Why can't Muslims touch dogs?

As a Muslim something you learn very early is that you don't touch dogs. 

You just don't do it. 

They're dirty.

If you are like I was and inclined to wonder why Islam considers them dirty, then you'll probably come across all the hadith I mentioned in my first blog (and as a Muslim at that point probably stop any questioning because 'the Prophet clearly said it') and then you'll come across forums, blogs, videos and all sorts of online fatwas essentially saying the same thing in differing shades.

Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Muslims who see through the whole dog issue, but they aren't many.

The vast majority of practising Muslims stay away from dogs - you believe they are filthy, that you will not be able to read prayers, that angels will leave your side and all sorts.

I came across this video of Dr Zakir Naik who answers the oft asked question, "Why can't Muslims touch dogs?"

Have a watch....then let's think it through and you'll start to see where my issues with what has become to be known as 'Islam' began and why I had to get to grips with hadith literature and the schools of Sunni law (fiqh).


So, as you saw he is asked the question by an audibly shaken and upset young lady who has a dog and is being told it is a sin and that she has even left the fold of Islam!

Firstly, let's give it up for the Doc for at least clarifying that if you have a dog it doesn't make you an unbeliever. Or did he?

Let's look at his answer with regards to not keeping or touch dogs.

He clearly states, and remember people will take his opinion as fact, that keeping a dog other than for hunting or protecting your house (if it lives outside) is not allowed. It is "prohibited".

He could not be clearer could he?

As I really felt quite puzzled about these sorts of answers when I first started thinking about wanting a dog, I asked myself, "based on what though?" What is this no-dogs policy based on? It certainly isn't the Quran which tells us the story of the Sleepers in the Cave and their faithful dog. So, it's based totally on hadith. Hadith such as...

 “Whoever keeps a dog, a qiraat from his good deeds will be deducted every day, except a dog for farming or herding livestock.” 
Al-Bukhaari (2145) narrated from Abu Hurayrah 

 ...and....

“Whoever keeps a dog that is not a dog for hunting, herding livestock or farming, two qiraats will be deducted from his reward each day.” 
Muslim (2978) narrated from Abu Hurayrah

Wait what?

Yes, both narrated from Abu Huraryrah but one found its way into Bukhari's hadith and the other into Muslim's hadith, but one says a dog owner will be deducted one qiraat and the other two?

Isn't this a complete contradiction?

And furthermore doesn't this show how utterly unreliable hadith are as a source of law? You are taught that the hadith have been trustworthy and reliable but how can this be so when you have such a blatant contradiction?

Some people are able to find excuses and reasoning, but who are they and what do they really know? Look at this as an example from Islam QA.

"And it was said that that at first the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that one qiraat would be deducted, then the punishment was increased after that, so he said that two qiraats would be deducted in order to put people off from keeping dogs even more."

Said by who? Come on seriously? Yet another thing we as Muslims have to rely on in terms of "he said to so and so who said to so and so who said to so and so", just like hadith. I can't accept that any longer. And also this is completely stupid because it would mean people were disobeying the Prophet during his lifetime - and if his companions, followers and the first generation of Muslims did not obey his commands, meaning he had to repeat himself and double punishments, then doesn't that make a mockery of this idea that the first Muslims were somehow righteous and pure and the best of all Muslims?

Also this is just the most basic and simple example of getting rid of the problem of the utter contradiction between the two hadith - the hadith might very well be true but the fact that there are two versions show someone fiddled their numbers (probably upwards) to make the keeping of dog double trouble. But as a 'believer', you believe - you totally believe and accept. It's classic group think.

The real problem this points to are the hadith.

How they were collated, by who, who for, why, when and the almighty mess that Islam has created, especially the Ahle Sunnah (Sunnis), due to this blind following of hadith? It's ruined Islam - it's made it something it never was meant to be.

If you are a Muslim I sincerely plead you to look at hadith collection and look at it objectively, in context, using history, common sense, etc. Do not just accept what you are being told. It's full of holes. It's full on unreliable people. It's full of lies. It has human error written all over it.  It's tainted by power and politics. Hadith are a scandal, not in themselves, but for what the scholars and the Ummah have allowed them to become. Anyone can defend any crazy cause now off the back of a hadith - it's designed to be capitalized upon by those in the power, whether at the time of Muawiyah or in current day Saudi Arabia. 

Hadith have led Muslims astray!


Dr Naik's answer is a perfect example of this - how can this be Islam, the religion of The Creator of the Universe?  If anything Islam has removed human beings from experiencing God's creation and the love that comes with having a dog. Any dog owner will tell you its unique and special and they have been saying this since forever!

How does Dr Naik rationalise Islam's stance on dogs? Simple, the hadith say you can only have one for hunting or protection (who the hell keeps cattle and sheep now? or goes hunting?) and on top of that the Prophet also tells us the saliva is dirty.

Ah the saliva! Yes of course. And for good measure Dr Naik, a Doctor, adds in some science to prove that dogs saliva can give us diseases such as hydrophobia. Scary shit - no wonder the Prophet said stay away. But real science has shown that actually a dog's mouth is no better or worse than ours - it all comes down to things like diet, cleanliness, etc. 

Also ask yourself how many people with dogs you know who have ever caught a disease. He says in the video that if you pet a dog, you do so on the head because the dog's tongue can not reach it. 

:)

Did he make that up on the spot? It's not very intelligent. Anyone who has a dog knows they lick their paws and legs and then run their ears, head and pretty much all over their body. So, it's actually really bad advice if you believe that their saliva is filthy.

So sorry, but this whole saliva thing is bullshit - again it's based on the hadith of a dog licking a vessel and the Prophet saying it should be cleaned with dirt 3 times.  Dr Naik again bamboozles his audience by stating that science has shown that nothing cleans off the dog's bacteria more effectively than dirt. Whatever. You think all those Prophets who were shepherds were panicking about all this? I don't.

And did you notice the very subtle language he used when discussing the questioner's Muslim credentials? He said "...you have to agree with the Prophet who said it's prohibited to keep dogs because.....", in other words, if she did not believe that the Prophet made this ruling and if she also disagrees with it, she is not a Muslim. Unbelievable.