A Question Relating to Dogs and Islam

mosi

I am not a Muslim, but am just curious about an issue relating to dogs and Islam.
From what I can understand (correct me if I am wrong), different Islamic traditions have differing view on the extent to which dogs are considered haram.
I have read though that the Saluki dog is considered to be different from other dogs and is considered clean in Islam. What I would like to know is if dog breeds that are similar to the Saluki...other sighthounds (aka gazehounds) such as the greyhound...are considered to be clean or are thought of as being haram.
I know that many other sighthound breeds..the Afghan hound, Azawakh, Sloughi etc have origins in Islamic countries. My own interest in this stems from the fact that my family recently adopted a greyhound and I am curious to know how these dogs are viewed.

dead one

mosi wrote: »

I am not a Muslim, but am just curious about an issue relating to dogs and Islam.
From what I can understand (correct me if I am wrong), different Islamic traditions have differing view on the extent to which dogs are considered haram.
I have read though that the Saluki dog is considered to be different from other dogs and is considered clean in Islam. What I would like to know is if dog breeds that are similar to the Saluki...other sighthounds (aka gazehounds) such as the greyhound...are considered to be clean or are thought of as being haram.
I know that many other sighthound breeds..the Afghan hound, Azawakh, Sloughi etc have origins in Islamic countries. My own interest in this stems from the fact that my family recently adopted a greyhound and I am curious to know how these dogs are viewed.

Islam gives permission to keep dogs for certain purposes, such as hunting, guarding livestock and protecting crops. An analogy has been made for similar purposes or those which are more essential, such as protecting houses from burglars, using them to find drugs and thieves. In any other cases, the one who keeps a dog is subject to the warning of having one or two qiraats deducted from his reward every day.

Shaykh Yoosuf ibn ‘Abd al-Haadi said, quoting from some of the scholars:

Undoubtedly the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave permission to keep hunting dogs in several ahaadeeth, and said that keeping a dog for hunting does not detract from one’s reward. In another hadeeth he gave permission to keep a dog for herding livestock, and in another hadeeth for keeping sheep, and in another hadeeth for guarding farms. So it is known that the reason which makes it permissible to keep a dog is when it is for a purpose, and the ruling depends on whether that reason is there or not. If the reason is there, then it is permissible to keep a dog, even though some reasons are more important than agricultural reasons, and some reasons are equally important to those that are mentioned in the texts. Undoubtedly crops come under the same ruling as farms, and cattle come under the same ruling as sheep; guarding chickens and geese – to keep foxes away from them – comes under the same heading as guarding sheep. Undoubtedly the fear of burglars and keeping a dog to warn of them and wake one up is a more important reason; the Lawgiver pays attention to interests and wards off harms; if there is no reason for it then it is wrong. End quote.

Al-Ighraab fi Ahkaam al-Kilaab (p. 106-107).

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Based on that, a house that is in the middle of the city has no need for a dog to guard it, so keeping a dog for this purpose in such a case is haraam and it is not permissible, and it detracts one or two qiraats from the reward of its owners every day. They should get rid of this dog and not keep it. But if a house is in the countryside and there is no one else around, then it is permissible to keep a dog to guard the house and its occupants; guarding the members of the household is more important than guarding livestock and crops. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (4/246).

Secondly:

Islam does not enjoin anything but that which is good for people, and it does not forbid them anything but that which is harmful to them. But this wisdom is known to those who know it and it is unknown to those who do not know it. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) enjoined washing vessels that have been licked by a dog, and that is only because its saliva is impure. Modern science has proven that there are several harmful things in water from which a dog has drunk. The Muslim who follows the command of sharee’ah has no choice but to obey the command, and refrain from that which is forbidden, even if he does not know the reason behind it and there is nothing wrong with trying to find out the reason behind it, but he should not make his compliance dependent upon knowing the reason.

Some of these diseases are transmitted because of going against the command of Islam, and eating and drinking from vessels used by dogs, and some of them are transmitted because the dog carries germs that cause these diseases.

Whatever the case, the Muslim hears and obeys, and goodness is found in responding to sharee’ah by doing what is commanded and avoiding what is forbidden.

