A Note by Hassan Eslami Ardakani: “The Dog of the Companions of the Cave”

In today’s polarized society, we simultaneously witness two contradictory attitudes toward dogs. Some seek to exterminate them. In contrast, we see the proliferation of miniature and sometimes large dogs that have made themselves comfortable in luxury cars and occasionally on the forearms of ladies.

In the discussion of dogs, one can argue from at least three aspects: first, the impurity of dogs; second, violent behavior toward them and their killing; and third, the transformation of dogs into luxury objects. Here, I will only address the first two issues.

Those who behave savagely toward dogs, alongside various reasons, sometimes point to their impurity and conclude that their behavior is justified. Therefore, two points must be addressed: one, the impurity of dogs, and the other, the permissibility of violent behavior toward dogs because of their impurity. Logically, there is no connection between these two issues; nevertheless, they so often follow one another that many people believe the impurity of dogs is a good reason for savage behavior toward them.

The impurity of dogs has been a contentious issue among Muslim scholars, to the extent that we witness differing and sometimes contradictory fatwas. Ibn Taymiyyah summarizes the views of Sunni schools on this matter in a few sentences. He is asked several questions about the ruling on milk or liquid that a dog has licked. He first illustrates the general disagreement among scholars regarding the impurity of dogs as follows:

“Regarding dogs, scholars hold three views: one, that it is entirely pure, even its saliva, and this is the view of Malik; second, that it is impure, even its hair, which is the view of Shafi‘i (and one narration from Ahmad ibn Hanbal); and third, that its hair is pure and its saliva is impure, which is the view of Abu Hanifa and one narration from Ahmad, and this is the most correct statement.” (Majmu‘ Fatawa Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, compiled and arranged by Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim, Maktabat al-Mafarriq, Rabat – Morocco, [n.d.], vol. 21, pp. 530-531) He then goes into the details of the issue.

Among Shi‘a scholars, we also witness such a difference of opinion. While the majority of Shi‘a scholars consider dogs impure, we see alternative views, to the extent that they can be grouped into four general perspectives. For example, Sayyid Murtada, a great scholar of the fifth century, considers the hair of a dog pure, and Allama Majlisi also holds a view inclined toward that (for a detailed analysis of this view and alternative views, see: “An Analysis of Sayyid Murtada’s Rare Fatwa on the Purity of Dog Hair” by Mehdi Mehrizi, in the proceedings of the Sayyid Murtada Congress, Qom, Dar al-Hadith, 1397 [2018], forthcoming).

Now, whether we consider dogs impure or pure, religiously we have no reason to destroy them simply because they are dogs. On the contrary, any kind of savage behavior toward these intelligent creatures, who are sometimes superior to their killers, is a sign of mental illness and the inability of the murderers to understand the place of these dogs in the universe. In our religious tradition, there has long been talk of the worth, understanding, and even superiority of dogs over some humans, and sometimes a single worthy and good act toward dogs, such as quenching the thirst of a thirsty dog, has been considered a cause for the forgiveness of all sins. For example, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) relates that a man was forgiven all his sins because he gave a sip of water to a thirsty dog in the desert. The content of this story, which appears in narrative sources, has been used as material by poets such as Attar and Sa‘di.

In our ethical tradition and the biographies of our great figures, there are points that relieve us of further explanation, such as this story mentioned in a sixth-century text:

“Khwaja Imam Abu Ishaq Shirazi was walking along a road one day. A dog came forward. A student who was in his service shouted at the dog to clear the way for the great man. Khwaja Imam said: Do not drive it away! Do you not know that the road is shared between me and him?” (Makarim al-Akhlaq, Radi al-Din Abu Ja‘far Muhammad Nishaburi, in Two Treatises on Ethics, edited by Muhammad Taqi Daneshpazhuh, Tehran, University of Tehran, 1341 [1962], p. 111).

Thus, the savage behavior toward dogs, news of which is increasingly being broadcast, whatever its roots may be, should not be attributed to religious teachings. Even if someone rules that dogs are impure, it is merely a juridical ruling, and its purpose is to avoid contact of the dog with one’s body or clothing, not to sanction the killing of these neighbors of ours and inhabitants of our planet.

.

---

.

The Dog of the Companions of the Cave

Seyyed Hassan Eslami Ardakani

Last page of Etemad newspaper, 30 January 2019

.

---

.