Bukhari

� Fiqh al-Hadith
SA The deniers of hadith object to this narration: In no way is it believable that dogs would always come into the Prophet’s Mosque, that neither would any effort be made to prevent the dogs from entering, nor would water be sprinkled on that place to purify it... and moreover, Imam al-Bukhari made the ijtihad from this hadith that the urine of a dog is pure!
EA The other narration of Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma:
«كنت أبيت فى المسجد و كانت الكلاب.....الخ» 1
shows that this is an incident from the early period of Madinah, when the command for honoring and purifying the mosque had not yet been given.

As is mentioned in Fath al-Bari:
«إن ذلك كان فى ابتداءالحال،ثم وردالأمر بتكريم المساجد وتطهيرها،وجعل الأبواب عليها» (14/1) 2
“This is an incident from the beginning of the time, then after this, the command was issued to install doors in the mosque and to honor and purify it.”

It is hoped that now the objectors have clearly understood the reason why dogs would come into the mosque and why there was no prevention of this. As for deducing from this that, according to Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah, the urine of dogs is pure, this is a misunderstanding, especially since there is no mention of urine in the aforementioned hadith at all. That is why Hafiz Ibn Hajar has clearly written in Fath al-Bari:
«لا حجة فيه لمن استدل به على طهارة الكلاب، للاتفاق على نجاسة بولها» (139/1) 3
“That is, there is consensus on the impurity of a dog’s urine, and there is no evidence in this for the purity of the dog.”

How then could the purity of its urine be established? Yes, if you say that in other narrations, such as in Abu Dawud and others, the word «’’تبول‘‘» is also mentioned, then the answer is that your objection is to the narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, and in that narration, this word is not present. 4 Since, according to Imam al-Bukhari rahimahullah, this is not established, he did not include it, and in those narrations where it does appear, its «”خارج المسجد“» is considered omitted and interpreted accordingly. 3 That is, they would urinate outside the mosque, because if they had urinated inside the mosque, water would certainly have been poured over it. When a Bedouin urinated in the Prophet’s Mosque, water was poured over it; so if a dog, whose urine is unanimously impure, had urinated in the mosque and water was not poured over it, what would that mean?

This is clear evidence that they would urinate outside the mosque, and then gradually, when Allah Ta‘ala granted Islam ascendancy and lands were conquered, the Prophet’s Mosque became magnificent, the walls were properly constructed, the pulpit was prepared, doors were installed—everything was completed and all means of entry were blocked. Those whose doors opened towards the mosque, those too were closed. In short, complete arrangements were made in every respect. «فالحمدلله»
------------------
1 [سنن ابي داود:382،قال الشيخ الألباني: صحيح]
2 [فتح الباري:279/1]
3 [فتح الباري:278/1]
4 The above-mentioned hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari begins from here: «كانت الكلاب تبول و تقبل .....الخ»

Explanation:
Allamah Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states in Fath al-Bari that this matter was in the early period of Islam, when even the doors of the mosque, etc., did not exist. Afterward, when the command regarding the respect and care of mosques was revealed, all such matters were prohibited, as is found in the narration of Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma, that Umar al-Faruq radi Allahu anhu proclaimed loudly: “O people! Refrain from idle talk in the mosque.” So, when vain talk was prohibited, then the ruling regarding other matters is even more evident. For this reason, in the previous hadith, there is the command to wash the vessel licked by a dog seven times. That ruling remains in effect, and it is supported by many other ahadith. In fact, in some narrations regarding the vessel licked by a dog, there is such emphasis that, in addition to water, it is commanded to clean it with earth on the eighth time. One should wash it first with earth, then seven times with water.

