Summary
One of the most startling narratives in Islamic tradition concerns the sudden and drastic order to kill dogs. Islamic apologists attempts to explain the divine reasoning behind this massacre. However, when subjected to critical scrutiny, the rationale falls apart. Furthermore, comparative analysis reveals that these rulings were not unique revelations but rather the adoption of ancient Jewish (and also ancient Arab) superstitions prevalent in Medina.
The Hadith of the Puppy: The Foundational Narrative
Maimuna reported that one morning Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah's Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) spent the day in this sad (mood). Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: you promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).
According to this narrative, the presence of a puppy prevented the Angel Gabriel from entering the house, leading to a general command to kill dogs.
There are several reasons to question the validity and logic of this excuse:
- What about the two angels, Kiraman Katibin, who are said to sit on the shoulders of every person to record their deeds? Are they also expelled from the house by dogs? If so, this would imply a person could commit sins inside their home without them being recorded.
-
Furthermore, if dogs are truly considered impure or unholy, why did the "People of the Cave" (Ashab al-Kahf), who are revered in the Quran as believers, take a dog along with them into the cave? That dog is not there for any guarding.
- Muhammad must have left his house during that period to relieve himself or to pray in the mosques. If Gabriel was unable to enter the house due to the dog, why didn't he simply meet Muhammad outside?
How Did Muhammad Have Foreknowledge of Ritual Impurity?
When we analyse the Prophet's reaction in the story, a curious sequence of events unfolds that suggests prior knowledge rather than new revelation:
-
Why did Muhammad independently identify the puppy under his cot as the problem before Gabriel's arrival or explanation?
-
Why did he order the expulsion of the puppy on his own, without Gabriel instructing him to do so?
-
Why did he sprinkle water on that spot independently, without Gabriel directing him to perform this specific ritual?
It appears that Muhammad was already aware of a specific prohibition against dogs and perhaps even a ritual for cleansing areas they occupied. This knowledge likely did not come from the Quran, which contains no such specific commands, but may have been adopted from the local Jewish communities.
Dogs as Unclean Creatures: The Jewish Connection
The concept of dogs being impure and the hostility toward them is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition:
Biblical Sources
Deuteronomy 23:18: "You shall not bring the wages of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the house of the LORD your God."
Classical Jewish interpretation (Talmud, Rashi) views the "price of a dog" as a term of disgrace and impurity.
Talmudic Sources
Bava Kamma 83a: "Cursed is the one who raises dogs, and cursed is the one who raises pigs."
Here, dogs and pigs are grouped together as socially harmful animals. From this source, we can trace the origin of not only the prohibition of dogs in Islam but also the strong aversion to pigs.
Bava Kamma 79b: "Anyone who raises a bad dog keeps kindness away from his house."
This teaching that dogs drive away positive spiritual presence closely parallels the Islamic concept that angels avoid homes with dogs.
Shabbat 63a: "One should not keep a dog unless it is tied with a chain."
New Testament Echo
Matthew 7:6: "Do not give what is holy to dogs."
Images Also Prohibited: Another Jewish Connection
In the same sentence where Muhammad declared dogs to be impure, he also declared images, pictures, and dolls to be spiritually impure, stating that angels do not enter a house containing them. This provides further proof of the Jewish connection.
This concept of images being spiritually dangerous came directly from Jewish scriptures, driven by fear of polytheism:
Deuteronomy 4:16-18: "...so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air..."
Exodus 20:4 (The Ten Commandments): "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
The prohibition against images in Judaism is perhaps even more extreme than in Islam, as it appears directly in the Ten Commandments.
Black Dogs as Devils: Yet another Jewish Connection
The hostility toward dogs in Islamic tradition reaches a peak of supernatural fear when it comes to the specific colour of the animal. In Sahih Muslim, a startling distinction is made that reveals the motive for the massacre was not medical or hygienic, but purely mythological.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguishes it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.
This specific vilification of black dogs is not a theological necessity derived from the Quran, but a direct reflection of Jewish folklore (Midrash) prevalent during that era.
Jewish Sources on Black Dogs and Demons
Leviticus Rabbah 20:6 elaborates on the deceptive nature of demons, specifically highlighting the black dog as a disguise for evil spirits:
"There are demons which are called 'shedim'... They appear to men sometimes as black dogs, sometimes as black cats, and sometimes as ravens."
