THE QUR'AN, THE DOG AND MAN
Once
again, the dog has become the subject of religious controversy in Malaysia.
Recently,
celebrity preacher Haris Ismail, better known as PU Riz, suggested that
ordinary Malaysians should no longer keep dogs. He explained that he personally
dislikes the presence of dogs, including those belonging to his non-Muslim
neighbours.
In making
his case, he referred to the mazhab and religious restrictions
surrounding dogs. Yet noticeably, he did not refer to the Qur'an.
To me,
this is a serious flaw in any argument presented in the name of Islam. A mazhab
represents the accumulated reasoning and interpretation of Muslim scholars. It
deserves respect, but it is not the Qur'an.
Before
asking what a mazhab says, surely we must first ask what Allah says.
So what
does the Qur'an actually say about dogs?
WHAT DOES THE QUR'AN SAY?
The dog
appears explicitly in only a handful of Qur'anic verses.
In Al-A'raf
7:176, the dog is used metaphorically. A dog pants whether it is driven
away or left alone. This is a parable about human behaviour. It is neither a
command to keep dogs nor a prohibition against them.
Then we
have the remarkable story of the Companions of the Cave.
In Al-Kahf
18:18, their dog lies at the entrance of the cave with its forelegs
stretched out. In 18:22, it is mentioned repeatedly when discussing
their number - three and their dog the fourth; five and their dog the sixth;
seven and their dog the eighth.
The
Qur'an calls it simply "their dog" - kalbuhum.
There is
no condemnation. The dog accompanies a group of faithful young people whose
story Allah chose to preserve in the Qur'an.
But
perhaps the most interesting verse is Al-Ma'idah 5:4.
Allah
permits believers to eat what trained hunting animals catch for them. The verse
speaks generally of al-jawarih - hunting animals - but
uses the fascinating word mukallibin in describing their training.
Mukallibin comes from the same Arabic root
as kalb - dog. This explains why Muhammad Marmaduke
Pickthall translated the expression as animals that "ye have trained as
hounds are trained."
Think
about that.
When
discussing the training of hunting animals generally, the Qur'an uses language
derived from the dog. Linguistically, dog-training becomes a paradigm for
training hunting animals.
And
properly training a hunting dog requires an extraordinary relationship between
human and animal. The dog learns our instructions, recognises our signals,
controls its instincts and acts for its human companion.
Such
training cannot realistically happen through complete physical separation. It
requires proximity, handling, feeding, touching, guiding, rewarding, caring
and, above all, trust.
The
Qur'an does not call the dog "man's best friend." But I would suggest
that man's best friend sits very comfortably within the Qur'anic picture of the
dog.
THEN COME THE HADITH
Hadith
are an important second source for Muslims. Here the picture becomes more
complicated.
Some
hadith have contributed significantly to negative attitudes towards dogs. One
says that keeping a dog, except for purposes such as hunting, livestock or
agriculture, reduces one's reward each day. The Quran does not.
Another
famously says:
"Angels
do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture."
Yet the
hadith literature gives us another side of the dog.
One of
the most beautiful accounts tells of a prostitute who saw a dog dying of thirst
beside a well. She took off her shoe, drew water and gave the dog a drink. The
Prophet reportedly taught that Allah forgave her because of this act of
kindness to the dog.
What an
extraordinary lesson.
A human
being whom society might condemn shows compassion towards an animal some people
consider unclean, and that act becomes the reason for divine forgiveness.
Clearly,
even within the hadith literature, the picture is not simply "dogs are
bad."
BUT THE QUR'AN MUST REMAIN THE CRITERION
This is
where Muslims need to exercise greater care.
The
Qur'an is our primary source. Hadith come after it. The Prophet cannot teach
something that contradicts the revelation he himself followed.
Al-A'raf
7:158
describes Muhammad as:
"...the
unlettered Prophet, who believes in Allah and His words. And follow him, so
that you may be guided."
The
instruction to follow Muhammad is therefore inseparable from the description of
Muhammad as one who believes in Allah and His words.
This is
why I have argued for many years that our scholars should continuously examine
the corpus of hadith against the Qur'an.
This does
not mean casually discarding hadith we dislike or pretending that centuries of
hadith scholarship have no value.
But
surely the Qur'an must remain the criterion.
Consider
the hadith that angels will not enter a house containing a dog or a picture.
Read absolutely, it raises questions when placed beside the Qur'an.
