having too many dogs and their widespread presence, and this is what we tend to believe.
At the end of this long fatwa, I would like to mentioned the following Ḥadīth: Abū Hurayrah said: the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Gabriel (peace be upon him) came to me and said: I came to you last night and was prevented from entering simply because there were images at the door, for there was a decorated curtain with images on it in the house, and there was a dog in the house. So order the head of the image which is in the house to be cut off so that it resembles the form of a tree; order the curtain to be cut up and made into two cushions spread out on which people may tread; and order the dog to be turned out. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then did so. The dog belonged to Al-Ḥasan or Al-Ḥusayn and was under their couch.” This Ḥadīth is narrated by ʼAḥmad, Abī Dawūd, At-Tirmidhiy, and An-Nasāʼiy who rendered it authentic. In (Nayl al-ʼAwṭār), Ash-Shawkāniy said: “His saying: “The dog belonged to Al-Ḥasan or Al-Ḥusayn,” refers to the permissibility of raising a puppy for a young child.”
In summary, I say:
1. The evidence presented by those who prohibit owning dogs does not serve as proof for the claim of prohibition. Rather, it can only be taken to indicate dislike.
2. There is evidence available that permits owning dogs for benefit and need, which vary based on time and place.
3. It is permissible to use analogy based on the excuses mentioned in authentic narrations, which are farming, grazing, and hunting, and there is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding the extent of similar excuses.
4. The evidence that indicates the purity of dogs is strong and consistent with the widespread use of dogs throughout Islamic history, in the presence of Imams and scholars.
5. If we did not apply abrogation to the narration about the puppy of Al-Ḥasan or Al-Ḥusayn being raised, it would still be evidence for the permissibility of owning a small dog for children without needing any of the excuses mentioned.
6. This matter is subject to disagreement, and there is no definitive evidence to the extent that those who differ are criticized for opposing the correct view.
7. Arab and Islamic heritage has shown great tolerance towards the issue of dogs, with some tribes even being named after dogs like the tribe of Kalb (dog) and Kilāb (dogs). Dogs are also mentioned in Arabic poetry without any negative connotations. Can this be used for an impure, prohibited thing?
After all, Allah knows best.
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr