THE QUR'AN, THE DOG AND MAN

 

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