Benefits of the Hadith: “The purification of one of your vessels if a dog has drunk from it…”
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : As for what is derived from this hadith, it contains several benefits. One of them is that the dog is ritually impure. The evidence for this is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) informed us that it is necessary to purify what it has touched, saying: “Its purification is to wash it.” This view is nearly a consensus. From this follows the refutation of those who claim the dog is pure, for the hadith is explicit in refuting them.
Another benefit of this hadith is that if a dog catches game, it is obligatory to wash what its mouth has touched seven times, one of which with soil. This is because this is of the same kind as drinking from a vessel, and in fact, it becomes more contaminated than when it drinks from water. This is because it will bring the bird holding it with its fangs, and perhaps the saliva will react with its grip on this meat and mix with the meat to a great extent, making it like drinking from a vessel or worse. Do you understand now? Good. Is this ruling appropriate for the condition of people in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who used to hunt with dogs, and not a single word was transmitted that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the washing of what the dog’s mouth touched?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. Therefore, the scholars differed on this issue. Some scholars said: It is obligatory to wash the game where the dog’s mouth touched it, because this is like drinking from a vessel or worse. And it is washed with what? Seven times, one of which with soil. It is known that soil contaminates the meat and may spoil it, thus resulting in the spoiling of wealth. But they say the spoiled portion is slight and can be scraped off with a knife and be done with. However, we can escape this contamination by soil by washing it with soap, because the scholars say if the use of soil becomes difficult, then soap or something similar that provides strong cleaning takes its place. But the second opinion in the issue is that it is not obligatory, because people used to hunt with their dogs in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and they would ask the Messenger about the ruling on what the dog caught, and he would inform them of the ruling without indicating, either directly or indirectly, the obligation to wash what its mouth touched. This indicates that it is excused. Do not be surprised that Allah the Exalted removes harm and difficulty from the community to the extent that the effect of the impurity is completely removed. Have you seen if a person is forced to eat carrion and eats from it, does it harm him?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. But if he is not in a state of necessity, it harms him. So Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, makes harm and benefit, and He repels harm by His command. If it becomes clear that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) used to hunt with their dogs and ask the Messenger about the rulings, and he did not clarify to them, not with a sound or weak word, that washing is obligatory upon them, that indicates the absence of obligation, so this is excused. And this opinion is the stronger one, and it is the one chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him).
Another benefit of this hadith is that if a dog urinates on something, it must be washed seven times, one of which with soil. That is, if it urinates in a vessel, it is obligatory to pour out its urine and wash the vessel seven times, one of which with soil. What is the evidence for this? If saliva, which is purer than urine, requires the vessel to be washed seven times, one of which with soil, then urine is even more so. What about feces?
The student: Even more so.
The Shaykh : Feces are even more so. This is the position of the majority, who said that all the impurity of the dog must be washed seven times, one of which with soil. The Zahiris said that washing seven times and using soil is not obligatory except for drinking from a vessel only. As for urine and feces, they are like other impurities. This is clear in their school and their method, because they…
The student: ...
The Shaykh : …prohibit analogical reasoning. They prohibit analogical reasoning. And a group of those who use analogical reasoning said that this ruling is for drinking from a vessel only, and urine and feces are like other impurities. They reasoned this by saying that dogs would go in and out and urinate in the mosque of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Also, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that dogs urinate in people’s places and gatherings, and he did not point that out. Then they also reasoned medically, saying: The saliva of the dog has a characteristic not found in its urine or feces, which is a virus or something, meaning what the people of medicine know, a tapeworm. This is in its neck and attaches to the vessel. Then, if the vessel is used after being contaminated with this, and a person eats from this vessel or drinks, this tapeworm attaches to the stomach and perforates it, and only soil removes it. The issue is, in my opinion, wavering. If we look at the opinion of the majority and the ugliness of urine and feces being greater than saliva, we say the opinion is what the majority said. And if we look at the urines and feces of dogs in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) being numerous, and yet he did not order them to be washed seven times, one of which with soil, we prefer the opinion of those who restrict it to saliva. Good. So if the evidence is balanced for a person, what is the most cautious?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning the contradiction is from every angle. Praise be to Allah. If you wash seven times, one of which with soil, from urine and feces, no one will tell you that the place remained impure. But if you do not wash, most scholars will tell you that the place has become impure.
