Pig picture removed

format_quote Originally Posted by ibn-Adam

It seems like the question was not understood properly. This is not a question of pictures of living beings or animals in general, but a question of putting up a picture of dog or swine on a place where we have Islamic discussions, Qur'anic Aayaat and Ahadeeth.


To make it more clear to the respected Mufti sahab,
Is it permissible to hang a picture of dog beside a Qur'anic verse on a wall? Something like this:





I say it is very disrespectful to the words of Allah and must be taken down. And for anyone who wants to know, I am not Salafi, and I am not very strict either.

It's true I did misunderstand the question.

Respect (Adab) and its ruling is according to the 'urf (custom) of the society one is from. For example, in my society it is extremely disrespectful to sit cross legged in front of one's teacher. In other societies it is fine.

Therefore that would be wrong in my society not in others. These rulings depend on the custom of the locality and its people. Therefore in one society something maybe makruh (reprehensible) and other society something maybe fine.

This is where the topic of muru'at comes into place. Where the scholars of hadith would not accept a hadith from a scholar that would do something that the people of his locality consider reprehensible (khilaful muru'ah).

For example in a locality it is not befitting if a scholar or pious person of deen to wear certain clothes or go to a certain place or keep a certain hairstyle even though it is permissible in sharia, it could remove him from being an authority in deen. The muhadditheen (scholars of hadith) would say "if he is not ashamed of the people then how will he be ashamed of Allah".

Therefore, the topic you are referring to is regarding respect (adab) and is completely based on (urf) custom. If in your locality it is considered disrespectful then it would be disrespectful for you to do such a thing.

For others not so. Like the ottomans and how they would never turn their backs to the qur'aan even when they would walk out of a room they would walk backwards or imam abu hanifa and how he would never stretch his feet out to his teachers hones out of respect. Such things are based on ones taqwa and culture.

Similarly in my culture it is also disrespectful to keep a picture of a pig next to the qur'aan. However as I mentioned before pictures of pigs and dogs are impermissible due to them being living things. Disrespect (which is proven by customs) would be a small issue compared to the clear ruling from the prophet (saw).

Hope this answered your question.

for the detailed reply.

Since we have members from all types of background, I feel it would be better to take all members opinion on a poll to know what custom should prevail.

format_quote Originally Posted by Saleem Khan

Its best to remain cautious in such things and follow the view of impermissibility.

format_quote Originally Posted by Saleem Khan

...as I mentioned before pictures of pigs and dogs are impermissible due to them being living things. Disrespect (which is proven by customs) would be a small issue compared to the clear ruling from the prophet (saw).

I agree.

good points by Saleem khan.

The fact that this is becoming a discussion reminds me of one recent issue circulating today.

They circled a dinosaur... is their saliva impure aswell hehe .

This is on Whatsapp. People have too much time on their hands. Being OTT.

“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 hounds that are trained are dogs, in this verse we are told we are ABLE to eat the animals that this hound catches for us and to mention's Allah's name over it, it does not mention that we are to WASH the animal that has been caught by the dog, but it clearly stipulates that we are able to eat things caught by animals that we have trained.

If the dog's saliva was completely impure, the context of eating animals which have been caught by hounds would not be mentioned and would completely render the dog's saliva null. However, considering that an animal which has no rabies, is able to fetch on command and obey the orders of the owner, then their saliva is not impure in this context, since we would be required to wash the animal caught before eating it. But, it says "Eat what they catch for you and mention Allah's name over it" it does not stipulate, "clean what they have caught for you 7 times with water AND then eat it" but it says "Eat...."

It is not correct for a person to simply read a verse and use it to derive any Islamic ruling from it. Please read the tafsir on this verse before making an assumption that animals caught and bitten by dogs are halal.

Quoting from Tafsir ibn Kathir:

Using Jawarih to Hunt Game is Permissible

Allah said,

وَمَا عَلَّمْتُمْ مِّنَ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ

(And those Jawarih (beasts and birds of prey) which you have trained as hounds...) That is, lawful for you are the animals slaughtered in Allah's Name, and the good things for sustenance. The game you catchwith the Jawarih are also lawful for you. This refers to trained dogs and falcons, as is the opinion of the majority of the Companions, their followers, and the Imams.

