Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FuuuuuManChu t1_j98n5gu wrote

They also believe that having dog as pet is haram (working dog like shepherd dog is tolerated because function).

5

[deleted] t1_j98o7x7 wrote

[deleted]

24

aelephix t1_j992bp0 wrote

Holy shit you just uncovered a memory I’ve been repressing for a long time. When I was selling my house in Michigan around 2008 (just before the real estate crash) I had an offer on the house that was amazing. They did a walk through and loved it. We had two cats and a dog but I made sure to remove all evidence of pets before they arrived. We arranged for an inspector a few days later. On that day my plan was to go get the pets 30 minutes before their arrival. They show up at the house an hour early with my realtor and the inspector. When they go inside the wife sees my dog (in her crate) and absolutely loses her mind. Like screaming. My realtor calls me up frantic saying they want to withdraw their offer as nobody told them a dog had been living in the house and they felt entirely deceived. In the end I ended up paying for an extremely expensive professional cleaning service that sanitized the entire house. That was when I learned this TIL.

21

myc-space t1_j98rzia wrote

Ah dang, that’s too bad. We don’t deserve dogs. If there is a better example of god wanting us to be happy and have companionship than the existence of dogs, I don’t know what is. I’m not a believer, but my assumption is that a benevolent, all powerful god wouldn’t make a judgement call on which animal we’re allowed to love based on how much carpet cleaning we’ll have to do.

3

listyraesder t1_j98uz26 wrote

Yahweh (the god of Jews, Christians, Muslims etc) isn’t supposed to be benevolent. It is supposed to be a tyrant. This “god is love” stuff is a relatively recent rebranding exercise.

−8

[deleted] t1_j994i9k wrote

[deleted]

−1

momolamomo t1_j99ck0s wrote

Except there were feral cats back then, along with wild goats and feral camels. He only applied the condition on the dog, so he’s singled them Out, healthy or not. So your argument doesn’t hold water

2

[deleted] t1_j99e2ti wrote

[deleted]

1

momolamomo t1_j99e8h8 wrote

Except old mate mohamad wasn’t talking about danger. He was saying that the animal, regardless if it’s clean or not, is not pure, spiritually. He goes on to describe that angels “refuse” to enter a home that contains a dog. Mohamad was NOT talking about danger.

He needed something unique to seperate his new religion from Other religions

5

claraalberta t1_j9aw93n wrote

It's a ritualistic cleaning, once with water mixed with soil and another seven times with just water. In countries like Malaysia there are also products like soap with the soil incorporated in it for convenience.

[The schools of Islamic jurisprudence (not to be confused with the Sunni/Shi'a denominations) disagree on whether dogs are najis (i.e. unclean). In practice, it really... depends on the Muslim whether they consider dogs unclean as a whole or by part. Growing up, I was taught the Shafi'i opinion that dogs as a whole are unclean, but in the last 10 years I had adjusted this principle to the Maliki opinion that the saliva of wild dogs are unclean.]

3

Gilamath t1_j9bs9au wrote

Actually, the Maliki position you mentioned is a minority position, though it is the majority position of the Hanafis. The Maliki majority consensus is that, so long as the dog is alive, it is pure (najasa). This is because dogs are animals, and all animals are pure when they are alive

Upon death, unless they were killed in the name of God for a clear purpose and killed in a way that minimizes pain to the greatest feasible degree, they are impure to touch (this, of course, is the basis of “zabihah”). However, transforming the remains of the animal, for instance my tanning its hide, removes its impurities. Thus, Malikis will say that pig leather is pure, but boar-bristle brushes are impure, for instance

The other Sunni schools disagree with this, and I believe the Jafaris come to somewhat similar conclusions but using a different logic. I’m afraid I’m not quite sure, though

2

An_Atheist_God t1_j998ymr wrote

> 1- Keeping dogs in Islam is not permissible except for hunting or guarding livestock and crops. 2- It is permissible to keep dogs for guarding houses so long as that is outside the city and that there is no other means of guarding the house. 3- The Muslim should not imitate others by running with the dog or touching its mouth and kissing it, which causes many diseases.

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/69840

1

[deleted] t1_j99b9wz wrote

[deleted]

12

An_Atheist_God t1_j99niy9 wrote

>For almost every question you ask in Islam, the answer will depend on the sector

True

>The majority, but not all, to my knowledge do not agree with your source.

This is one of the largest and most popular fatwa site

2

Gilamath t1_j9bsuc7 wrote

They generally give Hanbali opinions. This fatwa site may be popular, but its opinions often reflect only a small portion of Muslim scholarship. The Maliki school entirely disagrees with this fatwa. This is why fatawa are not universal religious decrees, because Islam is a decentralized religion that is characterized by dissent, debate, and mutual respect for each other‘s points of view. We have lost this to an extent over the last 50 years, but for well over 13 centuries this has been how we have done things. There is always enough room for one more opinion or one more argument

2

momolamomo t1_j99ce1k wrote

This is a fatwa. It isn’t law. There’s a difference

1