Another benefit of the hadith is that it is necessary to use soil in purifying the impurity of the dog, according to the disagreement you heard, whether it is drinking from a vessel, urine, or feces. Soil is obligatory due to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):.
Good. Is anything other than soil sufficient for it? Yes, there is disagreement on this as well, and there is an interjected phrase before that says: Does anything other than soil take the place of soil? Some scholars hold that soil does not take the place of soil because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:, so he specified soil. This is one point. And because soil is one of the two purifiers, and the second purifier? Water. If it is one of the purifiers and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified it, then it must be specified. Others hold that anything other than soil takes its place if it is like it in cleaning or stronger. And you know now that chemical substances have been found that are stronger than soil in cleaning, so they take the place of soil. They reasoned their statement by saying that the purpose of removing impurity is the removal of its substance and its effect. If its substance and effect are removed by any remover, the purpose is achieved. And they answered the first point by saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) specified soil because it is the easiest thing for people. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) may specify a thing for its ease, not for its essence and itself. It is known that in the time of the Companions, soil was among the easiest things, so he specified soil because it was the easiest thing, not because it was intended for its own sake. As for their saying that it is one of the purifiers, we say yes, it is one of the purifiers, but the purity of dry ablution is not intended for cleaning; rather, it is intended for worship of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. When a person worships his Lord, Mighty and Majestic, by wiping his most noble limbs with soil, this inner purity extends to the apparent sensory purity. Otherwise, it is known that dry ablution with soil does not clean or remove anything. Is the removal of impurity worship or not worship?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : It is not an act of worship, and therefore no intention is required for it. Its ruling is lifted if someone who is not obligated to perform acts of worship removes it, and its ruling is lifted if it is removed by rain or the like. So we say: if you find something that takes the place of earth among things that clean well, it takes the place of earth. But if someone asks, “Why don’t we follow the text? Praise be to Allah, it does not harm us,” we say: Yes, in truth, it is better to take the text, whether we say that something else suffices or that it does not. Why? Because if you use earth to remove the impurity of a dog, the place becomes pure by the text and by scholarly consensus. But if you use something else that is like it or cleaner, there is a difference of opinion in that. And whenever we avoid a difference of opinion while the evidence is equal, that is better. But note the phrase I said: “while the evidence is equal.” If one of the opinions is stronger, the difference of opinion is not considered.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith: if the impurity of a dog falls on something other than vessels, is it washed seven times? For example, if a dog licks your garment or licks your leg, what do you say? Is it washed seven times, the first of them with earth, except for what earth would harm, in which case something other than earth is used? Is that clear? Because there is no difference between a vessel and something else. Now, are the dog of hunting, the dog of livestock, and the dog of agriculture excluded from this?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Some scholars went to the exclusion of that and said: The dog meant is the wild dog that is not tame, as for the tame one, it is not obligatory to wash it seven times or to use earth. But this opinion is weak, because the mixing of dogs with people, if they are marked, is more than what? More than their mixing if they are not marked. So how do we attribute the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the small thing and leave the large thing? This is far-fetched, this is far-fetched. Be careful, my brother. So the opinion that this hadith is about dogs that are not permissible to keep is a weak opinion. What weakens it? That the mixing of the impermissible ones with people is little, so it is not possible to attribute the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the small thing and leave the large thing.
Now, similar to this, and I do not know if we should bring it up, similar to this is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):Sahih Muslim 1147 But as for the one who dies with the fasting of Ramadan upon him, his guardian does not fast on his behalf. What do you say about this attribution? Is it weak or not?
The student: Weak.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is weak, because how do we attribute the words of the Messenger to something rare? If we asked a questioner, which is more common: that a person dies with days of Ramadan upon him, or that a person dies with a vow upon him?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first, because the first can happen to anyone, but the second, who does it happen to? To the one who vowed, and how few are the vows compared to the fasting of Ramadan. In any case, what appears is the generality, and that this is general for permissible dogs and impermissible dogs.