The difference of opinion between the Hanafis and the Ahl al-Hadith on this issue:
To wash the vessel licked by a dog seven times with water and once with earth is obligatory—this is the madhhab of the Ahl al-Hadith. To wash it only three times with water is the madhhab of the Hanafis.
The crown of the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith, Hazrat Mawlana Abdur Rahman Sahib Mubarakpuri quddisa sirruh, states:
«قال الشوكاني فى النيل يدل على وجوب الغسلات السبع فى ولوغ الكلب واليه ذهب ابن عباس و عروة بن الزبير و محمد بن سيرين و طاووس و عمروبن دينار والاوزاعي ومالك و الشافعي واحمد بن حنبل واسحاق و ابوثور و ابوعبيدة و داود انتهي . وقال النووي وجوب غسل نجاسة ولوغ الكلب سبع مرات وهذا مذهبنا و مذهب مالك و الجماهير . وقال ابوحنيفة يكفي غسله ثلاث مرات انتهي . وقال الحافظ فى الفتح واما الحنفية فلم يقولوا بوجوب السبع ولا التترتيب .» [تحفة الاحوذي، ج1، ص : 93]
The summary of this passage is that, based on these ahadith, the majority of the scholars of Islam, the noble Companions, the Tabi‘in, the three Imams, and other hadith scholars hold the view that it should be washed seven times. In contrast, the Hanafis hold that it should be washed only three times. Their evidence is the hadith which al-Tabarani narrated from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: “When a dog puts its mouth in one of your vessels, wash it three times, or five times, or seven times.” The answer to this is that this hadith is weak, because Shaykh Ibn Humam al-Hanafi wrote in Fath al-Qadir, as clarified by Imam al-Daraqutni, that in its chain is a narrator named ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who is abandoned, and he narrated this hadith from his teacher Isma‘il in this manner. However, from the same Isma‘il, other narrators have narrated this hadith, who reported washing it seven times. The second answer is that this hadith is in al-Daraqutni, which is a book of the third tier, and this narration is also in Sunan Ibn Majah. «اخرج ابن ماجة عن ابي رزين قال رايت اباهريرة يضرب جبهته بيده ويقول يا اهل العراق انتم تزعمون اني اكذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم ليكون لكم الهنا وعلي الاثم اشهد سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول اذا ولغ الكلب فى اناءاحدكم فليغسله سبع مرات .» [تحفة الاحوذي، ج1، ص : 94]
That is, Abu Razin says: I saw Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu, expressing regret, striking his forehead with his hand and saying: “O Iraqis! Do you think that I would lie against the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam for your convenience and become sinful? Know that I testify that I heard the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam say: ‘When a dog puts its mouth in your vessel, wash it seven times.’” Thus, it is clear that the narration from Abu Hurayrah radi Allahu anhu regarding washing three times is unreliable. Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi rahimahullah has shed impartial light on the opposing evidences in great detail. [ديكهو سعايه، ص : 451]
Some people have misunderstood that, according to Imam Bukhari rahimahullah, the dog and what it licks are pure. Allamah Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states in Fath al-Bari that some scholars of the Malikis and others say that Imam Bukhari’s intention from these ahadith is to establish the purity of the dog and what it licks, while some scholars say that this is not Imam Bukhari’s intention. Rather, he only mentioned the views of the people; he himself does not hold this view, because in the chapter heading he only mentioned the vessel licked by a dog, not that what a dog licks is pure.

Regarding the hadith in Bukhari, Shaykh al-Hadith Hazrat Mawlana ‘Ubaydullah Sahib Mubarakpuri states:
«وفي الحديث دليل على نجاسة فم الكلب من حيث الامر بالغسل لما ولغ فيه والا راقة للماء .» [مرعاة، ج 1، ص : 324]
That is, from the aforementioned hadith in Bukhari, there is evidence that the mouth of the dog is impure; that is why, for the vessel in which it puts its mouth, there is the command to wash it and to pour out that water. If its mouth were pure, there would not be a command to waste the water in this manner. The impurity of the mouth implies the impurity of its entire body.

The hadith of ‘Abdullah ibn Ma‘qil, which Muslim and other hadith scholars have transmitted, its meaning is that it should be washed seven times with water and the eighth time with earth. Explaining this, Hazrat Shaykh al-Hadith Mubarakpuri, may his shade be extended, states:
«وظاهره يدل على ايجاب ثمان غسلات وان غسله التتريب غيرالغسلات السبع وان التتريب خارج عنها والحديث قداجمعوا على صحة اسناده وهى زيادة ثقة فتعين المصير اليها .» [مرعاة، ج1، ص : 324]
That is, from this, the obligation of washing eight times is established, and that washing with earth is in addition to washing seven times with water. This hadith is, by consensus, authentic, and washing with earth the first time is also correct, which should be done first, then washed seven times with water.

The detailed answers to the other evidences of the Hanafis have been mentioned in detail by Shaykh al-‘Allamah Hazrat Mawlana Abdur Rahman Sahib Mubarakpuri rahimahullah in his renowned book Abkar al-Minann, [ص : 29-32], and mentioning them here would lead to undue length.

It is appropriate to also mention the statement of Hazrat al-‘Allamah Mawlana Anwar Shah Sahib Deobandi rahimahullah regarding the position of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah on the saliva of the dog, as narrated by the author of Anwar al-Bari:

“It is far-fetched to say that Imam Bukhari holds the view of the purity of the saliva of the dog, when in this chapter there is definitive evidence for its impurity. At most, it can be said that Imam Bukhari has mentioned the ahadith on both sides. The readers themselves should decide, because this is also his habit: when he sees strength on both sides in a chapter, he mentions the ahadith of both sides, which indicates that he himself does not hold certainty for either side. And Allah knows best.” [انوارالباري، ج5، ص : 107]
Bringing the hadith of the mu‘allam dog (the trained hunting dog) also shows that the Imam does not generally hold the view of the purity of the saliva of the dog.