`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that,

وَمَا عَلَّمْتُمْ مِّنَ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِينَ

(And those Jawarih (beasts and birds of prey) which you have trained as hounds...) refers to trained hunting dogs, falcons and all types of birds and beasts that are trained to hunt, including dogs, wild cats, falcons, and so forth. Ibn Abi Hatim collected this and said, "Similar was reported from Khaythamah, Tawus, Mujahid, Makhul and Yahya bin Abi Kathir.''
Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "You are permitted the animal that the trained birds, such as falcons, hunt for you if you catch it (before it eats from it). Otherwise, do not eat from it.'' I say, the majority of scholars say that hunting with trained birds is just like hunting with trained dogs, because bird's of prey catch the game with their claws, just like dogs. Therefore, there is no difference between the two.

Ibn Jarir recorded that `Adi bin Hatim said that he asked the Messenger of Allah about the game that the falcon hunts and the Messenger said,

«مَا أَمْسَكَ عَلَيْكَ فَكُل»

(Whatever it catches for you, eat from it.) These carnivores that are trained to catch game are called Jawarih in Arabic, a word that is derived from Jarh, meaning, what one earns. The Arabs would say, "So-and-so has Jaraha something good for his family,'' meaning, he has earned them something good. The Arabs would say, "So-and-so does not have a Jarih for him,'' meaning, a caretaker.

Allah also said,

وَيَعْلَمُ مَا جَرَحْتُم بِالنَّهَارِ

(And He knows what you have done during the day...) meaning, the good or evil you have earned or committed. Allah's statement, مُكَلِّبِينَ

(trained as hounds,) those Jawarih that have been trained to hunt as hounds with their claws or talons. Therefore, if the game is killed by the weight of its blow, not with its claws, then we are not allowed to eat from the game.

Allah said, تُعَلِّمُونَهُنَّ مِمَّا عَلَّمَكُمُ اللَّهُ

(training them in the manner as directed to you by Allah, ) as when the beast is sent, it goes after the game, and when it catches it, it keeps it until its owner arrives and does not catch it to eat it itself.
This is why Allah said here, فَكُلُواْ مِمَّآ أَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُواْ اسْمَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ

(so eat of what they catch for you, but pronounce the Name of Allah over it,) When the beast is trained, and it catches the game for its owner who mentioned Allah's Name when he sent the beast after the game, then this game is allowed according to the consensus of scholars, even if it was killed.

There are Hadiths in the Sunnah that support this statement. The Two Sahihs recorded that `Adi bin Hatim said, "I said, `O Allah's Messenger! I send hunting dogs and mention Allah's Name.' He replied, «إِذَا أَرْسَلْتَ كَلْبَكَ الْمُعَلَّمَ وَذَكَرْتَ اسْمَ اللهِ فَكُلْ مَا أَمْسَكَ عَلَيْك»

(If, with mentioning Allah's Name, you let loose your tamed dog after a game and it catches it, you may eat what it catches.) I said, `Even if it kills the game' He replied, «وَإِنْ قَتَلْنَ، مَا لَمْ يَشْرَكْهَا كَلْبٌ لَيْسَ مِنْهَا، فَإِنَّكَ إِنَّمَا سَمَّيْتَ عَلى كَلْبِكَ وَلَمْ تُسَمِّ عَلى غَيْرِه»

(Even if it kills the game, unless another dog joins the hunt, for you mentioned Allah's Name when sending your dog, but not the other dog.) I said, `I also use the Mi`rad and catch game with it.' He replied, «إِذَا رَمَيْتَ بِالْمِعْرَاضِ فَخَزقَ فَكُلْهُ، وَإِنْ أَصَابَهُ بِعَرْضٍ فَإِنَّهُ وَقِيذٌ فَلَا تَأْكُلْه»

(If the game is hit by its sharp edge, eat it, but if it is hit by its broad side, do not eat it, for it has been beaten to death.)

