Is There Any Leeway in Keeping A Pet Canine?

The moment in history when Muslims began to see dogs as dirty, impure, and evil

Dogs in Islam, as they are in Rabbinic Judaism, are conventionally thought of as ritually impure. This idea taps into a long tradition that considers even the mere sight of a dog during prayer to have the power to nullify a pious Muslim’s supplications. Similar to many other mistakenly viewed aspects of Islamic history, today both most Muslims and non-Muslims think that Islam and dogs don’t mix.

There is, however, quite a different unknown strand of thinking about dogs in Islam, a long history of positive interactions between Muslims and dogs that goes back to the religion’s very beginnings. According to several authoritative accounts of his life and teachings, Prophet Muhammad himself prayed in the presence of dogs. Many of his cousins and companions, the world’s first Muslims, raised young puppies. In the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina, the second holiest site in the world for Muslims after the Kaaba, dogs were regularly seen frolicking about during the prophet’s life and for centuries after as well.

It’s no surprise that the first Muslims had so many dogs. Most of them kept large flocks of sheep and goats, and dogs helped to manage and protect these other animals, preventing them from running away and scaring off would-be thieves and predators. Sheep and goats were these early Muslims’ food and capital, and dogs helped to protect these investments.

Canines were also crucial companions during hunting expeditions. Long before Islam, dogs were depicted in stone carvings from ancient Egypt and Iraq running alongside their human owners. Muslims continued this use of dogs.

As Islam spread throughout the Middle East and the world, it moved from being a religion of nomadic peoples to one centered in cities. Many of the world’s largest cities in the millennium between 700 and 1700 were Muslim cities. As they did in the countryside, in cities too dogs played vital roles. They of course continued to protect property and shoo away intruders, but in cities dogs served an even more important function—they ate garbage. From Damascus and Baghdad to Cairo and Istanbul, urban authorities supported dog populations as consumers of waste to keep city streets clean. Muslim leaders built watering troughs for dogs, many mosques threw out food for them, and butchers used them to keep away rats and other vermin. Humans who committed violence against urban canines were often punished. Muslim cities were much cleaner and more pleasant places with dogs than without them.

All of this meant that Muslims throughout the world were in regular daily contact with the many dogs in their midst. They recognized how useful canines were as guards and cleaning agents and, we can only presume, developed quite intimate relationships with them built around regular contact and the kind of affection bred from codependence.

Given this history, where then did the idea that Islam is only hostile to dogs come from? The short answer is disease. About two hundred years ago, ideas about contagion began to change. Still very far from what we would today recognize as germ theory, people in the Middle East, Europe, and elsewhere started to notice a correlation between outbreaks of plague, cholera, and malaria and the physical proximity of victims to places like cemeteries, garbage heaps, and swampy lakes. City planners and governments throughout the Middle East therefore started to excise these sources of disease from the increasingly crowded districts in which their people lived. As they collected and then pushed garbage outside city walls, they also unwittingly removed the dogs that ate this trash. Dogs used to keep streets clean. Now humans did.

The historic connections between dogs and trash did not serve the animal well. Not only was there simply less garbage to eat in cities, but the garbage that did remain was now seen as a threat to public hygiene and soon too were its canine consumers. Indeed, in just a few decades in the early nineteenth century, dogs came to be seen as both economically useless and hazardous to public health. The results? Several large-scale dog eradication campaigns, far fewer dogs in Middle Eastern cities, and a change in attitude toward the animal. No longer useful and productive urban residents, dogs were now seen as dangerous, disease-ridden, and expendable.

This relatively recent sea change in Muslim attitudes towards dogs explains the dominant view of the animal today. While of course opinions vary and the elite in many Muslim countries keep dogs as status symbols, the majority of Muslims see dogs as dirty, impure, sometimes even evil. As with so much in the Islamic past today, the history of dogs is thus misunderstood by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Most don’t know and many would likely not be open to the idea that dogs were treasured by the Prophet and millions of Muslims after him.