Among the benefits of the hadith: it includes the small dog and the large dog, and the black and the red and the white, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, due to the generality of his saying “the dog.” It is not said that the dog, which is general in its apparent meaning, is restricted to the black dog, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the breaking of the prayer that it is broken by the black dog. That is because the rulings differ, because this is in one place and that is in another place, so it is not possible to attribute this unrestricted statement to the restricted one there.
And among the benefits of this hadith: some impurities are severe and some are ritualistic. The impurity of the dog now?
The student: Severe.
The Shaykh : Severe. That it is [washed] seven times instead of five or three or nine, is that?
The student: Ritualistic.
The Shaykh : This is ritualistic, meaning that first, many jurists see that the enumeration of purifying what a dog has licked is ritualistic in itself; it is ritualistic. And the one who sees that it is for a cause, which is the contamination by its saliva, still has the ritualistic aspect in what? In specifying the seven and that one of them be with earth. Now, are the other impurities, from an animal dirtier than the dog, to have the same ruling as it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, and by that it becomes clear the weakness of the one who analogized the pig to the dog in that its impurity is washed seven times, one of them with earth. Because some of the people of knowledge (may Allah have mercy on them) said: The impurity of the pig is uglier than the impurity of the dog. The pig is known to eat what?
The student: Feces.
The Shaykh : Feces, the impurity. And it is also a lecher, and the most eloquent of animals in lechery; it does not care if one of the pigs mounts its female and does not worry about it. So he says: Since it is dirtier than the dog, its impurity must be attached to the impurity of the dog. Is this analogy correct? No, especially if we say that the impurity of the dog must be washed seven times as a ritual obligation. Now, by this we know that impurities are of a severe type and a lightened type, and it is so. To complete the benefit, we say that impurities are three categories: a severe category, which is the impurity of the dog; and a lightened category, which is of two types: the urine of the small boy who has not eaten food, meaning he is nourished by milk, and he is a male. So, a male and what?
The student: Small.
The Shaykh : Small, who has not eaten food, meaning has not been nourished by it. And the second is the pre-seminal fluid, which is what comes out of a person after desire; it is not urine and it is not semen. It is in a position between two positions, but it is not the position of the Mu'tazilah. It is in a position between two positions: between urine and semen. Because semen is pure, and that is because the strength of desire ripened it and removed what was in it of harm until it became pure. Urine is foul, the pre-seminal fluid is between them, so its impurity is lightened. How is it lightened? Meaning that sprinkling is sufficient for it, that is, you immerse it in water and that is sufficient. You bring the pitcher and pour it on the impure place; it does not need squeezing or rubbing or anything. This impurity, we say it is?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... The third is intermediate between that, and it is the remaining impurities, even the impurity of the pig. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, among the benefits of this hadith: the washing must be by the owner of the vessel in which the dog licked. Do you agree with this?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : O brothers! If a dog licks in one of your vessels, you wash it.
The student: This is the majority.
The Shaykh : We say yes, this is for the majority. And we have a rule among the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that they say: The majority-restricting condition has no implication. And this is a benefit that is useful for you in many places. The majority-restricting condition has no implication. And based on that, if I saw a dog lick in my neighbor’s vessel and I feared that this neighbor would come and drink from this vessel and he does not know, so I stood up and washed it seven times, one of them with earth, is that sufficient or not sufficient?
The student: Sufficient.
The Shaykh : Sufficient?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Even if the vessel belonged to someone else?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because the condition of “one of your vessels” is based on the majority. Now, it is derived from this hadith that the dog is forbidden to eat. Where did we know that from?
The student: Even more so.
The Shaykh : We have a rule, O brothers, that I gave you before. The rule we mentioned before: Every impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is impure. So we say it is forbidden, contrary to those of the scholars who said it is disliked because the original state is permissibility. Because some scholars say it is disliked because the original state is permissibility, and they overlooked that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade every fanged predator, and the dog undoubtedly has a fang with which it preys, does it not bring the prey?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So it is included in the hadith. And this hadith that is with us also indicates that it is forbidden, because if it is obligatory for us to guard against its licking, how do we put its meat into our bellies? If a person is compelled to do so, does he eat it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How does he eat it? Now, does he have to wash his mouth seven times, one of them with earth?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, let us look and search for this issue. Do we say that when Allah permitted it, the impurity was lifted from it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, like the donkeys when they were permissible, they were not impure, and when they were forbidden, they became impure. Or do we say that it is permissible to split the ruling and say: For the sake of dire necessity, we permitted it for you, but the impurity remains, so you must wash your mouth, one of them with earth.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And something else is difficult with this: does he wash his stomach seven times, one of them with earth?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The apparent, and Allah knows best, looking at the legal causes, is that when its eating is permitted, its impurity is lifted. This is the apparent, as we said, and a fortiori, as we said regarding the prey, that when Allah permitted its hunting, the impurity was lifted and the impurity was excused in the sound opinion, this is the most correct.
