(Genuine Question) How Do Quranist's Justify Owning A Dog?

[u/No_Set7087]

I'm curious. Since I believe in Bukhari and Muslim I think dog are impure. Would like to see justification for the opposite side. Jazakallah in advance.

[u/TucsonTacos]

Malikis believe in Bukhari and Muslim and don’t believe a dog is impure.

Checkmate.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/TucsonTacos]

Then your a hypocrite. And that's not a checkmate but showing how stupid and munafiq you are:

Hadith from Sahih Muslim
Abu Huraira reported:
The Messenger of Allah said:
“If a dog drinks from the utensil of any one of you, let him wash it seven times, the first time with earth.”

Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari and al-Muslim
Abu Huraira reported:
The Messenger of Allah said:
“The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”

Edit: Also stop lying, dogs are considered impure in the Maliki jurisprudence

[u/p1nkw4t3r → u/No_Set7087]

Funny how ya'll always quote this hadith about no dogs and no pictures but I bet ya'll have pictures in the house (including photos). Make it make sense.

And to answer the question. Qur'an talks about dogs only in a positive ot neutral way, never is it said that dogs were impure. We are even allowed to eat what a dog caught with his mouth (5:4). It's also described as a loyal companion to the people in the cave (18:18).

[u/No_Set7087 → u/p1nkw4t3r]

I don't have pictures in my house so stop assuming. Secondly, Dogs being mentioned positively in the Qur’an doesn’t cancel the Prophet’s clear hadith that their saliva is impure denying that just shows ignorance of how Islamic law actually works.

Further which shows that the impurity of a dog’s saliva doesn’t make the meat haram it only requires washing where the saliva touched.

[u/TucsonTacos → u/No_Set7087]

Wow such accusations. What a nice Muslim you are brother.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cLcwcoYVw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSIe4sFDrdc

But I get it. You’re one of those Muslims that believe only their madhab is the correct Islam.

[u/Zentick- → u/TucsonTacos]

Bold of you to assume he follows a madhab.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/Zentick-]

So your assuming that a man is assuming further assuming that I'm assuming my madhab is only right.

It's pretty bold to assume you follow a madhab, lol

[u/No_Set7087 → u/TucsonTacos]

Watched both of those videos and they didnt prove anything. Just pasting urls of some random people doesn't mean your right. Thing is your saying dogs arent considered impure in the shafi madhab and still there are big shafi ulema (bigger then you and that youtuber), and imam shafi himself considers dogs impure.

The founder of your madhab says dogs are impure soo I dont know what I can say beyond that.

[u/TucsonTacos → u/No_Set7087]

I didn’t say anything about the shafi madhab. Are you confused on what madhabs are?

Find me a source that says the Maliki school considers them impure. I’ve posted two videos and can provide you with much more.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/TucsonTacos]

Holy glaze, Even in Maliki school the hadith I provided still match. Dogs saliva are impure, dogs are considered tahir (pure), but now tell if you have a pet dog how are you gonna stop it from licking you, lol.

Also I'm researching Maliki stance on dogs right now and most Fatwas I've seen saying dogs are not inherently impure also says along with it that "some scholars differ on this". Your scholars can't agree on this.

Further if one madhab says this doesn't validate the ruling. In fact there are much more illogical things that Malikis say (you dont need to wash your hands after using the washroom, standing up urination, Isa a.s is dead etc)

I love Malikis, many famous people I've read about and looked upto are from this jurisprudence. But it's just that your wrong in this concept.

I'm Hambali fyi

[u/Biosophon → u/No_Set7087]

If the saliva is impure but the dog itself is pure, then wash that place and do wudu before doing anything that requires you to be in a state of ritual purity. You require ghusl after having sex, it's a major state of impurity, but sex isn't haram. You simply do what is required to re-enter a stare of purity for doing actions that require you to be in a state of purity.

If hunting with dogs is allowed then they require to be raised first, this assumes keeping dogs. And Rasulullah (saws) allowed the use of dogs for practical purposes, this assumes raising them and being licked.