And Allaah knows best.

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/20939

dead one

digisky wrote: »

Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.

no one is asking anyone to go back, start it today, a life free of germs and bacterias

PucaMama

dead one wrote: »

Some of these diseases are transmitted because of going against the command of Islam

can you prove this? because all disease has a way of transmitting and none are because of a religion!

dead one

PucaMama wrote: »

can you prove this? because all disease has a way of transmitting and none are because of a religion!

did you read the article which I've posted... It has answer to your questions... If there is no need of dog in your house then get rid of it as soon as possible... You want proof here is proof..It's not fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLJX_3DCvVo

I know it stupid to post such video here, but it is related to article why Islam is religion of nature... Thank you

PucaMama

Thats still not passing disease.

dead one

PucaMama wrote: »

Thats still not passing disease.

Then keep a dog at home, when you will get disease from it.. you will understand.. otherwise there is no way to convince you...

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Then keep a dog at home, when you will get disease from it.. you will understand.. otherwise there is no way to convince you...

Lots of people have dogs without getting diseases from them. Do you have any non religious sources to back up your claim? What about other animals, do pet turtles or pet mice or horses not also have diseases they could transmit?

Corkfeen

dead one wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Thats still not passing disease.

Then keep a dog at home, when you will get disease from it.. you will understand.. otherwise there is no way to convince you...

I'm in fine health and there's dogs sitting next to me on a regular basis. In fact there's indications that dogs improve your immune system... So please, don't post pseudoscience to backup your claims. For the most part, dogs won't have negative impacts upon your health .

Jesus Shaves

wow, see what religion makes people believe

Tom Dunne

So let me get this right.

dead one wrote: »

eating and drinking from vessels used by dogs, and some of them are transmitted because the dog carries germs that cause these diseases.

According to the above, one should not eat or drink form vessels used by dogs.

Are you seriously telling me that it takes an Islamic scholar to tell you that? Considering where a dog's tongue tends to be upon occasion, I would have thought that would be common sense.

dead one wrote: »

Then keep a dog at home, when you will get disease from it.. you will understand.. otherwise there is no way to convince you...

Again, just to clarify, are you saying simply by keeping a dog at home you will get a disease? Or are you saying that by keeping a dog at home and sharing eating utensils you will get a disease?

oceanclub

Tom Dunne wrote: »

So let me get this right.
According to the above, one should not eat or drink form vessels used by dogs.

I hate to point out this out, but as the proud owner of a cat, an animal beloved to Muhammed, they occasionally lick their ass and genitals.

P.

I am pie

Seemingly this is something taken quite seriously: (from wikipedia)

"Sniffer dogs used by police to search mosques and Muslim homes are fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws so that they don't offend Muslims. Muslim prisoners in Britain are given fresh clothes and bedding after sniffer dogs search their cells, because Muslim inmates claim that according to Islamic law they are now unclean. Wardens must hand out replacement sets after random drug searches to avoid religious discrimination claims. The dogs have also been banned from touching copies of the Quran and other religious items"


I see the application of this is taken seriously, but I cannot understand how a dog can be considered unclean and a cat, which spends hours licking itself and wandering about outside isn't.

Is a pigeon cleaner than a dog?

Very hard to penetrate the thinking behind this?

biko

Tom Dunne wrote: »

According to the above, one should not eat or drink form vessels used by dogs.

Are you seriously telling me that it takes an Islamic scholar to tell you that? Considering where a dog's tongue tends to be upon occasion, I would have thought that would be common sense.

Imams are leaders and guides for Muslims, and have been for centuries, so they take on the role of teaching people what to do, and not do.
It might seem silly today but 200 years ago it made perfect sense to have this system, the imam passing on lessons learned by others so people wouldn't get sick.

As to the second paragraph, even in this day and age you see people letting their dogs lick their face and lips. Disgusting I know - common sense doesn't prevail always.

Tom Dunne

biko wrote: »

Imams are leaders and guides for Muslims, and have been for centuries, so they take on the role of teaching people what to do, and not do.
It might seem silly today but 200 years ago it made perfect sense to have this system, the imam passing on lessons learned by others so people wouldn't get sick.