For those of us—Muslims or otherwise—whose most regular interaction with a living nonhuman animal is with a dog, the story of dogs in Islam offers another lesson as well. Humans did not always keep dogs for affection, love, or cuteness. For most of history, they were not pets. They were laborers, economic necessities, hunters, and street cleaners. Apart from dogs that sniff drugs, aid the blind, or chase criminals, very few of us today experience dogs as anything other than that joy that licks our face in the morning. However, throughout history they’ve been much more. Knowing this past not only gives us a fuller picture of the most ubiquitous nonhuman animal we welcome in our midst, but it also helps us to understand how our histories with other animals have shaped our current world.

Alan Mikhail, Professor of History at Yale University, is the author of The Animal in Ottoman Egypt and, most recently, Under Osman’s Tree: The Ottoman Empire, Egypt and Environmental History.

Source

FATWA: On Hadith regarding Angels not entering homes with dogs and other misconceptions: Shaykh Abou El Fadl

Asalaamu Aleikum Dr. El Fadl:

    

My name is [Name Withheld for Privacy] and I would like to begin this email by saying Jazaka Allahu Khairan; I recently became aware of you and some of the works you've published. I've read excerpts from "Conference of the Books," particularly the chapter regarding dogs in Islam. I want to say that the information you provided in that chapter was honestly a God-send. I felt conflicted for so long because on one hand I was being told by the community and people I trusted knew better than myself (I am a convert of ten years Alhamdu Lillaah) that dogs are 'haram,' or 'unclean,' or 'cursed;' but on the other hand, I know Allah to be merciful, and couldn't possibly imagine that such loyal, merciful, wonderful animals could possibly be 'haram.' Your information, research, and explanations really helped to clarify what I knew in my heart and in my instincts to be true, and I thank you 1000 times for providing the information you shared. 

    

My question is, however, not about the issue of dogs and cleanliness, but regarding a particular Hadith I've heard mentioned many times about angels refusing to enter the homes of those who own dogs. I was hoping you could please help clear this up...? I cannot imagine this to be true, but I would greatly appreciate an explanation and breakdown of this Hadith, if possible, so that I may be able to respond appropriately when my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters try to offer friendly advice. Additionally, I want to be sure my choice to own my dog is permissible.

    

I am sorry to bother you, as I'm sure you probably receive hundreds of emails a day. I came to you for help, however, because the internet can be full of bad information, and my local imam is one that believes dogs are 'haram.' Therefore, I felt that my best chance at getting the best information would be to come to you directly. I humble myself before you and respectfully request your assistance in the matter. I would be most obliged, and forever grateful for your help. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration, and may Allah bestow many blessings upon you and your family.  

    

Jazaka Allahu Khairan,

Asalaamu Aleikum,

[Name Withheld for Privacy]

******************************************************************************

Response:

Al-salamu ‘alaykum and Ramadan Mubarak for you and your family and loved ones. I pray that Allah bestows upon you the gift of peace, balance and beauty, and that God guides you to the righteous path. Thank you for your message and inquiry. You asked specifically about the hadith attributed to the Prophet that angels will not enter a place or an abode where may exist. The report to which you refer typically states that angels will not enter a dwelling that has dogs or pictures. In most versions, the narration of the report is attributed to Abu Huraira, with a few versions attributed to others. I thought I should respond to your message because of the opportunity to address this specific narration. There are several important points to make here: 

1) All the versions of this report claim that angels will not enter a dwelling that contains dogs or pictures. By the terms of this report, it would follow that angels would not enter a place that has passport pictures, or drivers’ licenses or any document that has a picture. This is blatantly unreasonable and this constitutes a serious substantive problem with this narration; 

2) This report is rather inconsistent with the Qur’anic narrative on dogs, in which we are told in the chapter on the people of the cave that they were a particularly pious group of people and the subject of a great miracle and blessing from Allah. And yet, the Qur’an is careful to point out that the people of the cave were accompanied by a dog, and that both humans and the dog were the subject of God’s miracle and grace. It would be rather incongruous to claim that angels did not accompany the people of the cave because they had a dog, or at the very minimum, it would be extremely speculative to pretend that a blessed and pious people mentioned in the Qur’an were denied the presence of angels because of their dog; 