The
Qur'an tells us that angels are appointed over human beings. They record our
deeds, guard us by Allah's command and ultimately take our souls. If a dog can
prevent all angels from entering a place, what happens to these angels?
Classical
scholars themselves recognised the need to qualify the hadith and commonly
understood it as referring to particular angels, especially angels of mercy.
That
interpretation may reconcile the texts. But notice what has happened - the
Qur'anic understanding helps us determine how the hadith should be understood.
That, to
me, is precisely the hierarchy that should operate.
If our
understanding of a hadith clearly contradicts the Qur'an, we must question the
interpretation, the context or ultimately the attribution. To attribute to the
Prophet something fundamentally contrary to the revelation he followed would
itself be an injustice - a fitnah - against our Prophet.
HUNTING WAS THEN. WHAT ABOUT TODAY?
There is
another mistake we should avoid.
Some
argue that dogs may be kept only for purposes specifically mentioned in early
sources - hunting, livestock and agriculture.
But this
risks confusing historical examples with underlying purposes.
The
Qur'an speaks of horses, camels and other forms of transportation familiar to
its first audience. We do not conclude that Muslims cannot travel by aeroplane
because aeroplanes were not mentioned in seventh-century Arabia.
We
understand the underlying function - transportation.
The same
reasoning deserves consideration with dogs.
Hunting
was one important function of a trained dog at the time. Today dogs guide the
blind, assist people with disabilities, detect explosives and drugs, locate
missing persons, search collapsed buildings, work with police and security
services, detect medical emergencies, protect homes and families and, yes,
provide companionship.
The uses
have evolved. The extraordinary dog-human relationship remains.
This
makes Al-Ma'idah 5:4 more interesting than hunting alone. Allah has
created an animal capable of being taught by human beings. Indeed, the verse
describes us as teaching these animals "from what Allah has taught
you."
Knowledge
flows from Allah to us, and through us to another creature.
PERHAPS THE PROBLEM WAS NEVER THE DOG
Perhaps
somewhere along the way, we allowed our understanding of the dog to become more
negative than the Qur'an itself.
And here
Muslims need to be particularly careful. The Qur'an repeatedly warns against
declaring something haram when Allah Himself has not declared it haram.
In An-Nahl
16:116:
"Do
not say falsely with your tongues, 'This is lawful and this is unlawful,'
inventing lies against Allah."
And Yunus
10:59 asks an even more uncomfortable question:
"Has
Allah given you permission, or are you inventing lies against Allah?"
That
should make every Muslim pause before declaring something haram in God's
name.
Where
does the Qur'an prohibit keeping a dog? It does not.
Where
does the Qur'an say dogs may only be kept for hunting? It does not.
On the
contrary, Al-Kahf presents faithful young believers accompanied by "their
dog." Al-Ma'idah recognises the human relationship with trained animals
and even uses dog-derived language to describe their training.
We should
therefore be careful that, in our desire to protect religion, we do not create
religious prohibitions that Allah Himself did not create.
There is
a profound difference between saying:
- "I personally do not
like dogs." and
- "God does not want you
to keep dogs."
The first
is personal preference. The second requires evidence from God.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE PICTURES?
Before we
end, let us return to the hadith:
“Angels
do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”
Notice
something.
It does
not say only dog. It also says picture.
Muslim
scholars themselves recognised that this hadith could not simply be understood
without interpretation and context. They asked which angels were meant,
commonly explaining that it referred to particular angels, especially angels of
mercy, rather than all angels.
They also
interpreted the word “picture”. Scholars distinguished between different
kinds of images, how they were displayed and their purposes. With the arrival
of photography, further interpretation became necessary, and Muslim scholars
have differed over how photographs and modern images should be treated.
In other
words, the “picture” in this very same hadith has already been interpreted
and contextualised.
And
today, pictures are everywhere - in our homes, schools, hospitals, offices and
government buildings. Pictures of our leaders, and sometimes their spouses, are
displayed throughout our institutions. Our phones, computers and televisions
are filled with images.
So let us
ask some simple questions.
Why do we
focus so much on the dog, but so little on the picture?
If
scholars recognise the need to interpret and contextualise “picture”, why
should we not exercise the same care when interpreting “dog” in the very same
hadith?
And since
PU Riz raised this matter publicly, perhaps he too should reflect:
Are there
photographs or pictures in his own home?
Peace,
Anas Zubedy



