عربي
Home


Articles
الموقع الرئيسي

Articles

Commentary by Iftaa' Dept. on Putting down Rabid Dogs
Author : The General Iftaa` Department
Date Added : 03-01-2018

In the Name of Allah, The Entirely  Merciful, The Especially Merciful

 

Commentary by the General Iftaa` Department on the Fatwa Concerning Putting Down Rabid Dogs.

Islam calls for treating all creatures with mercy and kindness, and this  general directive covers all creatures: humans, animals, birds and plants. Allah, the Exalted, said, " but do good; for God loveth those who do good."{Al-Baqarah, 195}. Moreover, the Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) said, "Verily Allah has prescribed Ihsan (kindness) for everything"{Muslim}.

Not only that, but Islam has also encouraged helping animals survive, and set a reward for whoever does that, as reflected in the following Hadith where the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "While a man was walking on his way he became extremely thirsty. He found a well, he went down into it to drink water. Upon leaving it, he saw a dog which was panting out of thirst. His tongue was lolling out and he was eating moist earth from extreme thirst. The man thought to himself: 'This dog is extremely thirsty as I was.' So he descended into the well, filled up his leather sock with water, and holding it in his teeth, climbed up and quenched the thirst of the dog. Allah appreciated his action and forgave his sins". The Companions asked: "Shall we be rewarded for showing kindness to the animals also?" He (PBUH) said, "A reward is given in connection with every living creature".[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

In addition, Allah has made preserving the life of an animal amongst the acts that bring a person closer to Him. The Messenger of Allah(PBUH)said, "There was a dog moving around a well whom thirst would have killed. Suddenly a prostitute from the prostitutes of Bani Isra'il happened to see it and she drew water in her shoe and made it drink, and she was pardoned because of this."{Muslim}.

The Messenger of Allah(PBUH) has also forbidden harming animals because they have lives, and they perform a function in this universe. Ibn Mas'ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:

We were with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) in a journey when he drew apart (to relieve nature). In his absence, we saw a red bird which had two young ones with it. We caught them and the red mother bird came, beating the earth with its wings. In the meantime the Prophet (PBUH) returned and said, "Who has put this bird to distress on account of its young? Return them to her." He (PBUH) also noticed a mound of ants which we had burnt up. He asked, "Who has set fire to this?" We replied: "We have done so." He (PBUH) said, "None can chastise with fire except the Rubb of the fire." {Abu Dawud}.

Torturing an animal and killing it unrightfully is among the sins for which a person receives punishment on the Day of Resurrection since the Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) said, "A woman was punished because she had kept a cat tied until it died, and (as a punishment of this offence) she was thrown into the Hell. She had not provided it with food, or drink, and had not freed her so that she could eat the insects of the earth."{Bukhari & Muslim}.

In conclusion, this shows that Islam is the religion of kindness and mercy to all creatures. Therefore, it is impossible that the Iftaa` Department or the Grand Mufti would violate that, and whatever news was circulated by media concerning the Fatwa of putting down rabid dogs or waging a holy war against dogs in general is inaccurate and was based on a misinterpretation. This is because that particular Fatwa was about killing the rabid dog which bit the two-year-old girl, Malak al-Qaraan, causing her death. If the harm of such a dog couldn`t be warded off save by killing it then that is permissible. In addition, no Fatwa was issued permitting the killing of every stray dog.

*See attached copy of the Fatwa in question. And Allah knows best.

General Iftaa` Department.

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Which takes precedence: the 'aqīqah or the uḍḥiyyah?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The 'aqīqah is an act of worship through which a servant draws closer to Allah the Almighty in gratitude for the blessing of a newborn child. It is a confirmed Sunnah for those who are financially capable, and Allah does not burden any soul beyond what it can bear.
However, the uḍḥiyyah takes precedence, as it is a confirmed Sunnah established from the Prophet ﷺ through stronger and more numerous narrations — indeed, the Ḥanafī scholars hold it to be obligatory. Furthermore, its time is narrow and limited, expiring with the passing of the days of Eid, whereas the 'aqīqah may be delayed until one becomes financially capable of performing it.
And Allah Almighty knows best.

I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on wiping over socks?

It is not permissible to wipe over most common socks today because the conditions for wiping are not met. The concession was reported for wiping over leather socks (khuff) and socks (jowrab) with conditions: They must be thick, not allowing poured water to penetrate, enable one to walk in them, be worn while in a state of purity (from ablution), cover the entire foot up to the ankles (meaning covering the protruding ankle bones), and not be torn. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

See More