3) More importantly, this hadith makes a claim as to a matter of ‘aqidah (an article of faith) because it addresses a question involving the absence or presence of angels who are in the world of ghayb (or the unseen). Yet this hadith was categorized by all scholars of hadith to address a question of adab (a question of etiquette or proper social conduct). A hadith that could be considered credible enough to inform a question involving adab cannot be considered effective in matters involving ‘aqidah. Put differently, adab hadith or hadith that arise from the category of social etiquette are too low on the totem pole of authenticity and weight and thus, cannot be counted as effective or of sufficient weight to affect a question that involves faith. Hadith that establish articles of faith or ‘aqidah are typically mutawatir (of cumulative transmission) and therefore, of high authenticity, while hadith of adab, such as the one in question, are typically ahad (of singular transmission) and of much lower authenticity. To believe the angels enter or abstain from entering any particular place is a very serious matter and can only be established or negated by either the Qur’an or hadith of the highest level of authenticity. Hadith of singular transmission, such as the one in question, cannot either affirm or deny a matter involving the celestial world of angels and the like; 

4) It must be recognized then that when a hadith of singular transmission is declared to be sahih (or authentic) in Bukhari or Muslim or the other collections of hadith, all that means is that in the opinion of Bukhari or Muslim, there is a 51% chance, ie. a simple probability that the Prophet actually said what is attributed to him. A 51% chance is insufficient to affirm or deny matters of faith (‘aqidah), such as where angels dwell or do not dwell. What militates against this hadith is that many of the hadith that are demeaning to dogs or anti-pictures or anti-women have been attributed to Abu Huraira. Whether Abu Huraira narrated these hadiths or not is a very big question. But in all cases, scholars of usul (jurisprudence) know that this typology of hadith, ie. hadith involving pictures, women or dogs, and prayer, angels or purity, are suspect, which means that one cannot just simply quote them as if they establish a truth or a fact, or as if they are indicative of Allah’s will without careful analysis and reflection; 

5) As I have stated elsewhere, historically, dogs were an important symbolic issue in the past. On the one hand, they represented loyalty, faithfulness and companionship, but on the other, dogs were a source of a vicious plague, ie. rabies, and were also used by despotic forces to hunt down and torture political dissenters and accused heretics. So, we know for instance that not just in the Islamic world but in the medieval world generally, dogs inspired wonderful literary works, but at the same time, figured prominently in literature as a source of illness, death and torment. In the Roman world and the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, political dissenters, after being executed, had their corpses hung with the corpse of a poor murdered dog. The reason the corpse of a dog was hung with the corpse of a political dissenter was that it was a way of insulting the corpse and claiming power and dominance over the tribe, family or clan of the dissenter. Interestingly, one of the major tribes that first supported the Umayyads and then later rebelled against them and supported the Abbasids were known as the tribe of Kelb (dog). My point here is that dogs featured symbolically in politics and social narratives. So, when we have a narration in which it is claimed that Abu Huraira claimed to have heard the Prophet say that angels will not enter a place that has dogs or pictures, we have an affirmative duty to inquire into the historical circumstance that might have put such a report into circulation. Interestingly, although medieval scholars were aware of the existence of this hadith, it was never relied upon in discourses on theology and faith until the modern age. This is largely the influence of the Wahhabi school, which does not draw a distinction between hadith of singular transmission versus hadith of cumulative transmission and similarly, does not differentiate between the strength of a hadith’s authenticity and its impact in questions of faith or otherwise; 

6) It is a true tragedy that contemporary Muslims continue to rely on palpably unreasonable hadith such as the one in question. Quite simply, we should ask, why would angels not enter a place that has dogs? What singles out dogs as opposed to cockroaches, flies or mice? It is unquestioned in even the most conservative or Wahhabi schools that Muslims may own dogs for protection or hunting. So, are we to believe that angels will stay away from places simply because they have a guard dog on duty or because there is a hunting dog under a roof? Even the most Wahhabi of scholars have not dared to claim that angels will not enter a place that has a picture of the King or other members of the Royal Family. But yet, by the terms of this hadith, angels would have abandoned the entire earth because our earth is full of pictures everywhere, most obviously on the Internet on every personal computer. Are we to believe that because pictures on Facebook and selfies are zipping through the electronic atmosphere that angels will abandon Earth?