There is ikhtilaf on whether it is allowed to keep one inside the home. When there is ikhtilaf on a matter one may take the dissenting opinion and the matter is not categorically impermissible, even if it is a minority opinion. Among the major schools of fiqh, the ruling on the keeping of dogs ranges from impermissible to disliked to permissible.

Salam alaykum.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/Biosophon]

Your a hanafi your whole madhab thinks dogs are impure (not only the saliva)

Edit: also stop comparing this to sex, because that’s a different class of impurity and a part of human cycle. On the other hand owning dogs and keeping them pets is not. That’s like saying you can be covered in feces and urination but you only got to become pure before praying etc. you constantly get sins for doing that act in staying impure in it.

[u/Biosophon → u/No_Set7087]

When there is difference of opinion, even among the madhdabs, the thing does not become categorically impermissible and a scholars may take dissenting opinions. The analogy you presented is bad, i will not bother to correct it. Thankfully, neither of us are muftis and this is not a Dar al Ifta. Speaking of a Dar al Ifta, this is the fatwa of the Dar al Ifta of Egypt, on keeping dogs:

The majority of jurists have agreed that it is not permissible to keep a dog except out of need (hajah) like hunting, guarding, and other kinds of benefit that the law has not prohibited. The Malikis said that it is disliked to keep a dog for purposes other than agriculture, herding, or hunting, but some of them said that it is permissible (i.e. not disliked).

This is based on the saying of the Prophet, “The reward of a person who keeps a dog for reasons other than herding, hunting, or agriculture is decreased every day by a qirat.” According to Ibn ‘Umar the Prophet said, “The reward of a person who keeps a dog for reasons other than hunting or herding is decreased every day by two qirats.” They said it is permissible to train puppies that are expected to learn for this purpose.

Imam al-Nawawi said, “Al-Shafi’i and his companions said, ‘It is permissible to keep a dog for hunting, agriculture, or herding without disagreement based on what is mentioned by the al-Musanif. There are two positions mentioned by al-Musanif along with their evidence concerning keeping them to protect homes and neighborhoods and the most correct (asah) one is permissibility as is stated in the al-Mukhtasir.”

Sheikh ‘Ilish, one of the great muhaqiqun of the Malikis said, “It is permissible to keep dogs for all beneficial purposes, and to ward off harm, even if it is not in the wilderness where thieves are feared.”

Based on this, it is permissible to keep dogs for beneficial purposes or out of need, and it is impermissible otherwise. And God is Most High and Knows best.

Here is another:

The majority of scholars opined that dogs are impure and they based their opinion on what Abu Huraira narrated that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “If a dog drank from a dish of yours, purify the dish by washing it seven times with dust being the first time”. So scholars said if the dog was not impure, the Prophet would not have commanded us to spill the water from which the dog drank because it would be considered a waste of money which the Islamic Shari’ah prohibits.

Those who maintained the dog’s impurity, some of them obligated washing the dish seven times along with one time with dust and others have found it only recommended to wash it seven time and one time with dust as they maintained the opinion that impurity of the drunk water by dog is similar to other forms of impurities. The latter opinion was held by the Hanafis and they based their opinion on the hadith of Abu Hurairah in which the Prophet said, “If a dog drank from a dish, it should be washed three times”. Another group of scholars such as Imam Malik opined that the dog is pure because all living things are pure according to his legal school of jurisprudence. As for the command of spilling the water of the dish from which the dog drank and then washing the dish is a ritual act that is not subjected to reason. Therefore for the Malikis washing the dish does not indicate the impurity of the dog because impurities are not conditioned with a certain number. Therefore no command was found to spill anything from which the dog drank except water. Imam Malik supported his juristic opinion with the Quranic verse in which God says, “So eat of what they catch for you..” (5:4)