In another narration, the Prophet said, «وَإِذَا أَرْسَلْتَ كَلْبَكَ فَاذْكُرِ اسْمَ اللهِ، فَإِنْ أَمْسَكَ عَلَيْكَ، فَأَدْرَكْتَهُ حَيًّا فَاذْبَحُهُ، وَإِنْ أَدْرَكْتَهُ قَدْ قَتَلَ وَلَمْ يَأْكُلْ مِنْهُ فَكُلْهُ، فَإِنَّ أَخْذَ الْكَلْبِ ذَكَاتُه»

(If you send your hunting dog, then mention Allah's Name and whatever it catches for you and you find alive, slaughter it. If you catch the game dead and the dog did not eat from it, then eat from it, for the dog has caused its slaughter to be fulfilled.)

In yet another narration of two Sahihs, the Prophet said, «فَإِنْ أَكَلَ فَلَا تَأْكُلْ، فَإِنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَمْسَكَ عَلى نَفْسِه»

(If the dog eats from the game, do not eat from it for I fear that it has caught it as prey for itself.)

format_quote Originally Posted by Bhabha

This is a problematic statement, considering that the Qur'an is itself perfect and as such would render what is permissible as inscribed in the Qur'an, equally to current times, otherwise... we are judging the timeless concept of the Quran. Are we then to stipulate that the things applied to the time of the Prophet Muhammad no longer apply to us? Moreover, the dogs saliva is impure in the context of a vessel used for eating.

Dog's saliva is impure, not only in the context of eating, but also in general terms. If it licks you, or your clothes, you cannot pray wearing the same clothes unless you wash them.
Same is the case for the saliva of all carnivorous animals.


The Qur'an is perfect and there are several lessons in the story of the people of the cave.

One of the lessons from the story is, that the dog did not enter the cave with the men, it lay outside at the entrance.

Another lesson is, if you accompany good people, you will be counted among them. That is exactly the reason why it is mentioned in the Qur'an along with the men.



Again quoting from Tafsir:

Allah says: وَكَلْبُهُمْ بَـسِطٌ ذِرَاعَيْهِ بِالوَصِيدِ

(and their dog stretching forth his two forelegs at the Wasid)
Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr and Qatadah said: "The Wasid means the threshold.'' Ibn `Abbas said: "By the door.'' It was said: "On the ground.'' The correct view is that it means on the threshold, i.e., at the door.

إِنَّهَا عَلَيْهِم مُّؤْصَدَةٌ
(Verily, it shall be closed upon them) 104:8

Their dog lay down at the door, as is the habit of dogs. Ibn Jurayj said, "He was guarding the door for them.'' It was his nature and habit to lie down at their door as if guarding them. He was sitting outside the door, because the angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog, as was reported in As-Sahih, nor do they enter a house in which there is an image, a person in a state of ritual impurity or a disbeliever, as was narrated in the Hasan Hadith.

The blessing they enjoyed extended to their dog, so the sleep that overtook them overtook him too. This is the benefit of accompanying good people, and so this dog attained fame and stature. It was said that he was the hunting dog of one of the people which is the more appropriate view, or that he was the dog of the king's cook, who shared their religious views, and brought his dog with him.

Please don't jump to conclusions that way. Learn, read and attend gatherings of knowledge. It will benefit you in this world as well as the Hereafter.

I have not said anything on my own. I have only quoted from Quran and Hadeeth.
Regarding angels, it is mentioned (in other places not quoted above) that only the angels of mercy do not enter such places. Other angels are allowed.

And as for your prayers, sorry to discourage you, I should have mentioned the complete ruling.
The clothes and area must be considered clean unless you are sure that there is some impurity.
And when you are sure about it, If the amount of impurity on the clothes or body is larger than a coin, then it is important to wash it before praying.

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah

I hope this thread is not a microcosm of the ummah. If Muslims rally around a picture of a pig, and protest in large numbers and repeatedly at it's removal, then I am afraid we have our priorities mixed up.

for sharing your thoughts .