7) As I am sure you know, dogs are among God’s wonderful and beautiful creatures. We are taught that a prostitute was forgiven her sins because she saved the life of a dog, and we are taught that the people of the cave were selected by God for a great miracle, although as the Qur’an points out, they were in the company of a faithful and loving dog. What in these amazing and beautiful creatures would cause angels such aversion and disgust that they would stay away from a space that they occupy? I wish Muslims would use their intellects and hearts before they slander and vilify a great religion such as Islam, which is the truth that comes to us from God containing everything full of mercy, compassion and beauty. I am sure you agree that it does not sound merciful, compassionate or beautiful to claim that angels abandon a place where God’s creatures dwell, even if that creature is a mouse, a rat or a fly. It is my sincere belief that the reasons for this narrative are found in the creative symbolisms of history and in the political conflicts of the past (the same thing with many of the patriarchal hadith demeaning to women). And it is also my sincere belief that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) never uttered this hadith. I say this ever mindful that Allah knows best. Please ask God to forgive me my trespasses and bless us all.

Wa al-salamu ‘alaykum,

Shaykh Abou El Fadl

WATCHFUL EYES - A Muslim Woman and Her Dog

Animal Rights in Islam

Comment: one of the most pathetic ways Islamophobes malign Muslims and Islam is to say we are cruel to animals. They misquote hadith and write absolute rubbish to try and back up their stupid points. I would like everyone to know I love dogs. I also love cats, elephants, horses and rabbits etc etc. Isn't the above a beautiful dog, subhan Allah!

Islam not only has laid down the rights for humans regardless of race, color, language and riches, but has also laid down the rights for animals. Animals, like humans are one of the creations of Allah(swt). Prophet Muhammad(saw) was not only sent as a mercy to Mankind but as a blessing to all creatures as the Quran testifies: 

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures. – [Quran 21:107]

It is encouraged for Muslim to let Animals eat of the plants that they have planted. Prophet Muhammad(saw) is reported to have said: 
 

Narated By Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity." – [Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 73, #41] Even if an animal eats from a plant which has been planted by man, the person will receive rewards for it. Moreover, another hadith is as follows: 

Narated By Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "While a man was walking on a road. he became very thirsty. Then he came across a well, got down into it, drank (of its water) and then came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. The man said to himself "This dog is suffering from the same state of thirst as I did." So he went down the well (again) and filled his shoe (with water) and held it in his mouth and watered the dog. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals?" He said, "(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being)." – [Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 73, #38] & [Muslim Book 26, Chapter 39, # 5577] 

Prophet Muhammad(saw) taught people to be kind to animals. Allah(swt) rewarded the act of the person who quenched the thirst of a thirsty dog. While men were accustomed to be cruel to the animals, Prophet Muhammad(saw) by the command of Allah(swt) taught Mankind to be merciful and kind to all living things. Not only were humans given their rights, the animals too were given theirs. Islam is a religion which teaches man to be merciful towards all living things. Thus there is reward for a human even if he feeds an animal. 

Animals have many purposes and are used for such by humans. This does not mean that men have the right to treat animals the way that they want to. While people would hit their animals on the face, Islam forbids such an act. Every creation is very sensitive as far as the face is concerned. If I were to lightly tap a person on the shoulder or on the back, they would not feel offended but if I were to do the same on the face then everyone would find that offensive. Allah(swt) realizes this and thus through Prophet Muhammad(saw) such an act was strictly forbidden as seen by the hadith below: 

Narated By Salim: That Ibn 'Umar disliked the branding of animals on the face. Ibn 'Umar said, "The Prophet forbade beating (animals) on the face." – [Bukhari Vol.7, Book 67, #449] & [Muslim Book 24, Chapter 21, #5281] 

During the times of ignorance (Ja’hillah) people would cut the limbs of animals while they were alive. This was a disgusting act and Islam was the religion that brought an end to this practice. Not only this but shooting at an animal who is tied was also forbidden by Prophet Muhammad(saw). 

Narated By Ibn ‘Umar: The Prophet cursed the one who did Muthla to an animal (i e., cut its limbs or some other part of its body while it is still alive). – [Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 67, #424] 

Narated By Hisham bin Zaid: Anas and I went to Al-Hakam bin Aiyub. Anas saw some boys shooting at a tied hen. Anas said, "The Prophet has forbidden the shooting of tied or confined animals." – [Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 67, #421; #422] 

While the animal rights were being laid down by Allah(swt) through Prophet Muhammad(saw), the Prophet(saw) also narrated an incident regarding a woman who imprisoned a cat and made it starve to death. 

Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." – [Bukhari Vol.4, Book 56, #689] 

This hadith clearly suggests that being brutal towards animals is a grave sin and Allah(swt) will punish him who treats the animals without kindness. It is obligatory for the owner of the animal to feed it. Many rights have been given to animals and Muslims are required to obey these guidelines for transgression would make them sinful. While oppressing humans is wrong, Islam also teaches that oppression towards animals is wrong. 

Islam gave animals rights at a time when animal rights were not recognized. Today the world is bringing awareness towards the rights of animals whereas Islam gave them their rights more than 1400 years ago. The most famous story about being kind to animals is seen when a cat came and slept on the robe of Prophet Muhammad(saw) while he was reading the Quran to the listeners. When it was time for the Prophet(saw) to get up, instead of disturbing the cat, he cut that piece of the robe and stood up. Today who would cut of a piece of their cloth so that the cat’s sleep would be undisturbed? 

Prophet Muhammad(saw) encouraged people to be good towards the animals and forbade acts which are cruel. Oppression is an evil whether the one being oppressed is human or an animal. In Tirmidhi as well as Abu Dawood it is mentioned that Prophet Muhammad(saw) prohibited the act of inciting animals against each other. This act is practiced today as well where cocks and dogs are caused to fight with each other and people place their bets. Not only does this become a sin for it falls under the category of gambling but also because two animals are caused to fight against each other. 

There are people who claim that Prophet Muhammad(saw) ordered the killing of all dogs. If one were to read the references they give it is indeed true that such an order was given. However these people will never quote the hadith which explains why such an order was given. 

Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and then said: what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina)? How dogs are nuisance to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Yahya, he (the Holy Prophet) permitted the keeping of dogs for (the protection of) herds, for hunting and (the protection of) cultivated land. – [Muslim Book 10, Chapter 31, #3814] 

When one reads this hadith one gets to learn about the context of the order. The people of Medina complained that the dogs were being a nuisance to them. This is just like today where many countries have problems with street dogs. There have been many cases where these street dogs have bitten people and transmitted diseases like Rabies. Many have even died from this disease. Due to the complains by the people regarding these stray dogs, Prophet Muhammad(saw) ordered that such dogs who are hazardous to the people should be killed. Back in those days there were not any animal shelter facilities and thus this was the only way to safeguard the people. The hadith further on explains that all dogs were not to be killed and the permission to keep dogs was also given. 

Moreover, Prophet Muhammad(saw) also instructed men not to overburden their domestic animals. Burdening a donkey with more load than that which he can easily carry is again a wrongful practice which was forbidden by Allah(swt). Even while sacrificing the animals, it is told that we are to use sharp knives and not blunt ones for the latter would cause pain and discomfort to the animals. Some people have suggested that the Islamic method of slaughtering the animal is cruel and should be stopped. This however was proven to be untrue as the animal dies a painless death. A study was carried out at the School of Veterinary Medicine by Professor Wilhelm Schulze and Dr. Hazim to detect the pain an animal feels when he is slaughtered by the Islamic way. The EEG recorded showed that with the Islamic way, the animal felt no pain and it was observed that most of the blood was thrown out of the body thus making the meat more hygienic as opposed to the captive bolt pistol stunning method. The conventional method was also observed to be painful to the animal. 

The earth has been made for all the creatures that inhabit it and thus they are given their due rights by Islam. 

And the earth hath He appointed for (His) creatures. – [Quran 55:10] 

Islam takes great care when laying down its rules and regulation and has made sure that men do not behave with cruelty towards them. Even in a state of war, the Muslims are prohibited from killing the animals in the lands of the enemies and are also prohibited to burning or cutting down trees for no reason. Indeed Islam is a mercy for everyone. It is not only a religion but a complete way of life which even secures the rights of animals.

- Ebrahim Saifuddin Source

What's Up With Muslims and Dogs?

I'm not a big follower of reality television, but was happy to hear about TLC's new reality show "All-American Muslim." We know that personal contact is the best way to break down stereotypes, but with Muslims less than 2% of the U.S. population, many Americans will never get to know a Muslim. Meeting us through reality television might not be ideal, but it's better than nothing.