A mu‘allam dog is one in which the quality of obedience is present to the highest degree, and whenever it hunts, it never eats from it itself. [كرماني]

Benefits and Issues:
Relevance between the Chapter and the Hadith:
The first hadith narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu clearly provides the solution that the vessel in which a dog puts its mouth should be washed seven times with water. [صحيح بخاري 172]
However, the second hadith explicitly denies this, stating that the noble Companions radi Allahu anhum did not wash the place where a dog sat. [صحيح بخاري 174]
The reconciliation is as follows:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah states in Fath al-Bari:
“This matter pertains to the early period of Islam when even the doors of the mosques, etc., did not exist. Afterwards, when the command regarding the respect and care of mosques was revealed, such things were prohibited, as is found in the narration of Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma, where Sayyiduna Umar radi Allahu anhu proclaimed loudly: ‘O people! Refrain from idle talk in the mosque.’ So, when idle talk was prohibited, the same ruling applies to other matters as well. Therefore, in the earlier hadith, the command to wash the vessel licked by a dog seven times was given, and now that ruling remains, which is supported by several ahadith. In fact, in some ahadith, after washing the vessel licked by a dog seven times, there is also the command to wash it with earth on the eighth time—first with earth, then seven times with water.” [فتح الباري ج1 ص219۔ 220]

Therefore, the relevance between the chapter and the hadith is that the chapter does not specify how many times the vessel licked by a dog should be washed, but the hadith mentions seven times. The other hadith, which mentions not washing at all, is abrogated. Thus, when not washing is abrogated, washing becomes all the more correct, and from here arises the relevance between the chapter heading and the hadith.

Benefit:
The mentioned hadith pertains to animals. The Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam clarified a research fourteen hundred years ago which today scientists are seen to accept, and this is a luminous proof of the Prophethood of the Noble Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. There were two medical doctors, a father and daughter, residing in Egypt, and both were French. When the father read this hadith, he immediately placed a vessel of water before a dog. When the dog drank from it, he examined it under a microscope and found germs present in it. He poured out the water and washed the vessel several times; each time, germs remained in the vessel. Finally, when it was scrubbed with earth and then checked, not only were the germs dead, but the vessel had become pure. Upon this, both the doctor father and daughter embraced Islam.

The author of “Sunnah of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and Modern Scientific Research” writes:
“Modern research has proven that the saliva of a dog contains those germs which cause rabies in dogs, known in English as the rabies virus. When a dog licks a vessel, if those germs stick to the vessel, they cannot be removed or destroyed without scrubbing with earth. Earth has the property of destroying these germs. For this reason, Islam has commanded scrubbing with earth...

Long experiments, observations, and medical research have made both realities clear. Medical research has proven that there is a specific type of germ in the saliva of a dog, called the rabies virus, which causes a highly fatal and dangerous disease. Once its effects appear, no patient can survive. Similarly, research has also proven that, in addition to other elements, earth contains a large amount of nushadir (ammonium chloride), shorah (saltpeter), ammonium, and calcium oxide, which purify this type of virus.” [سنت نبوي صلى الله عليه وسلم اور جديد سائنسي تحقيقات، ج2، ص291]

Benefit Number 2:
Various wordings have been reported in the ahadith regarding purifying a vessel licked by a dog. In some hadith, washing three times is mentioned, in others five times, and in others seven times.

Ibn al-Mulaqqin rahimahullah, discussing these various narrations, states:
«انه روي من طريق ابي هريرة رضى الله عنه مرفوعاً التخيير بين الثلاث الخمس والسبع، فل كان السبع واجباً لم يخير بينه و بين الباقي لكنه ضعيف كمانبه الدار قطني فى سننه والبهقي فى ”خلافيات“» [التوضيح الشرح الجامع الصحيح، ج4 ص2455]
“That is, these narrations are reported marfu‘ (attributed to the Prophet) from Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah radi Allahu anhu. There is an option between washing three, five, or seven times. Thus, if seven times were obligatory, there would be no option among them. However, (the narrations of three and five) are weak, as mentioned by Imam Daraqutni in his Sunan and Imam Bayhaqi in al-Khilafiyyat.”
In Sunan Daraqutni, washing three times is mentioned, but Imam Daraqutni states that its chain is mawquf (stopped at the Companion).
In another narration, three, five, and seven times are mentioned; after this narration, Imam Daraqutni states that ‘Abd al-Wahhab has reported it uniquely from Isma‘il, and he is abandoned in hadith.
The third narration is similar; in its chain is ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Dahhak. Imam al-Nasa’i and others have said he is abandoned. For details, see:
① al-Ta‘liq al-Mughni ‘ala Sunan al-Daraqutni, vol. 92–96
② al-Tahqiq by Ibn al-Jawzi, vol. 1, p. 74
③ Mushkil al-Athar by al-Tahawi, vol. 1, p. 23
④ al-Khilafiyyat by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 1, pp. 379–382