I fully agree. But is what was applicable 200 years ago still applicable? Do religious leaders actually still need to tell people?

biko wrote: »

As to the second paragraph, even in this day and age you see people letting their dogs lick their face and lips. Disgusting I know - common sense doesn't prevail always.

I think there is a big difference between sharing a bowl with a dog and demonstrating affection (not that I would for a minute consider a dog licking my face affection).

joseph brand

biko wrote: »

Imams are leaders and guides for Muslims, and have been for centuries, so they take on the role of teaching people what to do, and not do.
It might seem silly today but 200 years ago it made perfect sense to have this system, the imam passing on lessons learned by others so people wouldn't get sick.

As to the second paragraph, even in this day and age you see people letting their dogs lick their face and lips. Disgusting I know - common sense doesn't prevail always.

Silly, is putting it mildly.

HamletOrHecuba

dead one wrote: »

Then keep a dog at home, when you will get disease from it.. you will understand.. otherwise there is no way to convince you...

Interestingly enough the early Christian Church also forbade people keeping dogs in their houses. "Dog" is an insult in the Christian Scriptures.

I have known Bahais who kept dogs in their houses though; so some Muslims are more strict about this than others?

the_syco

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I fully agree. But is what was applicable 200 years ago still applicable? Do religious leaders actually still need to tell people?

Look at how the Pope teaches people about celibacy; religions are cautious about taking away any rules, as it may cause adverse problems.

HamletOrHecuba

the_syco wrote: »

Look at how the Pope teaches people about celibacy; religions are cautious about taking away any rules, as it may cause adverse problems.

In what context do you mean the Pope teaches celibacy?

dead one

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm in fine health and there's dogs sitting next to me on a regular basis. In fact there's indications that dogs improve your immune system... So please, don't post pseudoscience to backup your claims. For the most part, dogs won't have negative impacts upon your health .

See it nice to see you... you have some serious issues...let me see..i have seen dogs eat there own crap..eat dead animals..lick their own butts ..eat spoiled food...etc...why would you want them to lick you??... you're saying dogs improve your immune system, lollzzzz.... Offcourse dirt needs a dirt to improve itself... That's not fault with yourself... Do you know what these dogs in your absence... I guess it is more scientife for you to impove you immune system..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En9NeQdSzeA

I guess you should do the same things what these dogs have been doing to improve your immune system.... Rofl

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Lots of people have dogs without getting diseases from them. Do you have any non religious sources to back up your claim? What about other animals, do pet turtles or pet mice or horses not also have diseases they could transmit?

The case of horse is very different.. They don't wander in you houses as dogs... They don't sh!t everywhere like dogs do..
It's a long term decaying process... If you don't see some disease in a year or two years, it doesn't people aren't infected with dogs who eat their own sh!t ... You can keep a dog in the lounge for reason... but not inside your house... That's all science..

darokane wrote: »

wow, see what religion makes people believe

Isn't it amazing... At least religion doesn't make people sell their own daughter/sisters/mothers in the name of freedom... Atleast religion doesn't make blue b!tches but chaste and pious women... Religion doesn't make people to sleep with someone else sister/mother... Isn't it amazing... Religion doesn't make people to keep an animal that eats its own sh!t... Isn't it amazing..

dead one

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Again, just to clarify, are you saying simply by keeping a dog at home you will get a disease? Or are you saying that by keeping a dog at home and sharing eating utensils you will get a disease?

I am saying the second part of your above quote.. See if you get involved with a dog in your house... like touching it, or the dog is touching your pots etc you will get a disease.. If you keep a dog in open place for a reason like guarding your house then there is nothing wrong in it.. I hope you would get the point.

Havermeyer

From a discussion about dogs, to this..........

dead one wrote: »

Isn't it amazing... At least religion doesn't make people sell their own daughter/sisters/mothers in the name of freedom... Atleast religion doesn't make blue b!tches but chaste and pious women... Religion doesn't make people to sleep with someone else sister/mother... Isn't it amazing... Religion doesn't make people to keep an animal that eats its own sh!t... Isn't it amazing..

..........in six posts. Wow.

