Asalaamu Alaikum,
If your dog hunts an animal and its saliva gets on it, then you don't need to clean it.
Read this, it's written by a scholar and gives you all the opinions regarding the matter of dog saliva.
Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger said about the sea: “To purify one of your dishes after a dog laps up some of its contents, you must wash it seven times, one of them with dirt.”
It is an authentic hadîth related in Sahîh Muslim. In Sunan al-Tirmidhî, it is related that the Prophet said: “You must pour out its contents and wash it seven times…”
The hadîth is also found in Sunan Abî Dâwûd, Sunan al-Nasâ’î, Sunan al-Dâraqutnî, Sunan al-Bayhaqî, and many other hadîth works.
Its legal implications:
This hadîth brings up many questions in Islamic Law. We will discuss the following:
The first question:
Is a dog a pure or impure animal? Scholars have three differing opinions on this matter.
The famous opinion of Mâlik is that the dog is a pure animal. It is also one of the opinions given in the Hanbalî school of thought. They offer the following evidence to support their opinion:
1. “They ask you what is lawful to them as food. Say: Lawful unto you are all things good and pure and what you have taught your beasts and birds of prey which you have trained as hounds are trained. You teach them that which Allah taught you. Eat what they catch for you and mention Allah’s name over it. And fear Allah, for Allah is swift in taking account.” [Sûrah al-Mâ’idah: 4]
The argument here is that the animal captured by the dog is going to be exposed to the dog’s saliva. The fact that hunting with dogs is permissible shows that the saliva of dogs is pure, especially since we are not ordered in the verse to clean or excise the place where the dog bit down upon the animal.
They argue that washing a dish seven times is purely an act of devotion that cannot be submitted to rational analysis. A believer must merely hear and obey the command to do so. The command to wash the dish does not necessarily imply that the saliva of dogs is impure. The proof for this is that there are other things which are indisputably far more impure that a dog’s saliva, but we are not commanded to wash those things seven times, once with dirt. We are not even commanded to wash away the urine of the dog in such a manner.
It is also possible that the command to wash the dish seven times, once with dirt, may be on account of rabies.
Ibn Daqîq al-`Id objects to this line of reasoning. He writes: “It is far better to assume that the saliva of dogs is impure, because it always better to understand the ruling rationally whenever possible, since rulings that are purely devotional are relatively rare compared to those that have a sensible reason behind them.” [
Ihkâm al-Ahkâm (1/27)]
Ibn Qudâmah also objects, saying: “If it was purely devotional, we would not have been commanded to first pour out the contents of the bowl. The command to specifically wash from the licking of a dog would not extend to the whole dish. Moreover, even if we were to accept this, we can understand devotional washing when it comes to our hands, but as for dishes and clothing, all that can be required is to keep them clean and free from impurities.” [
al-Mughnî (1/42)]
2. The advocates of this opinion also cite the following statement of Ibn `Umar: “Dogs used to go to and fro in the mosque during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and they did not ever pour water over the area on account of it.” [
Sahîh al-Bukhârî]
They argue that this hadîth indicates the purity of a dog’s saliva, since dogs always follow after food. Since we know that some Companions had no place other than the mosque to live, we can be sure that the saliva of dogs would sometimes fall on the mosque floor.
This argument, however, is weak. Mâlikî scholars are in agreement with everyone else that the urine of dogs is impure. Since Ibn `Umar did not mention anything about cleaning up after the urination of dogs, the hadîth cannot be used as an indication of the purity of their saliva.
3. Some Mâlikî scholars compared the dog to a cat. The Prophet (peace be upon him) declared that the water left over after a cat has a drink does not become impure. The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained that this was because cats are among the animals that live among people. The Mâlikî scholars argue that dogs, like cats, live among people, so they should take the same ruling as cats.
4. They also cite the hadîth that `Umar while traveling with `Amr b. al-`As and others, reached a spring. `Amr b. al-`As inquired from the owner of the spring if carnivorous animals frequented it. `Umar immediately said to the owner of the spring: “Do not inform us. We visit there water sources as they visit ours.” [
al-Muwatta’ (1/23-24)]
However, this hadîth has a broken chan of transmission, since Yahyâ b. `Abd al-Rahman who narrates this hadîth from `Umar never met `Umar. There are other similar hadîth, but they are also either weak or fabricated.