Some scholars have considered the command to wash three or five times as abrogated. However, abrogation is not established without evidence; when the narrations are weak, there is no need to resort to the claim of abrogation.
[التحرير للكمال بن الهمام ص 229]
[امير بادشاه فى ”تيسيرالتحرير“ ج3، ص72]
[التقرير والتحبير لابن امير الحاج، ج2، ص266]
However, abrogation is not established by mere possibility; rather, scholars have mentioned several evidences for abrogation. For further research, it is beneficial to refer to these books:
① Nayl al-Awtar 1/42
② al-Umm 1/6
③ Nasb al-Rayah, vol. 1, p. 131
④ Mughni al-Muhtaj 1/83
⑤ al-Muhadhdhab, vol. 1, p. 55
⑥ Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim 3/185
④ al-Tanbih, p. 17
⑦ al-Sharh al-Saghir 1/85
⑧ al-Majmu‘, vol. 2, p. 585
⑨ Hashiyat al-Dasuqi 1/84
⑩ al-Mughni 1/73
⑪ Muqaddimat Ibn Rushd 1/21
⑫ Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/97
⑬ Qawanin Ahkam al-Shari‘ah, p. 35
⑭ al-Muharrar 1/4
⑮ Fath Bab al-‘Inayah 1/149
⑯ al-Sharh al-Kabir 1/128
⑰ Kashshaf al-Qina‘ 1/208

Hadith Commentary:
➊
This pertains to the early period of Islam when the command regarding the sanctity and reverence of mosques had not yet been given.
At that time, mosques did not even have doors.
Later, the command for the sanctity and reverence of mosques was given, and doors were also installed in the mosques, thus the entry and exit of dogs into the mosque was stopped.
(Fath al-Bari 1/364.)

➋
This hadith is also presented as evidence for the purity of a hunting dog (sur kalb), because in the era of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), dogs would freely come and go in the mosque. Furthermore, it is a characteristic of the dog that it walks with its mouth open and its saliva drips continuously; then, with its coming and going in the mosque, it is quite possible that its saliva would fall. Despite all these things, there was no arrangement for sprinkling water, etc. However, in the rulings of the Shariah, such suspicions and notions are not given consideration. Yes, if someone had actually seen the saliva fall and after that the mosque was not washed, then the matter could be considered.
From a scholarly perspective, it is not correct to declare something impure (najis) based on mere suspicion (tawahhum) of impurity; therefore, this narration cannot serve as evidence for the purity of a hunting dog.
However, from this, the third part of the chapter heading established by Imam Bukhari rahimahullah is proven: that the coming and going of dogs in the mosque does not render the mosque impure.

➌
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has written that some people have deduced from this that the dog is pure, since in the time of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), dogs would come and go in the mosque and the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum ajma'in) would not wash the floor of the mosque because of this.
This deduction regarding the purity of dogs is not correct, because in some narrations there are also words that dogs would urinate in the mosque.
(Sunan Abi Dawud, Book of Purification, Hadith 382.)
There is no difference of opinion regarding the impurity (najasah) of a dog’s urine.
Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah has deduced from this hadith that impure ground becomes pure after drying, because the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum ajma'in) would not even sprinkle a little water to purify the mosque, let alone wash it thoroughly.
If the mosque did not become pure after drying, the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum ajma'in) would not have left it as it was.
It is narrated regarding Umar (radi Allahu ta'ala anhu) that he would loudly proclaim: “Refrain from idle talk in the mosque.”
When even useless talk was prohibited, then certainly arrangements would have been made regarding other matters as well.
(Fath al-Bari 1/365.)

382. Commentary:
➊ The mosque is a place of worship; its use for the welfare affairs of Muslims is permissible, but it is necessary to pay special attention to and observe its etiquettes.
➋ When the ground becomes dry and impurity is not apparent, the ground is considered pure.
➌ Preventing young men from sleeping in the mosque on the grounds that they may experience nocturnal emission (ihtilam) has no legal (shar‘i) basis.