In both Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) and the Talmud, the colour black is frequently associated with the "Other Side" (Sitra Achra) and the realm of impurity and the demonic. The Zohar (the foundational text of Kabbalah) often describes the forces of impurity as "black" and "impure dogs."
Therefore, when Muhammad singled out the "black dog" as a devil, he was not revealing a unique spiritual insight but echoing a common superstition of his time, and a cultural belief specific to the region that identified black dogs not just as animals, but as physical vessels for demonic entities.
Beyond Dogs: Muhammad's System of Superstition
The irrational fear of the colour black was not limited to dogs. Muhammad's worldview was deeply rooted in a broader "System of Superstition" that attributed supernatural powers to various animals based on their appearance. It was a system he shared with the superstitious society of pre-Islamic Arabia.
Like other people of his time, Muhammad believed in Satan (actually many small satans/jinns), black magic, spirits, and the evil eye. However, there was no Allah present in the heavens who could have freed him from this issue of superstitions.
1. The Black Ram
Just as Jewish folklore sought omens in black animals, Muhammad showed a specific ritual preference for black markings. In the following tradition, he did not just request any ram for sacrifice, but one with a very specific "demonic" or "dark" aesthetic:
Aisha reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) commanded that a ram with black legs, a black belly, and black circles round the eyes should be brought to him... He then sacrificed it, saying: "O Allah, accept this on behalf of Muhammad and his family."
This precision suggests that the "purity" or "effectiveness" of the sacrifice was tied to the animal's physical markings—a hallmark of pagan and ancient Near Eastern ritualism where specific colors were required to appease or ward off specific spirits.
2. The "Cursed" Birds: Crow and Kite
Muhammad further extended this "kill list" to animals that offered no real threat to human life, simply because they were culturally associated with bad luck or "spiritual harm."
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: "Five kinds of animals are harmful and could be killed in the Haram (Sanctuary): the crow, the kite, the scorpion, the mouse, and the rabid dog."
While a scorpion or rabid dog poses physical danger, what "harm" does a crow or kite do? These birds are scavengers and often black or dark. In many ancient cultures, including those influenced by Jewish and Mesopotamian lore, these birds were seen as carriers of bad omens. By ordering their death even in the sacred sanctuary where hunting is forbidden, Muhammad prioritized his superstition over the sanctity of the Haram itself.
3. The Snakes: "Muslim Jinns" Connection
Perhaps the most glaring evidence of Muhammad's superstition is his refusal to kill the most dangerous animal of all: snakes.
Abdullah bin Umar said: Once while I was chasing a snake in order to kill it, Abu Lubaba called me saying: "Don't kill it," I said, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill snakes." He said, "But later on he prohibited the killing of snakes living in the houses."
How is it possible that Muhammad ordered the killing of harmless animals like dogs, crows, and kites, but prohibited killing harmful snakes?
The reason is both strange and shocking: Muhammad believed that household snakes might be "believing Muslim Jinns" in disguise.
[Abu as-Sa'ib said that he found a snake in Abu Sa'id Khidri's house and wanted to kill it, but he (Abu Sa'id Khudri) told him not to kill it. Then Abu Sa'id Khudri told him the story]:
"A companion of Muhammad came back from a war and found his wife standing between the two doors. He bent towards her smitten by jealousy and made a dash towards her with a spear in order to stab her. She said: Keep your spear away and enter the house until you see that which has made me come out. He entered and found a big snake coiled on the bedding. He darted with the spear and pierced it and then went out having fixed it in the house, but the snake quivered and attacked him and no one knew which of them died first, the snake or the young man."
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri said that we came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and made a mention to him and he said: Don't kill the household snakes, as there are in Medina jinns who have accepted Islam, so when you see any one of them, pronounce a warning to it for three days, and if they appear before you after that, then kill it for that is a devil.
Unbelievable.
- A man just died from a snake bite, yet Muhammad's priority was not to prevent more deaths, but to ensure that "Muslim Jinns" were not offended.
- The instruction to "warn a snake for three days" is peak superstition. It implies that a biological reptile understands human speech and religious warnings.
- According to Muhammad's logic, the poor wife should have stayed at the door of her house for 72 hours, giving warnings to the snake, hoping it was a "pious Jinn" rather than a "devil."
Muhammad ordered the slaughter of dogs (man's loyal protector) while granting a three-day "diplomatic immunity" to lethal snakes. This is not the logic of a man guided by a Creator, but the confusion of a man trapped in the superstitions of the 7th century.