Another benefit of this hadith is that if a dog catches game, it is obligatory to wash what its mouth has touched seven times, one of which with soil. This is because this is of the same kind as drinking from a vessel, and in fact, it becomes more contaminated than when it drinks from water. This is because it will bring the bird holding it with its fangs, and perhaps the saliva will react with its grip on this meat and mix with the meat to a great extent, making it like drinking from a vessel or worse. Do you understand now? Good. Is this ruling appropriate for the condition of people in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), who used to hunt with dogs, and not a single word was transmitted that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the washing of what the dog’s mouth touched?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. Therefore, the scholars differed on this issue. Some scholars said: It is obligatory to wash the game where the dog’s mouth touched it, because this is like drinking from a vessel or worse. And it is washed with what? Seven times, one of which with soil. It is known that soil contaminates the meat and may spoil it, thus resulting in the spoiling of wealth. But they say the spoiled portion is slight and can be scraped off with a knife and be done with. However, we can escape this contamination by soil by washing it with soap, because the scholars say if the use of soil becomes difficult, then soap or something similar that provides strong cleaning takes its place. But the second opinion in the issue is that it is not obligatory, because people used to hunt with their dogs in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and they would ask the Messenger about the ruling on what the dog caught, and he would inform them of the ruling without indicating, either directly or indirectly, the obligation to wash what its mouth touched. This indicates that it is excused. Do not be surprised that Allah the Exalted removes harm and difficulty from the community to the extent that the effect of the impurity is completely removed. Have you seen if a person is forced to eat carrion and eats from it, does it harm him?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : No. But if he is not in a state of necessity, it harms him. So Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, makes harm and benefit, and He repels harm by His command. If it becomes clear that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) used to hunt with their dogs and ask the Messenger about the rulings, and he did not clarify to them, not with a sound or weak word, that washing is obligatory upon them, that indicates the absence of obligation, so this is excused. And this opinion is the stronger one, and it is the one chosen by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him).
Another benefit of this hadith is that if a dog urinates on something, it must be washed seven times, one of which with soil. That is, if it urinates in a vessel, it is obligatory to pour out its urine and wash the vessel seven times, one of which with soil. What is the evidence for this? If saliva, which is purer than urine, requires the vessel to be washed seven times, one of which with soil, then urine is even more so. What about feces?
The student: Even more so.
The Shaykh : Feces are even more so. This is the position of the majority, who said that all the impurity of the dog must be washed seven times, one of which with soil. The Zahiris said that washing seven times and using soil is not obligatory except for drinking from a vessel only. As for urine and feces, they are like other impurities. This is clear in their school and their method, because they…
The student: ...
The Shaykh : …prohibit analogical reasoning. They prohibit analogical reasoning. And a group of those who use analogical reasoning said that this ruling is for drinking from a vessel only, and urine and feces are like other impurities. They reasoned this by saying that dogs would go in and out and urinate in the mosque of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Also, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that dogs urinate in people’s places and gatherings, and he did not point that out. Then they also reasoned medically, saying: The saliva of the dog has a characteristic not found in its urine or feces, which is a virus or something, meaning what the people of medicine know, a tapeworm. This is in its neck and attaches to the vessel. Then, if the vessel is used after being contaminated with this, and a person eats from this vessel or drinks, this tapeworm attaches to the stomach and perforates it, and only soil removes it. The issue is, in my opinion, wavering. If we look at the opinion of the majority and the ugliness of urine and feces being greater than saliva, we say the opinion is what the majority said. And if we look at the urines and feces of dogs in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) being numerous, and yet he did not order them to be washed seven times, one of which with soil, we prefer the opinion of those who restrict it to saliva. Good. So if the evidence is balanced for a person, what is the most cautious?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Yes, meaning the contradiction is from every angle. Praise be to Allah. If you wash seven times, one of which with soil, from urine and feces, no one will tell you that the place remained impure. But if you do not wash, most scholars will tell you that the place has become impure.
