Islam is frequently celebrated as a religion of compassion, with its followers often citing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), known as Rahmatullil Alamin (Mercy to the Worlds), as a model of kindness toward all creation, including animals. However, a closer look at authentic Islamic texts—specifically the ahadith (sayings and actions of the Prophet)—reveals a starkly different reality. Far from advocating for animal rights as understood today, certain teachings attributed to Muhammad sanction actions that contradict modern ethical standards of humane treatment, particularly toward dogs. This post aims to dismantle the myth of animal rights in Islam by examining key ahadith that document orders to kill dogs, discriminatory attitudes toward black dogs, and troubling associations that undermine any claim to universal compassion.
1. The Initial Order: Kill All Dogs
The notion that Islam inherently promotes kindness to animals is challenged by an early directive from the Prophet Muhammad to exterminate all dogs in Medina. This is explicitly recorded in Sahih Muslim 1570c:
Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.
This hadith describes a sweeping campaign to eradicate dogs, with no exceptions made—not even for a dog accompanying a traveler from the desert. Such a blanket order raises profound questions: How can a religion that permits, or even mandates, the mass killing of an entire species be reconciled with the concept of animal rights, which values the intrinsic worth of all living beings? This initial command sets a troubling precedent, suggesting that compassion toward animals was not a priority in this context.
2. A Partial Reprieve: Utility Over Compassion
Later, the order was amended to spare dogs that served a practical purpose, such as hunting or herding livestock. This modification is detailed in Sunan an-Nasa’i 4278 and Sunan Ibn Majah 3203:
Salim bin ‘Abdullah narrated that his father said:
“I heard the Messenger of Allah raise his voice with the command to kill dogs. All dogs were to be killed except dogs used for hunting or herding livestock.“
While this change allowed some dogs to live, it frames their survival in terms of human utility rather than inherent value. Dogs without a functional role remained expendable, implying that their right to exist depended solely on their usefulness to people. This utilitarian stance stands in sharp contrast to contemporary animal rights principles, which reject the idea that an animal’s worth is tied to its service to humans.
3. Targeting Black Dogs: Discrimination and Racism
The narrative becomes even more disturbing with a subsequent shift in policy, where the focus narrows to the killing of black dogs specifically. This is documented in Sunan Abi Dawud 2846:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: The Prophet of Allah (ﷺ) ordered to kill dogs, and we were even killing a dog which a woman brought with her from the desert. Afterwards he forbade to kill them, saying: Confine yourselves to the type which is black.
This hadith, corroborated by Mishkat al-Masabih 4100, indicates that while the general slaughter of dogs was halted, black dogs remained singled out for elimination. The specification of color introduces a discriminatory element—akin to racism within the animal kingdom. Why were black dogs deemed uniquely deserving of death? This selective targeting defies logic and fairness, further eroding the claim of humane treatment in Islamic teachings.
4. Black Dogs as Devils: Superstition Over Compassion
The vilification of black dogs reaches its zenith with an explicit association between them and evil. This is captured in Sunan Abi Dawud 702:
Hafs reported that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying, and the other version of this tradition transmitted through a different chain has: Abu Dharr said (and not the Prophet): If there is not anything like the back of a saddle in front of a man who is praying, then a donkey, a black dog, and a woman cut off his prayer. I asked him: Why has the black dog been specified, distinguishing it from a red, a yellow and a white dog? He replied: My nephew, I also asked the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) the same question as you asked me. He said: The black dog is a devil.
Here, the Prophet reportedly identifies the black dog as a “devil,” distinguishing it from dogs of other colors and grouping it with a donkey and a woman as entities that disrupt prayer. This demonization of black dogs based solely on their appearance reflects a superstitious worldview, not a compassionate one. It justifies hostility and violence toward them, while the inclusion of women in this list hints at broader problematic attitudes—though that lies beyond this discussion. Such a teaching not only sanctions cruelty but also perpetuates irrational fear and bias against a specific subset of animals.
5. What This Means for Animal Rights in Islam
Taken together, these ahadith—from the mass killing of all dogs, to the conditional sparing of useful ones, to the targeted execution of black dogs—paint a picture of an approach to animals that is utilitarian, discriminatory, and steeped in superstition. The progression of these orders does not reflect a consistent ethic of kindness or respect for animal life. Instead, it suggests that animals, particularly dogs, were judged by their utility to humans or their perceived spiritual status rather than their right to exist and thrive.
Modern animal rights advocate for the humane treatment of all creatures, regardless of their purpose or characteristics. By contrast, these Islamic texts reveal a framework where dogs could be slaughtered en masse, spared only for practical reasons, or condemned as devils based on their color. This is not a foundation for animal welfare but a justification for control, exclusion, and violence.
Conclusion
The claim that Islam inherently supports humane behavior and animal rights crumbles under the weight of its own foundational texts. The ahadith cited here—sourced from authoritative collections like Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abi Dawud—demonstrate that the Prophet Muhammad’s directives regarding dogs involved widespread killing, conditional mercy, and outright prejudice against black dogs, whom he labeled as devils. These teachings clash with the image of a religion defined by universal compassion and expose a reality rooted in utility and superstition rather than genuine concern for animal welfare.
For those who portray Islam as a champion of animal rights, these examples demand honest scrutiny. While other Islamic teachings may encourage kindness to animals, the specific actions and attitudes recorded in these ahadith cannot be dismissed. They reveal a complex and often troubling stance on animals—one that falls far short of the ethical standards we uphold today.