You've still not backed up any of your claims that by living with dogs you will get diseases.

Posting videos of dogs eating sh1t on youtube is not science.

dead one

nummnutts wrote: »

From a discussion about dogs, to this..........


You've still not backed up any of your claims that by living with dogs you will get diseases.

Posting videos of dogs eating sh1t on youtube is not science.

Did you see what that dog has been doing... consider it corkfeen's dog and think he has been sitting with it on regular bases.... The dog will improve his immune system..

Here is proof

http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog-health/zoonoses_dogs.aspx

Jesus Shaves

dead one wrote: »

Isn't it amazing... At least religion doesn't make people sell their own daughter/sisters/mothers in the name of freedom... Atleast religion doesn't make blue b!tches but chaste and pious women... Religion doesn't make people to sleep with someone else sister/mother... Isn't it amazing... Religion doesn't make people to keep an animal that eats its own sh!t... Isn't it amazing..

Religion does make people kill each other though

dead one

darokane wrote: »

Religion does make people kill each other though

guns don't kill people, people kill people... Religion doesn't make people kill each other, its bias/corruption/avarice/pride/honor/dignity/ego...

Jesus Shaves

dead one wrote: »

guns don't kill people, people kill people... Religion doesn't make people kill each other, its bias/corruption/avarice/pride/honor/dignity/ego...

All in the name of religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

They don't wander in you houses as dogs...

Neither do dogs, if you keep them outside or teach them to stay in one room.

dead one wrote: »

They don't sh!t everywhere like dogs do..

Yes they do. Have you never seen a horses stall?

dead one wrote: »

It's a long term decaying process... If you don't see some disease in a year or two years, it doesn't people aren't infected with dogs who eat their own sh!t ...

I've had dogs for most of my life (over twenty years) and I didn't get any diseases from it. I've also never seen a dog eat its own sh*t (which I would have welcomed seeing as it was my job to clean the garden after the dog)

dead one wrote: »

That's all science..

No its not. You haven't justified anything you have claimed with a single piece of independent evidence. You are just making empty claims, which contradict the experiences of anyone who actually has owned a dog. You don't seem to get quite how many people actually keep dogs in the western world, and how closely some of them live with them.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Here is proof

http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog-health/zoonoses_dogs.aspx

You would assume then, given that there are over 78 million pet dogs in the US alone, that there would be a lot of cases of transmitted diseases then. Could it be that simply keeping your dog clean and healthy (a lot of the diseases mentioned in your link can be avoided by having your dog lice- and tick-free), and washing your hands after handling your dog is enough to combat most of these.

Incidentally, there are also diseases transmittable by horses, cats and even aquarium fish, so why again aren't these mentioned in the quran?

oceanclub

It's one thing to have irrational beliefs; I mean, fair play to you if they're harmless. I still feel weird walking under ladders.

But it's really really embarrassing when one is reduced to pseudo-science and plain spoofing to back up one's irrational beliefs. Let it go already.

P.

Corkfeen

dead one wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm in fine health and there's dogs sitting next to me on a regular basis. In fact there's indications that dogs improve your immune system... So please, don't post pseudoscience to backup your claims. For the most part, dogs won't have negative impacts upon your health .

See it nice to see you... you have some serious issues...let me see..i have seen dogs eat there own crap..eat dead animals..lick their own butts ..eat spoiled food...etc...why would you want them to lick you??... you're saying dogs improve your immune system, lollzzzz.... Offcourse dirt needs a dirt to improve itself... That's not fault with yourself... Do you know what these dogs in your absence... I guess it is more scientife for you to impove you immune system..

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61316.php
One example of dogs being beneficial for your health. It's also better to backup your claims rather than posting YouTube videos of dogs eating crap.(Which is highly unusual) Name a few of the diseases that I've picked up from owning a dog? I'd also like to know why the vast majority of the world isn't dropping dead from the diseases which apparently all dogs are spreading.

Tom Dunne

dead one wrote: »

I am saying the second part of your above quote.. See if you get involved with a dog in your house... like touching it, or the dog is touching your pots etc you will get a disease

While any dog I have had has been fairly domesticated, they have never, to the best of my knowledge, possessed sufficient dexterity to open cupboards and pull out any pots.

