Kenan Çamurcu

In Arabic literature, there's a poetic tradition starting with "ya ummati" (O my nation). Kahlil Gibran's "O my nation, you deny your advisor" is among the most famous. In Turkey, Ahmet Altan, though not a poem, published his famous quasi-poetic article in June 1996 in the Yeni Yüzyıl newspaper, beginning with the sentence, "O my people, you didn't even listen to your prophets; you'll never listen to me." This article was admired and circulated for years by "Reis-ist" and "Hocaefendi-ist" conservatives in their happy days.

When I saw the vehicle convoy protesting dogs in Karatay district of Konya, with claims that a 2-year-old Syrian girl, Rana, was killed by homeless dogs, even though nothing was yet clear, my mind cried out, "O my nation, O my people, you no longer listen to Allah; you've gone berserk in your hostility towards living beings and animals; you're brain-dead, a walking corpse."

It was clear they were protesting dogs, as there was no indication that their long vehicle convoy, honking through the city without regard for traffic laws, public order, or causing disturbance, and without any hindrance from the security sector, was a reaction to the central government or local administration. Of course, dogs were being protested by proxy; the real target of their reaction was nature and animal lovers, their associations, foundations, platforms, and the civilized lifestyle that respects primordial disposition (fitra) and is friendly to nature and animals. This incident is just another clash between the civilized and humane universe and the wild and inhumane dark realm.

At the push of a button, conservative people, with their trolls and real accounts, once again started screaming for the genocide of all dogs on social media. Everyone knows the level of disgust in the messages published, so there's no need to repeat them and increase the pollution.

The "Islamic" Organizations' Holy War Against Dogs

"Islamic" associations and foundations, seeing this incident as an unmissable opportunity, planned an action, a jihad, a struggle against dogs and spilled onto the streets. We're watching in astonishment, of course, as this pathology receives support from the government, which talks about being a founding actor of the European security system. This is happening even as Italian Prime Minister Meloni has declared, "I believe in European civilization."

While femicides, child rapes and murders, and vulgar insults filled with hatred towards Alevis are gushing from every corner of the country, not a leaf stirs. But in the Karatay case, even though what happened is still unknown, the administration, at the level of the Minister of Interior, shouts a manifesto and targets Allah's innocent and oppressed creatures, dogs. We must be convinced that we are being dragged into even darker layers just when we hoped to emerge from the dark tunnel.

The number of alleged fatal incidents caused by dogs in the last five years, despite being rounded up by force and violence, thrown into desolate areas without food or water, constantly frightened, pushed around, and begrudged even a morsel of food, is a maximum of 30. Direct attack fatalities are included in this figure. In contrast, in the last five years, 2,000 women have been killed by murderers who were not subjected to even a fraction of the treatment dogs face. Some of them were even killed while under state protection. And these murderers openly and brazenly committed these crimes. The number of raped children is over 500. 70% of these children were killed. Moreover, more than 600 children were deliberately murdered. In other words, social life is experiencing a major collapse, but after none of these incidents did we see the Minister of Interior appear before cameras to declare a manifesto. Individuals and organizations enraged by dog hatred didn't say a word about this grave situation, didn't organize demonstrations or protests, and didn't even issue a simple press release.

The hypocrisy of organized religiosity, which has apostatized from morality and cannot utter a peep against local administrations that fail to fulfill their duties regarding the care, supervision, feeding, and sheltering of homeless dogs, is beyond description. They are the ones who are failing to fulfill their responsibility and obligation towards living life, and instead of blaming themselves, they shamelessly target dogs. This is the brazenness that, though the heavens and earth shrank from undertaking the trust of responsibility for living life, ignorantly rushed forward and accepted the obligation (Surah Al-Ahzab 33:72), but then fails to fulfill its duty and blames the animals it undertook responsibility for.

From our perspective, no life is merely a statistic. Because the harming of even one innocent person, regardless of their ethnic origin, religion, belief, or disbelief, is like harming all of humanity (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32).

The issue that needs to be highlighted here is the unscrupulousness, mercilessness, lack of compassion, and blindness that exploit such incidents for the genocide of dogs; it is the state of having no share in religion or faith despite what the religion, to which they constantly exhibit their allegiance, says about faith in this regard.

Suspicions Expected to Guide the Investigation

An investigation has been launched regarding the incident in Konya. The allegations are diverse; the little girl was found with no clothing below the waist, there were bruises on her legs, not bites, and despite claims of a 10-dog attack, the preliminary autopsy report indicates bite marks only on the neck and shoulder area and a few other places, raising questions about how these marks could cause death. Security camera footage showing the child alone quite far from her home, the family hastily taking the body and going to Syria, and other details are surely being evaluated. We hope the judiciary will reveal the truth, disregarding populist hatred.

The list of suspicions is long, but the only concrete and real thing is the rampant dog hatred. Turkey is like a The Walking Dead set where hostility towards dogs has escalated to the level of collective consciousness being annulled.

If we look at the appointed lawyer for the family, who insists that dogs caused the child's death and reacts to those who bring up other matters, it means the file will be archived as a "cold case" under the heading "stray dog attack." The lawyer criminalizes those investigating the incident in the neighborhood by calling them "instigators of the neighborhood" and states that he will file a criminal complaint against them. One wonders why he reacts so strongly to seeking the truth. And against whom would the investigators incite the neighborhood residents anyway? Even if they are exercising their constitutional rights and encouraging the public to react to the local government's negligence, why would the lawyer bother to file a criminal complaint?

These are tough times when investigating the truth has become completely devalued. Times when conforming to the officially declared truth is a matter of crime and reward.

