- Dina Mustafa
- BBC News Arabic
Dr. Ahmed Karima, professor of comparative jurisprudence at Al-Azhar University, in an interview on an Egyptian channel, confirmed that “a dog is pure and can be raised in homes”, a widespread debate on social networks.
The controversy started when Ahmed Karima responded to a follower during a TV interview, in which he asked, “Why didn’t the dog go with them to the caves and ask? Didn’t he sleep outside?”
Karima replied, “The dog that follows the people to the cave is guarding, and usually the guard dog is at the door, indicating that the dog was not originally unclean, and that is the guard dog at the door.’ Imam Malik bin Anas said, because he has a rule that says that every creature is pure, and impurity is not original, but rather accidental, because the principle is that in what God does all is pure. ” Karima supported Imam Malik’s word.
To also read on BBC Africa:
Karima explains that “in the heritages, there is an exaggeration of the question of the uncleanness of the dog, and that it is one of God’s creations, and God did not create anything unclean”.
Karima pointed out that “the dog’s filth is only in his saliva and not in other parts of his body. If he touches a person or if that person hides the dog, it is empty”.
Ahmed Karima said, for example, that rural dogs would stick to people and enter houses, emphasizing that “there is nothing wrong with a person raising a dog”.
Karima also spoke of “pig purity.” Imam Malik Ibn Anas was quoted as saying that “the pig itself is a pure animal, but its meat is forbidden”, explaining that “the pig is pure itself, because God created nothing from to the filthy. “
The Karima controversy
Opinions were divided between the tweeters of the statements, between those who agreed with him based on the Malikite school of thought, and those who thought the dog was not pure based on the Hanbali school of thought.
A group of tweeters dismissed Ahmed Karima’s remarks, calling them “false” and “strange”.
Others reject the dog as pure, according to Karima.
And one tweet asked, “Have you covered all the important topics to ask about the dog and pig body?”
While others call for “not speaking the word of God”, as they say.
Proponents of dog hygiene
On the other hand, another group supported Karima’s opinion, pointing out that the dog is pure according to the Malikite school of thought, and that Karima was not wrong by throwing this whole controversy at him.
While others point out that this is not a personal opinion of Ahmed Karima, but the opinion of Sharia and Islamic jurisprudence.
Divergence of dog hygiene scholars
At the time tweeters supported Dr.’s statements. Ahmed Karima, Abbas Shoman, supervisor of the fatwa at Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, told the BBC that there were differences among scholars about the cleanliness of dogs.
Shoman points out that there are three opinions that can be trusted: The first of these is that the dog is pure based on the opinion of Imam Malick, but this opinion is appropriate for police soldiers who use dogs to detect drugs and explosives.
He added: “This advice can be taken in this case, as for the breeding of dogs at home, it is intended for breeders who use dogs for keeping and hunting, but it is completely unsuitable for breeding dogs in the house, because There is, contrary to the opinion of Imam Malick, an opinion of Imam Ibn Hanbal, who saw that the dog is completely unclean and therefore should not be bred in houses.
Mr. Shoman considered that “each case has its own fatwa”, pointing out that “judges differ on the purity of the dog, but most of the judges agree on the impurity of its saliva”, and therefore “anyone who does not observe the cleanliness of the dog “with his tongue and his contact with utensils and other objects in the house, then he does not have to raise the dog.”
Abbas Shoman pointed out that “there is a disagreement between the opinion of the Malikite and Hanbalite about the purity of dogs. Malik bin Anas believed that he was pure while Ibn Hanbal believed that he was not pure.”
He added: “Every opinion has its merits and its consideration and its suitability for the situation of those who want to own a dog, but it is better to beware of its saliva, because it contains dirt or germs.”
Regarding the purity of pigs, Schumann points out that “the pig is not pure, and it is forbidden to eat it, and it is not permitted to possess or eat it”, and that this is what scholars of Islamic jurisprudence agree on.
Mr Shoman ended his BBC conversation by ‘focusing attention on the most important issues, asking about the relevance of the controversy surrounding dog and pig’, describing it as ‘sub-issue, old and back. back and forth, and their decisions are clear. in Islamic jurisprudence, while all ignore the more important immediate issues that require treatments and the diligence of scholars. ”