Why does no one talk about Zayd ibn Harithah, Umm Ayman, and Osama ibn Zayd when they talk about Black Sahaba?
Like, you’re really going to forget about The Prophet’s adopted son and grandson and the woman he called his “second mother,” really?
Anonymous asked: I am not the, uh, very passionate dog anon, but I'm wondering, do therapy dogs, dogs for emotional support, or even guard dog for the home count as purposes? (Also, I laughed out loud at "calm your face")
I would argue that service dogs, without question, apply to those considerations in the three other schools. This has been approved by various Muftis,
Seeing-eye dogs, dogs used for PTSD patients, have a significant purpose, analogous to guard dogs or sheep dogs. The issue for the scholars was having dogs as pets, which is considered very disliked, or makruh tahriman by the Hanafis, as enumerated by Sidi Fadi Qutub Zada, a view held by Shafi’is as well, while Hanbalis severely limit the keeping of a dog to only required purposes and thus rule keeping a dog without a purpose is haram.
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajjid writes:
With regard to the words of the questioner, “keeping a dog is naajis”. This is not exactly correct, because the najaasah (impurity) is not in the dog itself, rather it is in its saliva when it drinks from a vessel. If a person touches a dog or a dog touches him, that does not mean that he has to purify himself, whether with soil or water. But if a dog drinks from his vessel, then he has to throw away the water and wash it seven times with water and the eighth time with soil, if he wants to use it. If he makes it just for the dog then he does not have to purify it.
While Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:
With regard to dogs, there are three views among the scholars:
1 – That they are taahir (pure), even their saliva. This is the view of Maalik.
2 – That they are naajis (impure), even their hair. This is the view of al-Shaafa’i and is one of the two views narrated from Ahmad.
3 – Their hair is taahir but their saliva is naajis. This is the view of Abu Haneefah and of Ahmad in the other report narrated from him.
Therefore, to declare “dogs are haram” because some scholars consider them ritually impure is a ridiculous statement, for Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
"That is because the basic principle is that substances are taahir [pure], and it is not permissible to regard anything as naajis or haraam without evidence,"
Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajjid, a Hanbali, wrote, when asked about a blind Muslim woman keeping a dog for her protection:
"…there is nothing wrong with this woman keeping this trained dog until Allaah provides her with a way out…"
I hope this helps, insha Allah.
Anonymous asked: I AM SO ANGRY WHY CANT MUSLIMS HAVE DOGS I AM SO ALONE AND NOW YOU ARE TELLING ME I CANT EVEN HAVE DOGS GOD WONT GIVE ME PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT ME AND HE WONT LET ME HAVE DOGS AS WELL WHAT DO I HAVE TO BE THANKFUL FOR
Calm your face.
You can have a dog, you just have to have a purpose. Guard dog, sheep dog, etc. All schools permit dogs if they have a purpose, they disagree on many of the particulars, however, three of the four schools argue that dogs are ritually impure.
Or, you can become a Maliki, they let you have dogs, but then during Ramadan you can’t swallow your spit because that would break your fast.
So… it’s your choice.
Dear H, I am here. Where art thou? :(