And when it came to unloading the dishwasher, that was generally a task for the humans.

So, if a dog is not touching my pots, not unloading my dishwasher, not sharing meals at the family table, not sleeping in my bed, not sitting on the sofa, trained to defecate and urinate outside, am I still liable to get diseases?

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No its not. You haven't justified anything you have claimed with a single piece of independent evidence. You are just making empty claims, which contradict the experiences of anyone who actually has owned a dog. You don't seem to get quite how many people actually keep dogs in the western world, and how closely some of them live with them.

House smelling like dog. That's big disadvantage of dog... You get smell from dog and it can hurt people to whom you meat... But you've your desires.. Sometime dogs are very expensive to keep... You could use the same money to help needy... Are dogs more important in this world than human who are suffering... I have justified my claims but you people are denial.... The evidence itself can't convince you then what am I...Keeping a dog requires time and you're wasting your life with these dogs instead of your human fellow being like mothers fathers... This is also one of the reason why children don't respect their elders in western society.. Why fathers/mother have been left when they reach to old age... Such a shame

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You would assume then, given that there are over 78 million pet dogs in the US alone, that there would be a lot of cases of transmitted diseases then. Could it be that simply keeping your dog clean and healthy (a lot of the diseases mentioned in your link can be avoided by having your dog lice- and tick-free), and washing your hands after handling your dog is enough to combat most of these.

Incidentally, there are also diseases transmittable by horses, cats and even aquarium fish, so why again aren't these mentioned in the quran?

Why should I risk myself.. When there is no need to keep a dogs... why should i waste my life with dogs then wash my hands again and again...Everything in the world happen for a reason.. Why are you people keeping a dog when there is no need to keep it..

dead one

Corkfeen wrote: »

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61316.php
One example of dogs being beneficial for your health. It's also better to backup your claims rather than posting YouTube videos of dogs eating crap.(Which is highly unusual) Name a few of the diseases that I've picked up from owning a dog? I'd also like to know why the vast majority of the world isn't dropping dead from the diseases which apparently all dogs are spreading.

I don't believe in you example... I believe in evidence ... The evidence I have seen that dogs eat their own sh!t... and you're saying dogs are beneficial for you health... Holy cow... I don't believe in these artical written by dogs sellers as to fool humanity as its the only way to sell their dogs... Corkeen dogs will lead some serious problem to your psychology and health and when the destruction begin remember me....

dead one

Tom Dunne wrote: »

While any dog I have had has been fairly domesticated, they have never, to the best of my knowledge, possessed sufficient dexterity to open cupboards and pull out any pots.

And when it came to unloading the dishwasher, that was generally a task for the humans.

So, if a dog is not touching my pots, not unloading my dishwasher, not sharing meals at the family table, not sleeping in my bed, not sitting on the sofa, trained to defecate and urinate outside, am I still liable to get diseases?

Tom dunne, it depends upon your time... The time which you spend with your dog... It also depends your close attachment to dogs.. I mean, you relationship with dogs...you see dogs will show some serious issue if you keep closely attach them to your family..... This can lead serious problem to your family.. ... Watch this video and think why has islam forbidden dogs... Who would like such scene.. who would like such a dog with in the family.... Only athiest will do because it fun for them........ and shame on the girl in the video she is laughing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GUSME-mXEs

It's such a shame for all the dogs lover.. They should die after watching this video.. The video I am posting here is clear evidence why dogs aren't in Islam but you people are denial... No one can convince It doesn't matter how harder some tries... Keep dogs with yourselves and with your family... they will provide a company to your family... Actaully i don't want to go into the detail of this issue..... I am sure you would get point... Why I am posting such video here... The...

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

Corkeen dogs will lead some serious problem to your psychology and health and when the destruction begin remember me....

Ah now, whatever about dogs, leave the ones from Cork alone.

P.

joseph brand

Originally Posted by dead one
Corkeen dogs will lead some serious problem to your psychology and health and when the destruction begin remember me....