Yep I agree with you in your last quote where you mentioned "whoever wrote that". May Allah reward them for their intentions and whomsoever practises it according to that intention.

Lol I think it's the other way around. Meaning the mixed up priorities is making the pig issue avatar a problem in the first place. I agree we should be on safer side. Personally I would never have a dog or pig avatar. But when time is spent telling the others "Remove this because of..", that's the target point of where the mixed priorities lie. Disclaimer: By this post it doesn't mean you don't give them Naseeha.

A Daee in London, shared the whatsapp picture with "#Priorities" on Facebook. Meaning to prioritize on other bigger issues. That's where I stumbled across the picture.

Lets take example:
One group does Mawlid we call them: X
One group doesn't we call them: Y
Y goes up to X and says "This is wrong, stop it now!".
X goes here's my evidence "... ... ".
Y goes "No you must not DO that", here's my evidence "... ...". (The example should not be taken seriously, only to reply to your statement)
Then if Y says "If Muslims rally around celebrating mawlid, and protest in large numbers and repeatedly at it's refutation, then I am afraid we have our priorities mixed up."
Who is the one causing the uproar in first place, X or Y? What is the source of this protest? X or Y?

I end with this quote from Yasir Qadhi which may be somewhat relevant. No intention to offend anyone. Please read the below without the word "Salafi", I shared it to highlight the priorities part.

Mistaken priorities.

The Prophet Muḥammad ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said, “Focus on that which benefits you!” For some Salafīs, success is tantamount to refuting 'deviants'. They revel in writing lots of refutations against people, warning people from associating with 'deviants' and using aggressively harsh language to correct people.

The challenges facing the Ummah are no longer about the misinterpretation of Allah's Names and Attributes or the validity of celebrating the mawlid.[18] No doubt, some people, at some level, do need to discuss the reality of the mawlid, and the Attributes of Allah and other aspects of faith. But these are not the problems of our time, nor do they present major challenges to the faith of our young men and women. These are controversies of a bygone era: the Salafīs and the Ashʿarīs can go on debating such aspects amongst themselves, and I too as a theologian will be glad to participate in such debates, in appropriate forums, in front of appropriate audiences. But the vast majority of our youth couldn't care less about such abstract non-tangible theoretical discussions. They are struggling to retain faith in their religion, problematizing Darwinism and secularism and post-modernism and humanism and liberalism and a thousand other 'isms', while Salafīs (and Deobandis, and Ashʿarīs, and Sufīs) still debate in their circles matters that only concern the 0.1 %.

Islam is witnessing unprecedented ideological attacks from radical secularism; these attacks seek to render Islam in particular – and religiosity in general – anathema to modern society. New atheism and scientism are increasingly in vogue amongst public intellectuals. Modern culture reeks of materialism, hedonism, pornography, and sexual exploitation. Extreme ideologies, including radical-feminism, abound. Quite frankly, rare is it to find a Salafī scholar who is even qualified to discuss these issues, much less refute them; and when one does find such a scholar, it is not because of his Salafī training but in spite of such training that he is able to take on such challenges.

Age-old social ills that Islam came to eradicate continue to plague the 'Muslim world'. Societal problems are rampant, domestic and sexual abuse, violation of worker's rights, racism, bribery, and so forth are becoming increasing prevalent, yet, almost all of these issues are sidelined. It is inexcusable for jurists to passionately propagate their personal opinions on the prohibition of women driving, or incessantly criticize the celebration of the mawlid, for instance, all the while sidelining the widespread and endemic mistreatment of foreign laborers, sexual exploitation of female servants, the problems of bribery and wāsiṭa (having a 'friend' in an appropriate place to help you), and other well-known trends in their own societies.[19]

Source

I won't be making further replies to the thread, it's not beneficial to so much time on these things .

May Allah keep us all steadfast in the Deen. Ameen.

There are easy solutions to that. You can keep some clean clothes separately in a cupboard that you use only for prayers.

Allah forgives what is done unintentionally or unknowingly.