Another benefit of the hadith is that it is necessary to use soil in purifying the impurity of the dog, according to the disagreement you heard, whether it is drinking from a vessel, urine, or feces. Soil is obligatory due to the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
The first of them with the earth
أولاهنّ بالتّرابGood. Is anything other than soil sufficient for it? Yes, there is disagreement on this as well, and there is an interjected phrase before that says: Does anything other than soil take the place of soil? Some scholars hold that soil does not take the place of soil because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
The first of them with the earth
أولاهنّ بالتّرابThe student: ...
The Shaykh : It is not an act of worship, and therefore no intention is required for it. Its ruling is lifted if someone who is not obligated to perform acts of worship removes it, and its ruling is lifted if it is removed by rain or the like. So we say: if you find something that takes the place of earth among things that clean well, it takes the place of earth. But if someone asks, “Why don’t we follow the text? Praise be to Allah, it does not harm us,” we say: Yes, in truth, it is better to take the text, whether we say that something else suffices or that it does not. Why? Because if you use earth to remove the impurity of a dog, the place becomes pure by the text and by scholarly consensus. But if you use something else that is like it or cleaner, there is a difference of opinion in that. And whenever we avoid a difference of opinion while the evidence is equal, that is better. But note the phrase I said: “while the evidence is equal.” If one of the opinions is stronger, the difference of opinion is not considered.
Now, among the benefits of the hadith: if the impurity of a dog falls on something other than vessels, is it washed seven times? For example, if a dog licks your garment or licks your leg, what do you say? Is it washed seven times, the first of them with earth, except for what earth would harm, in which case something other than earth is used? Is that clear? Because there is no difference between a vessel and something else. Now, are the dog of hunting, the dog of livestock, and the dog of agriculture excluded from this?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : Some scholars went to the exclusion of that and said: The dog meant is the wild dog that is not tame, as for the tame one, it is not obligatory to wash it seven times or to use earth. But this opinion is weak, because the mixing of dogs with people, if they are marked, is more than what? More than their mixing if they are not marked. So how do we attribute the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the small thing and leave the large thing? This is far-fetched, this is far-fetched. Be careful, my brother. So the opinion that this hadith is about dogs that are not permissible to keep is a weak opinion. What weakens it? That the mixing of the impermissible ones with people is little, so it is not possible to attribute the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to the small thing and leave the large thing.
Now, similar to this, and I do not know if we should bring it up, similar to this is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him):
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: If anyone dies in a state (that he had to complete) some fasts, his heir must fast on his behalf.
من مات وعليه صيام صام عنه وليّهThe student: Weak.
The Shaykh : Yes, it is weak, because how do we attribute the words of the Messenger to something rare? If we asked a questioner, which is more common: that a person dies with days of Ramadan upon him, or that a person dies with a vow upon him?
The student: The first.
The Shaykh : The first, because the first can happen to anyone, but the second, who does it happen to? To the one who vowed, and how few are the vows compared to the fasting of Ramadan. In any case, what appears is the generality, and that this is general for permissible dogs and impermissible dogs.
Among the benefits of the hadith: it includes the small dog and the large dog, and the black and the red and the white, is that not so?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, due to the generality of his saying “the dog.” It is not said that the dog, which is general in its apparent meaning, is restricted to the black dog, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding the breaking of the prayer that it is broken by the black dog. That is because the rulings differ, because this is in one place and that is in another place, so it is not possible to attribute this unrestricted statement to the restricted one there.
And among the benefits of this hadith: some impurities are severe and some are ritualistic. The impurity of the dog now?
The student: Severe.
The Shaykh : Severe. That it is [washed] seven times instead of five or three or nine, is that?
The student: Ritualistic.