How many Corkeen dogs do you have? I've been witnessing your mental deterioration for some time now.

dead one

joseph brand wrote: »

How many Corkeen dogs do you have? I've been witnessing your mental deterioration for some time now.

my mental deterioration .. Is that a problem for you... If it is problem then keep a dog that eats its own sh!t .. don't bother to quote me again...I am tired your mental deterioration.. Are you feeling something by now

Corkfeen

dead one wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61316.php
One example of dogs being beneficial for your health. It's also better to backup your claims rather than posting YouTube videos of dogs eating crap.(Which is highly unusual) Name a few of the diseases that I've picked up from owning a dog? I'd also like to know why the vast majority of the world isn't dropping dead from the diseases which apparently all dogs are spreading.

I don't believe in you example... I believe in evidence ... The evidence I have seen that dogs eat their own sh!t... and you're saying dogs are beneficial for you health... Holy cow... I don't believe in these artical written by dogs sellers as to fool humanity as its the only way to sell their dogs... Corkeen dogs will lead some serious problem to your psychology and health and when the destruction begin remember me....

I'll apply your reasoning to humans. Humans have been known to eat humans and even crap so that must mean all humans eat crap and engage in cannibalism, that includes you dead one. You haven't proven anything sir. Other than the fact that you are severely lacking in a basic education. YouTube videos of dogs doing different things is not a valid source. And I've had people in their eighties living in our house who enjoyed the company of dogs.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

House smelling like dog. That's big disadvantage of dog... You get smell from dog and it can hurt people to whom you meat...

All animals smell, ever smell a kitty litter box after a male cat has used it, worse than any dog I've smelled. My sister has had lizards, friends have had rabbits, they all smell. Its not that hard to keep them clean though, even for indoors (wash them, brush their fur, keep their coat trim etc).

dead one wrote: »

But you've your desires.. Sometime dogs are very expensive to keep... You could use the same money to help needy... Are dogs more important in this world than human who are suffering...

All animals are expensive. Many are as, or more, expensive than dogs to keep. So why single out dogs? People spend too much money on everything, from designer shoes to sports cars. Should we eliminate all superfluous spending and give all of our money to the poor?

dead one wrote: »

I have justified my claims but you people are denial.... The evidence itself can't convince you then what am I...Keeping a dog requires time and you're wasting your life with these dogs instead of your human fellow being like mothers fathers... This is also one of the reason why children don't respect their elders in western society.. Why fathers/mother have been left when they reach to old age... Such a shame

People ignore their grand parents in favour of dogs? Have you ever had a pet dog? Is it even common in your country? (I know you are not from Ireland, I assume you live in a middle eastern country?). I dont think you actually know anything about dogs from experience. You are making up stuff, or reading it from some apologists websites.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Why should I risk myself.. When there is no need to keep a dogs... why should i waste my life with dogs then wash my hands again and again...Everything in the world happen for a reason.. Why are you people keeping a dog when there is no need to keep it..

Why do people buy designer shoes, why do they read fiction, or go to the gym? Because it fulfils something in them. Dogs, once treated well and taken care, offer no more risk than any other animal and actually give a lot of love and companionship back (Corkfeen's link talks about the mental health aspects of owning a pet).

Discodog

Not long after getting my Saluki I was in London & we were approached by a group of Muslim men - we were in Regents Park near the Mosque. One man bent down & stroked the dog, he even let her lick his hand. He was an Imam & he started to explain how a Saluki was special & revered. He told me that Saluki was a special word that separated the Saluki from the normal dog Kelb.

I became fascinated by the history & I obtained a copy of a TV program broadcast on RTE. It featured Salukis in Saudi Arabia & at one point an expert discusses how a Saluki is not considered a dog & may share a man's home & his food. They they cut to a shot of Salukis sitting around next to men whilst they were eating.

Vera H Watkins in her book Saluki Companion of Kings also describes the unique status of the Saluki in Islam. The exemption only applies to the Saluki which was then known as the Persian Greyhound & the breed has been retained as pure for over 5000 years - making it the oldest defined breed of dog. So the Saluki was seen as special long before the birth of Islam.