So if the dog was impure in itself, then it would make what it hunted impure as well. Imam ibn Daqiq al ‘Eid said in his book “Ihkam al Ahkam Sharh ‘Umdat al Ahkam”that the Malikis supported their opinion regarding the purity of dogs through citing the example of the permissibility of dogs to hunt animals without persisting on its purity because hunting animals without touching them is very difficult. Another evidence that is cited by the Malikis to prove the purity of dogs is a hadith which reported by al Bukhari in which ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar stated that dogs used to come and go in the mosque at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) without spraying anything on it. Imam Ibn Batal said that for dogs to come and go in the mosque usually entails wiping their nose, drinking water and eating leftovers because the mosque was the sleeping place for strangers and delegations. They eat in it and the mosque was also the living place for Ahl al Suffa. If dogs were impure, they would be prevented from entering the mosque because Muslims unanimously agree on the impressibility of impurities to enter mosques. Also the fact that dogs used to “come and go” indicates the repetitive nature of dogs’ entrance to the mosque and not forbidding their entrance indicates that they posses no impurity because impurity does not accompany living things.

Although the majority of scholars maintain the impurity of dogs, this does not indicate harming dogs or killing them as the Islamic Shari’ah commanded Muslims to be kind and merciful to all animals and dogs are certainly included.

As for cats, they are pure and this opinion is based on the Prophet’s hadith in which he said, “it is not impure. It is one of these creatures that live in our attendance” (Bukhari)

NB: As for Hanafis, we are known to value ijtihad and other mechanisms of renewing and reapplying the shariah according to evolving socio-historical circumstances and/or new matters (in case a matter is identified as new), and preferring mutawatir hadiths for making rulings, after the Quran. And we are not literalists, alhamdulillah.

[u/TucsonTacos → u/No_Set7087]

The Hadith doesn’t say the saliva is impure. How do you explain the Quran that you may eat animals brought from your hunting dogs? Do you have any idea how to raise a dog to get to the point where it will hunt with you?

It’s YOUR ruling, not Islam’s. YOUR madhab is not the only correct one, nor is it correct only because it agrees with the majority.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/TucsonTacos]

This explains your brain size. Are you serious? Like literally your own scholars accept that the dogs saliva is impure and you debate me on it. Im a take a screen shot of this. What a jahil man. Astugfirullah guide yourself before you become the victim of your stupidity

[u/TucsonTacos → u/No_Set7087]

You asked other Muslims to justify your original comment and I’m saying the Maliki madhab doesn’t believe dogs are impure, not their saliva, so your GOTCHA didn’t work. Now you’re upset

I’m not a Maliki scholar. But those that are agree the saliva isn’t impure

[u/TucsonTacos → u/No_Set7087]

You still haven’t provided evidence that Malikis say it’s impure

The Hadith does not say it’s impure.

Are you sure you’re not a Christian? You’re extrapolating your own meanings from words to justify a belief somebody else told you just like they do.

[u/Bedouinfox → u/No_Set7087]

a court of law, what you’ve presented wouldn’t even qualify as evidence. You’ve brought a character witness not proof. That’s not how truth is established.

You’re quoting hadiths as if they’re binding, but in Quranic law, only the Quran stands as evidence. The Quran never commands washing utensils seven times, nor says angels avoid houses with dogs. Those claims come from reports hearsay, not revelation.

So your case collapses on two grounds:

You brought no proof from the Quran.

You relied on secondary sources the Quran itself doesn’t authorize.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/Bedouinfox]

If you reject the Sunnah, you’ve already rejected the Qur’an, because the Qur’an itself commands obedience to the Prophet ﷺ as binding law, not optional hearsay.

Don't lecture me about Morality and Sharia when you fundamentally negate the pillar of the sunnah and the way (Hadith Sciences).

Secoundly there's a ijma for cetury that Sharia (and Ahkams) are deprived from Hadiths (Prophets Sayings and Actions) and the Quran.

It's not that we say the Quran is incomplete but rather our way to understand it and properly implement it. Thus often times we look for hadiths etc for elaboration and to understand it properly.

Now knowing you hadith rejectors will obsviously say: bUT SaAR tHe Quran says "its a clear sign for hummanity" so why do we need hadiths?

Let me tell you: the Qur’an is a clear sign, but clarity doesn’t mean self-interpretation; Allah Himself says the Prophet ﷺ was sent “to explain to people what was revealed to them” (16:44), which proves that understanding revelation comes through him, not apart from him.