The Shaykh : This is ritualistic, meaning that first, many jurists see that the enumeration of purifying what a dog has licked is ritualistic in itself; it is ritualistic. And the one who sees that it is for a cause, which is the contamination by its saliva, still has the ritualistic aspect in what? In specifying the seven and that one of them be with earth. Now, are the other impurities, from an animal dirtier than the dog, to have the same ruling as it?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : No, and by that it becomes clear the weakness of the one who analogized the pig to the dog in that its impurity is washed seven times, one of them with earth. Because some of the people of knowledge (may Allah have mercy on them) said: The impurity of the pig is uglier than the impurity of the dog. The pig is known to eat what?
The student: Feces.
The Shaykh : Feces, the impurity. And it is also a lecher, and the most eloquent of animals in lechery; it does not care if one of the pigs mounts its female and does not worry about it. So he says: Since it is dirtier than the dog, its impurity must be attached to the impurity of the dog. Is this analogy correct? No, especially if we say that the impurity of the dog must be washed seven times as a ritual obligation. Now, by this we know that impurities are of a severe type and a lightened type, and it is so. To complete the benefit, we say that impurities are three categories: a severe category, which is the impurity of the dog; and a lightened category, which is of two types: the urine of the small boy who has not eaten food, meaning he is nourished by milk, and he is a male. So, a male and what?
The student: Small.
The Shaykh : Small, who has not eaten food, meaning has not been nourished by it. And the second is the pre-seminal fluid, which is what comes out of a person after desire; it is not urine and it is not semen. It is in a position between two positions, but it is not the position of the Mu'tazilah. It is in a position between two positions: between urine and semen. Because semen is pure, and that is because the strength of desire ripened it and removed what was in it of harm until it became pure. Urine is foul, the pre-seminal fluid is between them, so its impurity is lightened. How is it lightened? Meaning that sprinkling is sufficient for it, that is, you immerse it in water and that is sufficient. You bring the pitcher and pour it on the impure place; it does not need squeezing or rubbing or anything. This impurity, we say it is?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : ... The third is intermediate between that, and it is the remaining impurities, even the impurity of the pig. Is that clear, everyone?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Now, among the benefits of this hadith: the washing must be by the owner of the vessel in which the dog licked. Do you agree with this?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : O brothers! If a dog licks in one of your vessels, you wash it.
The student: This is the majority.
The Shaykh : We say yes, this is for the majority. And we have a rule among the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence) that they say: The majority-restricting condition has no implication. And this is a benefit that is useful for you in many places. The majority-restricting condition has no implication. And based on that, if I saw a dog lick in my neighbor’s vessel and I feared that this neighbor would come and drink from this vessel and he does not know, so I stood up and washed it seven times, one of them with earth, is that sufficient or not sufficient?
The student: Sufficient.
The Shaykh : Sufficient?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Even if the vessel belonged to someone else?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, because the condition of “one of your vessels” is based on the majority. Now, it is derived from this hadith that the dog is forbidden to eat. Where did we know that from?
The student: Even more so.
The Shaykh : We have a rule, O brothers, that I gave you before. The rule we mentioned before: Every impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is impure. So we say it is forbidden, contrary to those of the scholars who said it is disliked because the original state is permissibility. Because some scholars say it is disliked because the original state is permissibility, and they overlooked that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade every fanged predator, and the dog undoubtedly has a fang with which it preys, does it not bring the prey?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : So it is included in the hadith. And this hadith that is with us also indicates that it is forbidden, because if it is obligatory for us to guard against its licking, how do we put its meat into our bellies? If a person is compelled to do so, does he eat it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : How does he eat it? Now, does he have to wash his mouth seven times, one of them with earth?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : How?
The student: ...
The Shaykh : Now, let us look and search for this issue. Do we say that when Allah permitted it, the impurity was lifted from it?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes, like the donkeys when they were permissible, they were not impure, and when they were forbidden, they became impure. Or do we say that it is permissible to split the ruling and say: For the sake of dire necessity, we permitted it for you, but the impurity remains, so you must wash your mouth, one of them with earth.
The student: No.
The Shaykh : And something else is difficult with this: does he wash his stomach seven times, one of them with earth?
The student: No.
The Shaykh : The apparent, and Allah knows best, looking at the legal causes, is that when its eating is permitted, its impurity is lifted. This is the apparent, as we said, and a fortiori, as we said regarding the prey, that when Allah permitted its hunting, the impurity was lifted and the impurity was excused in the sound opinion, this is the most correct.