The status of the Saluki is shown by the fact that it features on the stamps of many Islamic countries. These images also show the wide variation on appearance between the different coat types.

mosi

From what I can see by doing internet searches, there seems to be a number of different interpretations and contradictions regarding dogs and Islam.
It appears that in some stories, the Prophet prayed while dogs were playing around him. I have also seen how different traditions in Islam appear to hold alternate views on dogs - while some consider dogs to be unclean, others consider the saliva, but not the hair to be impure. I have also read that the Sunni Maliki school considers dogs to be pure.

I also find it very interesting - and this related to my original post - that some dogs - such as the saluki, sloughi and similar, appear to have traditionally held an elevated status as compared to others. Many articles indicate that these hunting dogs were allowed into the home. Furthermore, amongst Arab peoples, the Saluki is referrred to as "al-Hurr" or "El Hor", the "noble one", rather than "kelb", the word for other dogs.
http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197302/al-hurr.the.noble.one.htm
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/714041375

What makes these dogs so different? I would guess that a key historical differentiation may be between that of a prized hunting hound and a feral street dog. It has been suggested that the designation of dogs as unclean may originate in the prevalence of rabies in the region during the time of the Prophet. Also, it would be fair to surmise that the flea, tick and worming treatments that we use today, were not - and still are not, in many parts of the world - available. There is a problem with this theory though...

Much has been made on this thread of the supposed unhygenic nature of dogs with regard to disease, certain habits etc. However, cats appear to be acceptable in Islam, yet cats may carry just as many of the diseases that dogs are supposed to. Cats can have rabies (in countries where the disease occurs), while toxoplasmosis may be caused by cat faeces. Of course, as with the canine equivalent, occurences of this are extremely rare. Like dogs, cats also lick their own behinds. Both animals then, can be seen to have some unseemly habits and can carry zoonotic diseases, yet why are cats accepted? I would love to know, particularly in light of the implication here that people who live with dogs will all die a horrible death as a result.

There are other theories as to where the problem with dogs came from. Some indicated that the issue was picked up on as some pre-Islamic cultures took issue with dogs - particularly black dogs, a superstition that was also common in Europe. As we are all aware, religions have historically sought to incorporate some elements of existing traditions in order to successfully convert the masses (our own St Brigid for example, is also a goddess in pre-Christian traditions). Conversely, it it suggested elswhere (Mary Boyce, 1979, "Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p. 252), that early Islam was not particularly averse to dogs, but that the hostility to them was fostered with the Islamic conquest of Persia (Iran), as part of the subugation of the indigenous Zoroastrians who considered dogs to be sacred.

Whatever the origins and interpretations, it helps nobody to try and use pseudo-scientific ideas and random Youtube videos to try and cast dogs as unclean. As has been said by other posters, if dogs were so diseased, then all of us who have kept them for many years, would be horribly ill. Indeed, many studies show that children who grow up with pets have stronger immune systems and are less likely to suffer allergies than those who do not. Furthermore, dog ownership has been proven, in numerous studies, to have many health benefits
http://www.rte.ie/worldanimalweek/benefits/index.html

Finally, I think it should stand to reason that the interpretations of what dogs are permissible or not, or where they should be kept, could be adapted to modern society. After all, living conditions in the time and place of the Prophet are vastly different now. For example, pet dogs today may also be said to provide a guarding duty, by alerting their owners to anyone approaching. In some circumstances, particularly in city houses or apartments, this duty is best performed by the dog being in the house. Similarly, given the aforementioned health benefits of dog ownership, surely these give the dog a "purpose" compatible with Islam?

getz

dead one wrote: »

my mental deterioration .. Is that a problem for you... If it is problem then keep a dog that eats its own sh!t .. don't bother to quote me again...I am tired your mental deterioration.. Are you feeling something by now

why dont you say it as it is,the reason islam has a ban on dogs isent because of disease,its because that muhammad ruled that the angels would not answer his prayers because all blackdogs were devils and they would not come into his house with them there,strange really because dogs would travel with him and hang around his camp fires

partyatmygaff

dead one's "reasoning":
Untrained (Uncivilised) dogs can do things that may lead to disease --> No pet dogs of any kind in an Islamic house : Evidence = Youtube videos

Uncivilised humans are equally capable of doing things that may lead to the spread of disease. By dead one's way of thinking, no humans should stay in an Islamic house.