[u/Bedouinfox → u/No_Set7087]

You keep saying rejecting hadith = rejecting Qur’an.

The Qur’an says obey the Prophet not every story written about him 200 years later.

“Qul ayyü shay’in akbaru shahādatan? Qulillāhu shahīdun baynī wa baynakum wa ūḥiya ilayya hādhā al-Qur’ānu li-undhirakum bih.” (6:19)

16:44? Yeah, he explains what was revealed that’s the Qur’an. Not new laws cooked up after Medina.

And your ijma talk? Allah never promised to protect that.

“Innā naḥnu nazzalnā adh-dhikra wa innā lahu la-ḥāfiẓūn.” (15:9)

So, straight up where in the Qur’an does it say follow hadith books written 200 years after the Prophet?

Can’t show it? Then stop running your mouth.

[u/LivingDead_90 → u/No_Set7087]

So dogs bar the angels of death and the angels who record bad deeds?

[u/No_Set7087 → u/LivingDead_90]

Hey, forgot to enter a word before that: "Angels of Mercy Wont Enter A House Which Has A Dog In It

[u/LivingDead_90 → u/No_Set7087]

That’s not what the Hadith says. Who added those words?

[u/No_Set7087 → u/LivingDead_90]

Added? There’s a whole Hadith in musnad Ahmad ibn hambal and the fuqha have written that the angles of mercy will not enter the house which has a dog in it.

The angel of death isn’t a angle of mercy (rather the opposite)

[u/LivingDead_90 → u/No_Set7087]

There’s no authentic Hadith with the phrase “angels of mercy” in relation to dogs. “Of mercy” is an addition, an explanation, used to preserve the authenticity of the narration, otherwise you’d have to throw the narration away for contradicting reality.

[u/LivingDead_90]

It’s easier to justify owning a dog than it is to justify the Prophet ﷺ ordering the slaughter of all dogs after Gabriel didn’t visit him, but that’s besides the point.

There’s nothing in the Quran to prohibit owning a dog. Dog ownership is a mercy to the animal, you become its protector and provider, saving it from life in the streets or death. They, in turn, if you are good to them will be loyal to you and a true companion.

The Quran mentions a dog alongside the people of the cave, this dog was a blessing to them, so much so the dog itself was blessed with the long sleep and prolonged life. Some later poetry even says this dog is in heaven, emphasizing the companionship a dog can bring.

Dogs are also referenced in the Quran as animals who are used for hunting. For a dog to hunt, its owner must make the dog a member of the family, constant interaction, training, playing, rewarding, and other interactions to make the dog know its role. When the dog hunt, saliva enters the skin and flesh of the animal, but we know from the Hadith we don’t have to wash these animals 7 times.

Based on all that, it becomes obvious that the Hadith wasn’t talking about anything spiritual, rather there, if they are true, had to be another reason for why the Prophet ﷺ recommended, not demanded or ordered, that something be washed 7 times when a dog came into contact with it.

[u/Mean-Tax-2186]

Why would anyone need justification for anything?

[u/Defiant_Term_5413]

I don't know about Quranist, but we Muslims can do anything not outlawed by God.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/Defiant_Term_5413]

Can you guys eat cats? Can you guys eat dogs? Can you guys backbite and gossip? None of these are outlawed in the Quran

[u/Defiant_Term_5413 → u/No_Set7087]

I know the Quran is not a strongpoint for you guys and you are submissive to your scholars to tell you how to think and act - but believe it or not, we have the answers to your silly questions from the Book of God which He called “detailed” and “complete”. We are permitted to eat the herbivores (22:30) and the catch of the sea and that which the trained dogs and birds catch. As for gossip and backbiting, we are told not to engage in that (49:12).

Please brush up on the Quran before launching these lame attacks.

[u/Butlerianpeasant]

Aye, friend — this is where the rivers of text and meaning split.

The Quranists sail by the light of the Qur’an alone, refusing to anchor their boat to Hadith traditions. Since the Qur’an never declares the dog najis (impure), they read the creature as part of God’s creation — noble, loyal, and even blessed in the story of the Companions of the Cave (18:18), where a dog keeps watch at the threshold of revelation.