After watching "All-American Muslim" for a few weeks, I now believe that the show is good for our community beyond the way it might lessen prejudice against Muslims. The additional benefit is that the show has engaged our community in discussing some of the many challenges we face making distinctions between critical religious values and flexible cultural practices. In the fourth episode, the issue of Muslims having dogs in the home came up, and this is worth further discussion.

In this episode, newlywed Arab-American Shadia tells Jeff, her Irish-American convert husband, that she does not want his dog to move with them to their new home. Shadia has allergies, and her asthma is exacerbated by the dog's hair. This is an understandable and common dilemma. But Shadia bolsters her position with statements about the impermissibility for a Muslim to have dogs in the home. Her father will not pray in the house if the dog is there, she says, because dog hair is impure and a prayer space needs to be pure. Later, Shadia backs off from the religious argument, admitting that the main reason she doesn't want a dog in the house is "I wasn't raised with dogs; I'm not used to them." I appreciated this moment of honesty. The use of a religious norm as a trump card in an argument we want to win is a temptation we all face.

So what is the Islamic position about dogs? In fact, there are a variety of opinions according to different legal schools. The majority consider the saliva of dogs to be impure, while the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs, only considering the saliva of the latter to be impure. The question for Muslims observant of other schools of law is, what are the implications of such an impurity?

These Muslims should remember that there are many other impurities present in our homes, mostly in the form of human waste, blood, and other bodily fluids. It is fairly common for such impurities to come in contact with our clothes, and we simply wash them off or change our clothes for prayer. When you have children at home, it sometimes seems you can never get away from human waste. But we manage it, often by designating a special space and clothing kept clean for prayer.

Some Muslims object to having a dog in the home because of a prophetic report that angels do not enter a home with dogs in it. If a Muslim accepts this report as authentic, it still requires an analysis of context to determine its meaning and legal application. Ordinary people are not recipients of divine revelation through angelic messengers, so it is possible that this statement, although in general form, might suggest a rule for the Prophet's home, not all homes. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact the Qur'an states that angels are always present, protecting us and recording our good and bad actions.

Whatever the implications of this report, there is no doubt that the Qur'an is positive about dogs. The Qur'an allows the use of hunting dogs, which is one of the reasons the Maliki school makes a distinction between domestic and wild dogs - since we can eat game that has been in a retriever's mouth. But most compelling is the Qur'anic description of a dog who kept company with righteous youths escaping religious persecution. The party finds shelter in a cave where God places them in a deep sleep; the Qur'an (18:18) says:

You would have thought them awake, but they were asleep And [God] turned them on their right sides then on their left sides And their dog stretched his forelegs across the threshold

This tender description of the dog guarding the cave makes it clear that the animal is good company for believers. Legal scholars might argue about the proper location of the dog - that he should stay on the threshold of the home, not inside - but home designs vary across cultures. In warm climates, an outdoor courtyard is a perfectly humane place for a dog - its physical and social needs can be met in the yard. This is not the case in cold climates, where people stay indoors most of the day for months at a time.

Extreme concern about the uncleanliness of dogs likely arose historically as Islam became more of an urban phenomenon. In medieval cities, as in modern cities in underdeveloped countries, crowding of people and animals leads to the rapid spread of disease and animal control is not a priority. A few run-ins with an aggressive or diseased animal can result in excessive caution, fear and negativity.

I have long felt badly that many Muslims fear dogs as a result of negative experiences and that they resort to confused religious reasoning to shun them. It is one of the reasons why I try to introduce my students and friends to my very sweet, very large dog Ziggy.

Ziggy came into our home to be like the dog in the cave: to keep company to my child who lies in exile from the world because of a debilitating illness. He has been nothing but a blessing - guarding the house while we sleep, forcing me to exercise daily, and showing us, as he happily follows our tiny cat around the yard, that if cats and dogs can get along so well, then we people have no excuse.

There is another reason why I love having my dog around. Ziggy came from Tennessee. He was rescued by an animal control officer who uses her own resources to save dogs who would otherwise be destroyed in a few days. Tina saves as many dogs as she can by bringing them home and putting them up for adoption on the internet. When I called Tina to speak about adopting Ziggy, she had 65 dogs she had rescued out in her yard. After being disheartened by some terrible things that have come out of Tennessee lately - mosque burnings and anti-Shari`ah legislation among them - I love looking at Ziggy and thinking about the woman with the thick southern accent and big heart who saved his life.

Source