4. The Evil Eye: Superstition at Its Peak
The case of the evil eye is particularly revealing. Unlike black magic (which is performed by evil people with malicious intent), Muhammad believed that an evil eye could be caused by a good Muslim without any evil intentions whatsoever.
Abu Umama b. Sahl b. Hunaif told that 'Amir b. Rabi'a saw Sahl b. Hunaif bathing and said, "I swear by God that I have seen no skin to compare with what I have seen today, not even that of a secluded girl." Sahl fell to the ground (due to the evil eye) and people went to God's messenger and said to him, "Messenger of God, can you do anything for Sahl b. Hunaif? We swear by God that he cannot raise his head." He asked if they suspected anyone, and when they replied that they suspected 'Amir b. Rabi'a, God's messenger summoned 'Amir, and speaking roughly to him, said, "...Bathe on his behalf." 'Amir then washed on his behalf his face, hands, elbows, knees and toes, and inside his lower garment (i.e. his penis and anus), collected the water in a vessel and poured it over him, so he recovered and went away with the people none the worse.
Grading: SAHIH (Albani)
Analysis:
- Belief in the concept of the evil eye is itself rooted in ignorance and superstition.
- But prescribing actions such as washing one's private parts and pouring that water over the affected person reaches an extreme level of superstition.
- What makes this even more irrational is Muhammad's claim that a good person can unintentionally cause serious physical harm through mere admiration and even without malicious intent.
- The "cure" involves ritualistic washing of intimate body parts and using that water as a healing agent. This has no medical or logical basis whatsoever.
This incident perfectly encapsulates Muhammad's superstitious worldview: a compliment causes physical collapse, and the cure is washing one's genitals and anus, collecting the water, and pouring it over the victim.
The Evolution of the Dogs Massacre in 4 Stages: A proof of "Divine Wisdom" or a "Human Drama"
The Sharia ruling on the killing of dogs did not arrive as a perfect, complete revelation. Instead, it evolved through four distinct stages.
1st Stage:
Initially, Muhammad commanded the killing of all dogs, regardless of their roles or appearances.
- Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1572: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill (all) dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert.
2nd Stage:
Later, Muhammad revised the ruling under pressure from people. He permitted the keeping of dogs for hunting and herding, while maintaining the death sentence for all other dogs.
- Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1573a: Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered the killing of dogs ... (but later) He then permitted the keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds.
3rd Stage:
The third stage saw the introduction of a supernatural element. The prohibition was narrowed from "all dogs" to specifically "black dogs," based on the belief that they were manifestations of devils.
- Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2845: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one
- Sahih Muslim, Hadith 510a, Muhammad claimed: "... The black dog is a devil.
4th Stage:
Finally, Muhammad refined the ruling yet again. He abolished the general killing of black dogs, singling out only a specific type: jet-black dogs with two spots on the eyes.
- Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1572: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill (all) dogs ... Then Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty (to kill) the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil.
This four-stage evolution highlights a fundamental flaw in the claim of divine origin. If only specific jet-black dogs with two spots were truly "devils," why did the initial revelation demand the slaughter of all dogs, including those later deemed innocent? A divine command should reflect perfect, unchanging wisdom from an all-knowing source. It should not require iterative adjustments through trial and error.
Islamic apologists and critics view these four stages through very different lenses:
- Apologists claim this is "Naskh (Abrogation)", rooted in "Divine Wisdom."
- Critics argue this is proof of "Human Drama", based on the "Trial and Error" method.
Apologists fail to provide any scriptural evidence for what "wisdom" was served by first ordering the massacre of innocent dogs. However, critics can point to explicit historical evidence of "human drama" driving these changes.
Evidence 1: Ruling Changed Due to Human Protest
The texts themselves reveal that Muhammad was compelled to alter the ruling because of intense opposition from the Muslims, who refused to kill their beloved companions. The ruling was not updated due to new divine insight, but due to public outcry.
Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered the killing of dogs and then said: what is the trouble with them (i.e. Why were the people protesting)? How are dogs a nuisance to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted the keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds.
Note the shift in tone. Muhammad is not receiving a revelation about mercy, but he is annoyed by the people's resistance ("What is the trouble with them?"). The ruling changes solely to mitigate the unrest. This is the hallmark of a "Trial and Error" process, not divine decree.
