بَابُ ذِكْرِ الْكَلْبِMention of the Dog

¹ The statement: “Keeping a dog without benefit is disliked”: This is by consensus. As for its sale, al-Shafi’i said it is not permissible at all, as did Ahmad. Some Malikis said the sale of permitted dogs is allowed. According to us, it is permissible except for a vicious dog that cannot be trained. Our evidence includes narrations from al-Nasa’i, Abu Hanifah’s Musnad, and al-Bayhaqi, with other evidence in “Al-Hidayah” and its commentaries. In “Al-Ta’liq al-Mumajjad,” Mawlana Muhammad Abdul Halim (may Allah sanctify his resting place) noted in “Al-Hidayah”’s margin: There is an issue, as the evidence is more specific than the claim, which is the permissibility of selling dogs generally, while the hadith permits only hunting and livestock dogs. Responses include: First, as chosen in “Al-Nihayah,” this hadith refutes the opponent’s claim of general prohibition, while the claim is proven by Abdullah ibn Amr’s narration: “He (ﷺ) ruled for a dog at forty dirhams,” without specifying dog types, and compensation for a valued item indicates its worth. Second, as chosen in “Al-Kifayah” and others, the hadith indicates the permissibility of selling all dogs, as every dog can guard livestock by barking at wolves or thieves. Third, dogs beyond hunting and livestock are included by implication.

² The statement: “As for a dog for crops, etc.”: In “Al-Alamgiriyyah,” keeping a dog for guarding is legally permissible, as is for hunting, crops, or livestock. Thus, in “Al-Dhakhirah.”

³ The statement: “Abu Hanifah narrated, etc.”: In “Fath al-Qadir,” this hadith, per their view, serves as a specifier, and a specifier clarifies the general, so it is permissible, even if weaker. They permitted specifying the general and definitive with a single report initially, refuting their claim of general prohibition. The specifier’s rationale, excluding hunting dogs for their hunting benefit, extends to any beneficial dog, whether for hunting or guarding livestock.

¹ The statement: “Kill every pure black dog”: Al-Nawawi and al-Ayni said: There is consensus on killing a vicious dog. They differed on harmless dogs. Malik, his companions, and many scholars permitted killing dogs except those exempted, without considering the order abrogated but established. In “Al-Musawwa,” killing dogs was initially ordered due to their widespread keeping, which required killing to stop. It was said Madinah was specified for killing dogs, as it was the landing place of angels with revelation, who do not enter a house with a dog. This was later abrogated, and he said: “It is a community among communities.” Imam al-Haramayn said: The Prophet (ﷺ) initially ordered their killing, then this was abrogated except for the pure black dog, and the law settled on prohibiting the killing of harmless dogs, even the pure black one. In “Al-Durr al-Mukhtar”’s miscellaneous issues, it is permissible to kill harmful dogs like a vicious dog or harmful cat. In “Al-Alamgiriyyah,” if a village has many dogs causing harm, their owners are ordered to kill them; if they refuse, the matter is raised to the judge to enforce it. Thus, in “Muheet al-Sarakhsi.”

¹ The statement: “Forbade inciting animals against each other”: In “Bazl al-Majhud,” inciting means provoking one against another, as done with camels, rams, roosters, etc. This is prohibited as it is a form of amusement, causes pain to animals, and may involve gambling if conditioned by both parties.