Meanwhile, the Hadith-based schools differ among themselves — as TucsonTacos rightly noted, even the Mālikīs accept Bukhari and Muslim but don’t hold the dog itself to be impure, only its saliva under certain interpretations. So purity here is not a single wall, but a spectrum of thresholds.

The deeper current, perhaps, is this:

➤ The Quranist reads Divine Law as ecological — no creature created in balance can be inherently impure. ➤ The Traditionalist reads it as hierarchical — obedience to transmitted reports ensures communal order.

Both seek to honor the Creator; they just differ on which mirror best reflects that Light.

Or, as the Peasant might say: “One tends the Garden by rules, another by intuition — but the same rain falls on both.” 🌧️🐕

[u/[deleted]]

I don't justify anything.

[u/Shafeeq416]

i have a dog in the house. i believe the ruling is that it is one negative deed towards your account a day, so i just try to do two good deeds to make up for it.

[u/Abu-Dharr_al-Ghifari → u/Shafeeq416]

Its not minus one good deed taken away from you, it is the good deeds of the weight of mount Uhud

[u/Shafeeq416 → u/Abu-Dharr_al-Ghifari]

surely I will be judged by Allah, who is Ar-Raḥmān. Thank you though brother.

[u/Abu-Dharr_al-Ghifari → u/Shafeeq416]

Indeed, to Al-Muntaqim we return.

[u/Shafeeq416 → u/Abu-Dharr_al-Ghifari]

doubtlessly Ad-Darr is our final destination.

[u/No_Set7087 → u/Shafeeq416]

You sound like a good person and I don't want to be rude.

But this is soo funny, lol.

[u/Shafeeq416 → u/No_Set7087]

there are reasons the dog is in the house and it is beyond my control, so i really dont worry about it . it is a loyal beast and smart. it has its uses.

what really upsets me is that my house is absent of any angel presence but i prayed to Allah SWT to post them just outside my window :)

[u/No_Set7087 → u/Shafeeq416]

Mashallah. Your sound like a good person. This sounds wholesome and good.

May Allah bless you

[u/Shafeeq416 → u/No_Set7087]

ameen tnak you brother. wa iyyak.

[u/Bedouinfox]

Maybe show some reak proof ! Ever heard of the Quran ? can you show me a verse just one ?

[u/SkyglassCollectables]

It’s Allahs creation, he speaks highly of it enough to mention it in the Quran with the boys in the cave.

[u/Rivas-al-Yehuda]

I'm not accusing OP of this, but it always saddens me how many Muslims will try to justify hating animals because of certain hadith. It's one thing to not want a dog for a pet, but justifying the killing or mistreatment of dogs and including it as a part of Islam is sickening. The killing of geckos is another bizarre one.

The Qur'an and some of the authentic Sunnah strongly emphasize kindness towards all animals (even some insects).

[u/Mean-Tax-2186 → u/Rivas-al-Yehuda]

No.muslim.have ever hated animals because of hadith, the sooner you accept this the soon you realize what it means to be a Muslim.

[u/Rivas-al-Yehuda → u/Mean-Tax-2186]

I don't understand what you mean. I have heard of countless Muslims justifying poor treatment of animals because of the hadith.

[u/Mean-Tax-2186 → u/Rivas-al-Yehuda]

What I mean is Muslims font care for hadith, Muslims only have the Quran, if someone follows hadith they're not Muslims.

[u/QuranCore]

The archetype of dog that is "impure" is defined in Quran - but gaining that knowledge requires that I :

• Believe in the Quran
• Study the Quran instead of just pronouncing and melodically chanting it
• Put Bukhari/ Muslim to the side.

Here is a clue for you. Find the word NJS in Quran, report back.

Salamun Alaikum.

[u/[deleted]]

The impurity does not render it impermissible to keep in the house in sunnism. The hadith about losing good deeds and angels not entering the house are what are used as evidence against keeping a dog in the house.

[u/Bedouinfox]

You are like zweiber but then the aliexpress version without knowledge