Evidence 2: Contrast With the Prohibition of Alcohol
To understand why the dog ruling reflects "Human Drama" rather than "Divine Wisdom," one must contrast it with the Quranic approach to alcohol.
The prohibition of alcohol evolved from Leniency to Strictness. First, Muslims were told not to pray while intoxicated; later, alcohol was banned outright; finally, punishments were established. This is a pedagogical strategy that aligns with human psychology, gradually weaning people off a vice.
In stark contrast, the dog rulings evolved from Strictness to Leniency. The order started as a total killing of all dogs and was relaxed only after people complained. This suggests the changes were reactive, a concession to human attachment and practical necessity rather than a pre-planned divine strategy.
If these revelations were truly divine, one would expect them to embody flawless insight from the very beginning. Instead, we see a pattern of protests, compromises, and reactionary leniency. The "evolution" of the dog ruling is not evidence of God's wisdom, but it is evidence of a man navigating the social pressures of 7th-century Arabia.
Apologetic Excuses:
Excuse 1: The Prophet ordered dogs killing due to their Overpopulation
Some modern Islamic apologists reframe the Prophet Muhammad's command to kill dogs as a practical "public health measure" aimed at controlling an alleged overpopulation of stray dogs in early Islamic society. This explanation portrays the order as a sensible response to a real-world problem, making it more acceptable to contemporary audiences.
Refutation: The reason of Prophetic Order was "Spiritual Impurity" and "Superstitious Harm" of dogs, and NOT Overpopulation
There is no evidence whatsoever in the hadith literature that Arabia was suffering from a dog overpopulation crisis. No report mentions excessive numbers of stray dogs, rabies outbreaks, or public sanitation concerns. This excuse is a modern fabrication, invented centuries later to soften a troubling command for contemporary audiences.
In contrast, the hadith literature is explicit about the real motivation behind this order.
According to Sahih Muslim, Muhammad believed that the presence of a dog caused spiritual impurity and prevented the angel Gabriel from entering his house. Only after discovering a puppy under his bed did he issue the command to kill dogs.
Maimuna reported that one morning Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was silent with grief. Maimuna said: Allah's Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) spent the day in this sad (mood). Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: you promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).
Another Hadith connects the killing of dogs (along with certain snakes) to superstitious beliefs, claiming they could harm eyesight or cause miscarriages.
Ibn 'Umar reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) commanding the killing of dogs and the killing of the striped and the short-tailed snakes, for both of them affect the eyesight adversely and cause miscarriage.
Unfortunately, the "propaganda" machinery of Islamic apologists is so huge and so deceptive that despite these clear traditions of Muhammad, they still manages to deceive millions of innocent Muslims to believe that Muhammad ordered the killing of dogs only due to their overpopulation (Link). This influence of narrative of Islamic apologists is scary when they win millions of people through deception even in presence of such clear evidences.
Excuse 2: The Prophet ordered dogs killing due to Rabies Outbreak
Islamic apologists claim that the Prophet ordered the killing of dogs only due to a rabies outbreak (Link). As proof, they quote the following tradition:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "It is not sinful (of a Muhrim) to kill five kinds of animals, namely: the crow, the kite, the mouse, the scorpion and the rabid dog."
However, This is a deliberate deception by Islamic apologists. They don't quote the full context that Muhammad allowed the killing of "rabid dogs" specifically in the Haram (the sacred sanctuary around the Kaaba), as made clear in this hadith:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Five kinds of animals are harmful and could be killed in the Haram (Sanctuary). These are: the crow, the kite, the scorpion, the mouse and the rabid dog."
The Haram (Sanctuary) is the area of the Kaaba and its surroundings (in Mecca), where killing any living being is strictly prohibited. Muhammad made an exception for only these five animals, which could be killed even in the sacred area.
The Critical Distinction:
- Haram ruling: Permission to kill rabid dogs (and four other creatures) in the sacred sanctuary in Mecca where killing is otherwise forbidden
- Medina massacre: A general order to kill ALL dogs throughout Medina based on spiritual impurity and angelic avoidance
These are two completely separate issues:
- The Haram exception is a practical safety measure for a specific location
- The Medina massacre was triggered by supernatural beliefs about angels refusing to enter homes with dogs
Moreover, please ponder:
- If rabies were the concern in Medina, why kill ALL dogs indiscriminately, including those guarding orchards?
- Why did Gabriel specifically mention dogs alongside "pictures" as preventing angelic entry if this was about rabies?
