Is the saliva of a dog absolutely impure?

The questioner : The questioner:The questioner : He says: The saliva of a dog is impure, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded us , but we heard from one of the scholars: if the dog is wet and the water reaches your clothes, it is permissible to pray in them. And we know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded us to wash it with water and earth. What is the ruling here?

The Shaykh : The hadith does not command washing what is affected by wetness, such as from a vessel or a garment or the like. Rather, it only says: . Therefore, the issue differs. If the wetness of the dog affects a garment and the effect of this wetness appears as impurity that has manifested in the garment, then it is obligatory to wash it. As for the mere appearance of wetness that transferred from the dog to the garment, this does not mean that this wetness is impure water, because it is not the saliva for which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded the washing of the vessel in which the cause of the dog’s drinking was found. It appears, and Allah knows best, that what was heard from that scholar is a sound answer. However, from the perspective of precaution and precision in explanation, it is necessary to say: if no impurity appears from this wetness in the garment, and this is what I believe every jurist would say.

The questioner : The questioner : He means ... .

The Shaykh : I know, by Allah, if what transferred from the wetness of the dog’s body to the garment shows impurity in it, then the ruling on removing the impurity is known. And if it does not appear, then the ruling is as you have heard.
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : O people, it is not befitting for us to judge with our minds ... The Messenger says . This certainly means that the saliva of the dog transferred to the vessel, so the mentioned ruling applies, which is washing the vessel seven times, one of which is with earth, or eight times as it came in the hadith of Abdullah ibn Mughaffal. As for the situation asked about, we do not know with certainty that this impurity transferred to the garment; we suspect or think—and it may be realized—that it transferred to this garment. Thus, the ruling on a dog drinking in a vessel differs from the mere contact of the dog’s body with something pure. In this second case, we do not know with certainty that the impurity transferred from the dog to the garment, so there is a complete difference between the two matters.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : A dog drinking is naturally with the mouth. We said earlier, if we assume now the situation of a dog swimming in a river, it swam and came out, and we observed completely that it did not touch its body with its saliva with its tongue, but there are still traces of the wetness of the water we saw. If it touched a person’s garment, would it be said in this case that it is obligatory to wash this garment? I think no one would say this. Why? Because the name of the dog in this situation ... the evident thing is water, because we saw it go down into the river and swim, and it is a skilled swimmer. This clear situation corresponds to the text, which is: . Here, the impurity transfers to the vessel because of the drinking. There is no doubt that between the situation mentioned in the hadith of drinking and the situation I described for you earlier, there are other situations that a person can imagine. If the situation is in a possible state, we say that it is more likely—according to the belief of the one obligated—that it transferred from the impurity of the dog that was on its body to the garment of the Muslim. If this likelihood is established in the mind of the one obligated, then he responds to this and washes his garment, and the opposite is the opposite. I used to answer—and I still say—that there is no necessary connection between the existence of wetness in a garment that transferred from the dog’s body to the garment, and that the transferred thing is impurity due to the likelihood. We all know that Islamic rulings are built on likelihood, and it is not necessary that there be certainty; likelihood is sufficient in Islamic rulings. This is from one aspect. As it is not permissible from another aspect to build Islamic rulings on suspicion and on the weaker likelihood. Likelihood is of two kinds: a stronger likelihood, upon which rulings are established as we mentioned, and a weaker likelihood, upon which illusions are established. And it is not permissible to judge in the Shari'ah with any of the illusions.

The questioner : ... the water that is poured out by the dog’s drinking?

The Shaykh : What is poured out is of two types. If it drinks in a lake or a well, it is not obligatory to sprinkle it, because the hadith came restricted to a vessel of one of you, and not in a lake of one of you, or a sea of one of you.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes, is there a vessel that this applies to ... a vessel of one of you? Or are you imagining it?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : In that case, this imagination you introduce is not in the subject of , but you introduce it in the subject of how much water becomes impure in general. Then what is much water? Is it two qullahs—as is the school of the Shafi'i? Or is it much water that has not changed in taste, color, or smell? So whether you are with those who say by the generality of this hadith: , ... as long as one of its three attributes has not changed, or you are with those who say by the hadith of the two qullahs, then in that case apply this rule or that to the water in which the saliva of the dog was found. As for ... to a situation that was not realized in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), this is imposing on the hadith what it cannot bear.