It's an embarrassingly poor reason to explain why people shouldn't keep dogs as pets.

getz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

dead one's "reasoning":
Untrained (Uncivilised) dogs can do things that may lead to disease --> No pet dogs of any kind in an Islamic house : Evidence = Youtube videos

Uncivilised humans are equally capable of doing things that may lead to the spread of disease. By dead one's way of thinking, no humans should stay in an Islamic house.

It's an embarrassingly poor reason to explain why people shouldn't keep dogs as pets.

like everthing in life,its all down to religious interpretation,many islamic and christian laws of the passed no longer make any sense .no longer religious inquisitions [christion] or shooting a jew hiding behind a rock [islam],when i walk my bullie down the street i get all sort of reactions from our muslim british citizens,from the young islamic children running over wanting to pat and kiss him when at the same time their mother stands well away in fear,so its down to your religious upbringing and westernization

wildlifeboy

dead one wrote: »

House smelling like dog. That's big disadvantage of dog... You get smell from dog and it can hurt people to whom you meat... But you've your desires.. Sometime dogs are very expensive to keep... You could use the same money to help needy... Are dogs more important in this world than human who are suffering... I have justified my claims but you people are denial.... The evidence itself can't convince you then what am I...Keeping a dog requires time and you're wasting your life with these dogs instead of your human fellow being like mothers fathers... This is also one of the reason why children don't respect their elders in western society.. Why fathers/mother have been left when they reach to old age... Such a shame

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you complete clown, I have found either the biggest troll or the biggest knobend on the internet!

Discodog

mosi wrote: »

Finally, I think it should stand to reason that the interpretations of what dogs are permissible or not, or where they should be kept, could be adapted to modern society. After all, living conditions in the time and place of the Prophet are vastly different now. For example, pet dogs today may also be said to provide a guarding duty, by alerting their owners to anyone approaching. In some circumstances, particularly in city houses or apartments, this duty is best performed by the dog being in the house. Similarly, given the aforementioned health benefits of dog ownership, surely these give the dog a "purpose" compatible with Islam?

Of course they do but, like every other religion, Islam ignores the passage of time & progress. 2000 years ago Saluki's were very rare as they could only be owned by Nobility - even today you cannot buy a Saluki in Saudi, you have to be given one. A neighbour of mine used to live in Saudi as her husband was the Irish Ambassador - they received two Salukis as a gift to mark his appointment.

By the time that Islam was becoming established the Saluki was only kept by Royalty & those appointed by them so it was seen as a status symbol. So much so that Tintoretto painted a Saluki at the feet of Jesus to show his significance as a King. There are other dogs that are just as good at hunting but the Saluki was perceived as being special which may be why it is singled out in Islam.

The problem with every religion is that the texts & teachings are interpreted by those with a vested interest. Very few people were able to read & over time different branches of religions interpret the "teachings" in different ways.

dead one wrote: »

I know it stupid to post such video here, but it is related to article why Islam is religion of nature... Thank you

I find it disappointing that someone who advocates the goodness & benefit of Islam chooses such images to support their opinion. You should be promoting your faith & not seeking reason to defame the faith of others.

getz wrote: »

,when i walk my bullie down the street i get all sort of reactions from our muslim british citizens,from the young islamic children running over wanting to pat and kiss him when at the same time their mother stands well away in fear,so its down to your religious upbringing and westernization

I lived next to a lovely Muslim family in the UK. They welcomed my dogs, even into their house. When I mentioned that I thought dogs were banned my neighbour said "You welcome my family to your home & I welcome yours to mine" - he treated the dogs as if they were my children. He even bought bags of off cuts from the Shish Kebabs as treats for them.

wildlifeboy

Lets not forget that all dogs Salukis included are the same species so Saluki or Chihuahua make absolutely no difference!

Discodog

wildlifeboy wrote: »

Lets not forget that all dogs Salukis included are the same species so Saluki or Chihuahua make absolutely no difference!

I agree. The fact that one breed is revered which others are banned is bizarre. But you have to think of the mindset 2000 years ago.