The issue of Dogs and Purity is not a monolithic or static view amongst jurists

As to the issue of purity, the main point of contention was as to whether there is a rational basis for the command to wash a container if touched or licked by a dog.[18] The majority of jurists held that there is no rational basis for this command, and that dogs, like pigs, must be considered impure simply as a matter of deference to the religious text. A sizeable number of jurists, however, disagreed with this position. Jurists, particularly from the Maliki school of thought, argued that everything found in nature is presumed to be pure unless proven otherwise, either through experience or text.[19] Ruling that the traditions mentioned above are not of sufficient reliability or authenticity so as to overcome the presumption of purity, they argued that dogs are pure animals. Accordingly, they maintained that dogs do not void a Muslim’s prayer or ritual purity.[20] Other jurists argued that the command mandating that a vessel be washed a number of times was intended as a precautionary health measure. These jurists argued that the Prophet’s tradition on this issue was intended to apply only to dogs at risk of being infected by the rabies virus. Hence, if a dog is not a possible carrier of rabies, it is presumed to be pure.[21] A small number of jurists carried this logic further in arguing that rural dogs are pure, while urban dogs are impure because urban dogs often consume human garbage.[22] Another group of jurists argued that the purity of dogs turn on their domesticity—domestic dogs are considered pure because human beings feed and clean them, while dogs that live in the wild or on the streets of a city could be carriers of disease, and therefore, they are considered impure.[23] It is clear from the evolution of these discourses that as nature became more susceptible to rational understanding, complex and potentially dangerous creatures, such as dogs, became less threatening for Muslim jurists.

[18] Sahnun Ibn Sa‘id, al-Mudawwana al-Kubra (Egypt: Matba‘at al-Sa‘ada, n.d.), 1:5; Ibn Rushd II, Bidayat, 1:33-4; Abu Bakr Ibn Mas‘ud al-Kasani, Bada’i‘ al-Sana’i‘ fi Tartib al-Shara’i‘ (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilimiyya, 1997), 1:375, 415.
[19] Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Dardir, al-Sharh al-Saghir ‘ala Aqrab al-Masalik (the commentary of Ahmad al-Sawi is in the margins) (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi, 1952), 1:18.
[20] Khayr al-Din al-Munif, al-Fatawa al-Khayriyya li Naf‘ al-Bariyya (Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, n.d.), 2:15; Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muúammad Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.), 1:46; ‘Ali Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hazm, Al-Muhalla bi al-Athar (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, n.d.), 1:120-2; Shihab al-Din Ibn Idris al-Qarafi, al-Dhakhira (Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1994), 1:181-2; Zayn al-Din Ibn Muhammad Ibn Nujaym, al-Bahr al-Ra’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1997), 1:225.[21] Abu Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd I, al-Muqaddimat al-Mumahhidat, ed. Muhammad Hajji (Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1988), 1:90-2.
[22] Ibn al-‘Arabi, ‘Aridat, 1-2:138; Ibn Rushd II, Bidayat, 1:36.[23] Ibn Rushd I, al-Muqaddimat, 1:87-9; Ibn Rushd II, Bidayat, 1:35; Ibn al-‘Arabi, ‘Aridat, 1-2:134-7.