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

A woman made a wig for herself from her own [previously shed] hair, which she wears on her head after having lost her hair [due to hair loss]. Is this permissible?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Since the hair belongs to the woman herself, the wig can be removed during the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing), and part of the head can still be wiped during wuḍū' (ablution), there is no sharī‘ah objection to making this wig — provided she does not appear wearing it in front of non-maḥram men (Any males outside a woman's immediate family whom she is permitted to marry under Islamic law), since it is not permissible for them to look at a woman's detached hair.
It is stated in Rawḍat aṭ-Ṭālibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn: "Whatever it is not permissible to look at while still attached [to the body] — such as the male genitalia, a free woman's forearm, the hair of her head, and a man's pubic hair, and similar matters — it remains unlawful to look at even after it has been detached [from the body], according to the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ)." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

Is it incumbent on a husband to pay the alimony of his wife if she had left him and stayed at her parent`s without his permission?

When a wife leaves her house, and stays at her parent`s without asking her husband, she is considered a Nashiz (wife who refuses to abide by her husband’s orders), and so she doesn`t deserve an alimony.

My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.