Unfortunately, Islamic apologists deliberately conflate these two separate incidents to confuse truth seekers and mislead them from finding the truth. The permission to kill rabid dogs in Haram does not justify or explain the mass killing order in Medina based on supernatural beliefs.
Excuse 3: Hygiene and Preventing Dangerous Germs (Miracle of Islam)
Then comes the excuse that Islam declared dogs "impure" while they carry dangerous germs, and it is in fact a MIRACLE of Islam of making people safer against these dangerous germs.
Refutation:
If the primary concern were hygiene and the prevention of zoonotic diseases, the legislative focus would not be limited to dogs. Cats, poultry (hens), and livestock also carry dangerous bacteria (Salmonella, Toxoplasmosis, Brucellosis). Yet, Muhammad declared cats "pure" and allowed them to roam freely in homes and even drink from the same water used for ablution. Science tells us that a cat's mouth or a hen's waste can be just as hazardous as a dog's, proving that the distinction was theological, not biological.
The most damning evidence against the "hygiene" excuse is Muhammad's own reaction when he discovered the physical source of the "impurity."
Sahih Muslim 2105: "...Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place."
From a medical standpoint, simply "sprinkling" water on a surface does nothing to disinfect it of viruses (like Rabies), bacteria, or parasitic eggs. If Muhammad had been acting on a divine understanding of germs, he would have ordered the area to be scrubbed with an abrasive agent, washed thoroughly, or burned. The act of sprinkling water is a classic ritualistic gesture intended to remove "spiritual filth" to allow angels to return; it has zero efficacy against biological contamination.
The "Hygiene" argument is a classic case of Retrospective Justification. Apologists take 21st-century germ theory and try to retroactively fit it into 7th-century superstitions. Muhammad’s own actions of sprinkling water to invite angels back into his room prove that the "impurity" of the dog was viewed as a metaphysical barrier, not a medical one.
Excuse 4: "Black Dogs as Devils" is Metaphorical, Not Literal
When confronted with the Hadith stating that black dogs are devils, many modern apologists attempt to soften the blow by claiming the term "Shaitan" (Devil) is a metaphor. They argue it simply means the dog is "naughty," "aggressive," or "ill-tempered."
The primary sources leave no room for metaphorical interpretation. The context of the Hadith shows a direct inquiry into the nature of the animal, resulting in a supernatural classification.
The companion Abu Dharr asked a logical question: Why does a black dog nullify a prayer while a red or yellow dog does not? If "devil" were a metaphor for "aggression," it would apply to an aggressive red dog as well.
Sahih Muslim 510a: Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of Allah said: "When any one of you stands for prayer... it is cut off by (the passing of) an ass, a woman, and a black dog." I said: "O Abu Dharr, what is the difference between the black dog and the red or yellow dog?" He said: "O son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah as you are asking me, and he said: 'The black dog is a devil.'"
Muhammad gave a specific "ritual" consequence to the black dog (breaking the prayer) that he did not give to other dogs. This proves the "devil" status was a literal, spiritual reality in his worldview.
Conclusion: The Fossilization of 7th-Century Superstition
When we connect the logical inconsistencies with the ritualistic parallels found in Talmudic law, a very clear picture begins to emerge. The command to kill dogs was never a timeless divine revelation. Instead, it was a reactive human drama shaped by the local superstitions of the Jewish community in 7th-century Medina and the broader folkloric fears of pre-Islamic Arabia.
In this specific worldview, a loyal protector like the dog was labeled a devil based on nothing more than the color of its fur. At the same time, a lethal predator like the snake was granted a form of diplomatic immunity because of the belief that it might be a Muslim Jinn in disguise. Even physical health was viewed through this lens, with ritualistic washing prescribed as a cure for the supernatural effects of the evil eye.
These are not the insights of an omniscient Creator who understands the laws of biology and physics. Rather, they represent the confusion of a man trapped in the ignorance of his own era. By labeling these ancient fears as divine law, Muhammad did not just order a temporary massacre. He effectively fossilized 7th-century superstition into a permanent religious dogma that persists to this day.
The tragedy of this narrative is twofold. First, there is the historical suffering of the thousands of animals slaughtered in the streets of Medina. Second, there is the ongoing reality for millions of people today whose minds remain closed to the beauty and loyalty of these animals. They are held back by a trial-and-error decree that clearly failed the test of time and logic.
Hassan Radwan