The second opinion held by scholars is that the dog is an impure animal. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is also one of the opinions given on the matter by Ahmad. They offer the hadîth under discussion as evidence. They argue that purification can only be done on account of some form of impurity. They also argue that we are ordered to wash the dish, even though the dog only laps at the water inside of it. This shows that the water first becomes impure and subsequently contaminates the dish. The fact that we are ordered to pour out the water shows that the saliva of the dog is impure. Since the saliva of the dog is impure, then the dog itself must be impure.
The third opinion held by scholars is that the saliva of the dog is impure but not the dog itself. This is the Hanafî position. It is also one of the opinions ventured by Ahmad and the one Ibn Taymiyah declares it to be the most correct opinion. [
Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/530)] The present the following evidence:
1. They present the hadîth under discussion as evidence, since the fact that purification is needed shows that the saliva is impure. The fact that we are ordered to wash the dish repeatedly and once with dirt shows that a dog’s saliva is seriously impure. Then there is the fact that we have to discard the contents of the dish. If the contents were not contaminated with impurities, this would be wasteful destruction of food or drink. It is also clear from the hadîth that the washing is from the dog’s lapping up water from the dish and not from anything else.
2. To demonstrate that other parts of the dog, like its hair, are not impure, Ibn Taymiyah offers the following argument: “The hair of dogs and pigs that falls in water does no harm. This is according to the stronger of the two opinions held by scholars…This opinion is more supported by the evidence that indicates the purity of all hair, feathers, fur, and wool, regardless of whether or not we can eat the flesh of the animal whose skin possesses it, and regardless of whether the animal is alive or dead. This is the strongest of the two opinions held by scholars and one of the two opinions of Ahmad.” [
Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (21/38-39)]
This opinion that limits the impurity to the saliva of the dog is the best, most balanced opinion and the one that raises the least objections.
The second question:
What is the ruling on water from which a dog has drunk? Scholars have at least five different opinions on this matter.
The first opinion is that the water becomes impure and this is why it has to be poured out. Otherwise, pouring it out would be merely wasteful. This is the opinion of the Hanafî, Shâfi`î, and Hanbalî schools of thought.
The Mâlikî opinion, of course, is that the water is pure and the matter is either one of pure worship or out of fear of rabies.
Another opinion is that the dog that is permissible to keep does not make water impure if it drinks from it, as opposed to a dog that is not permissible to keep. This opinion is based on the principle of avoiding hardship.
It is related that the Mâlikî scholar `Abd al-malik b. al-Mâjishûn used to distinguish between stray dogs and domestic dogs. The reasons for such a distinction are unclear.
A fifth opinion is that the water does not become impure unless one of its attributes, like its scent, is changed by the dog’s saliva. This opinion is built upon the principle that only when water is altered by an impurity does it becomes impure.
However, a small bowl of water is very likely to become altered by the saliva of a dog, even when we do not notice it. This is why Ibn Taymiyah says: “If a dog laps up milk from a dish, it will not make the milk impure if the milk is of a large quantity.” And Allah knows best.
The third question:
What is the ruling on washing the dish seven times? There are two opinions on this matter.
The majority of scholars, including Mâlik, rule that it is obligatory to wash the dish seven times, since this is the clear meaning of the hadîth. As for the Mâlikî school of thought, most Mâlikî scholars consider it a preferred act of worship to wash the dish seven times, but not obligatory.
Hanafî scholars, by contrast, consider the saliva of a dog to be no different than any other impure substance. Consequently, they do not consider purification from it to require a set number of washings. According to them, the hadîth is only indicating a preference. They offer the following as evidence for their opinion:
1. They cite the hadîth related by Abû Hurayrah that if a dog or cat drinks from a dish, it should be washed three times. [
Sharh Ma`ânî al-Athâr (1/23) and
Sunan al-Dâraqutnî (1/66)] However, the hadîth is not strong and it is at variance to more reliable narrations. Another weakness is that it is related as a statement of Abû Hurayrah and not from the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is also related sometimes as a statement from Abû Hurayrah and sometimes as an action of his, adding to the uncertainty.
Moreover, Ibn al-Mundhir and others authentically relate that Abû Hurayrah used to wash seven times. [al-Mu`jam al-Awsat (1/305)] Ibn Hajar says: “It is established that Abû Hurayrah used to give the ruling that there must be seven washings. The narrations that are in accordance with his ruling are much stronger than those that are at variance to it.” [
Fath al-Bârî (1/277)]
2. They also cite the hadîth that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If a dog laps from a dish, wash it three, five, or seven times.” [
Sunan al-Dâraqutnî (1/65)] Al-Dâraqûtnî says: “It was only related by `Abd al-Wahhâb from Ismâ`îl, and `Abd al-Wahhâb’s hadîth are to be rejected. It was correctly related by others from Ismâ`îl with only seven washings being mentioned.”
3. Likewise, they cite the hadîth mentioning eight washings. [
Sahîh Muslim (280) and others] They argue that if we are going to declare seven washings to be obligatory, we should act upon all of the hadîth and declare eight washings obligatory.
4. They also rely upon analogous reasoning. Since purification from urine and feces can be attained in less than seven washings – and they are clearly more seriously impure than a dog’s saliva –it follows that purification from a dog’s saliva can likewise be attained in less than seven washings. However, the response to this argument is that analogous reasoning can never be applied in direct contradiction to textual evidence. It is doubtless that this is what is happening here.
Clearly, the strongest opinion is that held by the majority of scholars, that the dish must be washed seven times.
The fourth question:
What is the ruling on using dirt for one of the washings? Scholars have expressed two opinions on the matter.
The first is that using dirt for one of the washings is obligatory. This is the opinion of Shâfi`î and Hanbalî scholars.
Mâlikî and Hanafî scholars do not consider it obligatory. As far as the Hanafî scholars are concerned, they see this as a preferred act, in the same way that they see seven washings as a preferred act.
The Mâlikîs, though they consider seven washings to be obligatory, do not consider washing with dirt to be obligatory. The reason for this is that Mâlik narrated a hadîth that simply mentions seven washings but does not mention the use of dirt. [al-Muwatta’ (1/34)]
They also advance the argument that the various narrations mentioning dirt are inconsistent with one another. Some versions say that dirt should be used in the first washing, others say the last washing, while others say it must be used in one of the washings. However, this criticism can be easily answered by pointing out that the general wording allowing any of the washings to be with dirt can accommodate those versions of the hadîth that mention which washing it should be. The gist of all the various narrations point out that washing with dirt is obligatory, regardless of which washing it should be. There is no inconsistency in that matter.
Therefore, the strongest opinion is that washing the dish with dirt is obligatory.
The fifth question:
Is the pig to be treated the same as the dog in the manner of washing from its saliva? There are two opinions on this matter.
The Hanbalî position is that the pig should be treated the same as the dog. This was also one opinion of al-Shâfi`î. Ahmad argued that since the pig is worse than the dog, it needs to be washed the same way.
Other scholars disagree. They counter that the pig is described in the Qur’ân as “filth” in the context of eating its flesh. The Prophet (peace be upon him) used the exact same adjective to describe the donkey when he prohibited the eating of donkey flesh [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]. However, this does not mean that the saliva of donkeys is impure. The prophet (peace be upon him) never commanded us to wash seven times the dish from which a donkey drank. Therefore, we cannot conclude on these grounds that purification from the saliva of a pig requires seven washings, one of which has to be with dirt.
Al-Nawawî writes: “Most scholars are of the opinion that a pig does not require seven washings. This is the (correct) statement of al-Shâfî`î and it is supported by the strongest proof.” [
Sharh Sahîh Muslim (3/185)]
Some benefits of this hadîth:
1. The hadîth teaches us that the saliva of dogs is impure and instructs us on how to purify things contaminated with it.
2. It asserts the obligatory nature of washing the object seven times.
3. It asserts the obligatory nature of using dirt in one of the washings.
http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-377-3274.htm