The Cultural and Religious Substructure Fueling Unconscious Hatred

In this article, I'll say a few things not about the judicial and criminal aspects of the matter, but about the cultural and religious substructure that fuels unconscious hatred towards dogs. Because the organized aggression, in its evidently calculated anti-dog campaign, formally and to appear righteous to the public, puts forward the lie, slander, and fabricated narrations that the Prophet commanded the killing of dogs.

I know very well that proving this to be incorrect won't benefit them. Because disinformation-based perception activities and campaigns have a specific agenda, and Islam is merely a tool within this agenda. So to speak, even if the Prophet were alive and warned them that he didn't say such things, it wouldn't work.

We can have guesses about what the agenda might be. Keeping the government on edge and pushing it towards radicalism through dog hatred, consolidating authoritarianism, maintaining tension to prevent dissenting voices from being heard, spreading anger and hatred to the grassroots to transform political polarization into sociological conflict, etc. But unfortunately, these options apply downwards from the conservative government as well. At the lightest assessment, the government, unable to get votes from the nature and animal-loving secular segment, tolerates the animal hatred of the radicals who vote for it, and even takes actions that can be considered supportive.

The Hollow Boasts of Islams

The distinguishing characteristic of Islam is its self-propaganda. The famous saying "Turk's propaganda to Turk" applies equally to Islam. It's a community that spends its time in closed-circuit, hollow boasts. The most clichéd example they never cease to mention is the tale of a prostitute who went to heaven simply because she gave water to a thirsty dog.

The narration from Abu Hurayrah in Bukhari goes like this: "A prostitute saw a dog at a well, panting with thirst, its tongue hanging out. It was almost dying of thirst. The woman immediately took off her shoe, tied it with her headscarf, and drew water from the well, giving it to the dog. Because of this good deed, Allah forgave her." (Bukhari 3321, Muslim 2245).

This story is always told in mosque pulpits, study circles, and sermons. But in practice, instead of giving water to dogs, they organize demonstrations in the streets with shouts of jihad to take their lives, run media campaigns, kick and chase every dog they see, and try to run them over with vehicles. The frequent sight of cat carcasses on roads is the trace left by the ordinary savagery of a human species with a serial killer psychology that doesn't slow down or brake even when they see an animal jump onto the road.

This is a community that defended the cold-blooded killer who, with monstrous feelings, killed a helpless dog tied up in a concentration camp in Konya, which has no connection to shelter, by striking its head with a shovel. They want this savage treatment to be inflicted on all dogs.

They colonize nature and enslave animals to use them for their purposes. Colonization inevitably requires intervention in life. Humans made plant species usable by altering them. Likewise, animals. Because colonization doesn't happen by preserving their natural state. Humans didn't just enslave other humans. They also colonized animals, and even plants, under the guise of domestication. The conservative perspective even assigns a role to Sufism when defending colonization. For example, Sufi masters who came to Anatolia are called "colonizing dervishes."

Muslims proudly explain that it is forbidden to kill even a fly during Hajj, but in their daily lives, no living creature is safe from their evil.

Planning Evil is Peculiar to Humans, Against Animal Nature

The rabid minority hostile to Allah's dog community thinks dogs are like them, believing them to be beings who plan evil like themselves. For this reason, the intention to equate them with their own malevolent mental world is more dominant in the slogan "dog terror" than mere ignorance.

On the contrary, animals act according to their primordial disposition (fitra), their nature. That's why the only living creature mentioned with negative attributes in the Qur'an is the human: "greedy and anxious" (Surah Al-Ma'arij 70:19), "liars and ungrateful" (Surah Al-A'raf 7:179), arrogant and rebellious (Surah Al-Alaq 96:6-7), "one who, when given abundance by their Lord, says 'My Lord has honored me,' but when restricted, says 'My Lord has humiliated me'" (Surah Al-Fajr 89:15-16), "blindly imitating their ancestors without using their intellect" (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:170), "one who fabricates lies about Allah" (Surah Al-Ankabut 29:68), and others.

No negative attributes are used for any living creature other than humans in the verses. On the contrary, all animals, living life, and nature are constantly reiterated as proof of Allah's existence and oneness, and the miraculous nature of life.

The Qur'an is full of examples showing that humans should learn lessons and take admonition from animals. Therefore, it is not dogs that are "stray." Their head is bound by the primordial disposition (fitra) that Allah created. They are merely homeless. They are hungry due to a lack of compassion that doesn't share food, and they are deprived of shelter and housing. Those who are "stray" are the dog haters who have reached the pinnacle of savagery. They are the living creatures mentioned in the angels' astonishment and objection, "Will You place upon it one who will cause corruption therein and shed blood?" (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:30), due to previous experiences.

Imam Shafi'i (d. 820) powerfully reflected his disappointment with humanity in his poem:

I wish dogs were our neighbors / I wish we hadn't seen any of the people we saw For dogs remain loyal where they are / But the evil of humans never ends. (Alusi, n.d.: 9/115)

The second Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, when opposing those who wanted to ostracize dogs from society, said: "Those who do not know the matter think that the dog is one of the wild animals. If that were the case, it would not be accustomed to humans. On the contrary, it is afraid of wild animals, loves houses and settlements, and avoids deserts and desolate places. As soon as it sees a carpet or cushion, it gets on it and sits. It never goes to an unclean place." (Ibn Marzuban, n.d.: 44).

In Ahmad ibn Hanbal's Kitab al-Zuhd (Book of Asceticism), Ja'far ibn Sulayman narrates: I saw a dog with Malik ibn Dinar. I asked him, "O Abu Yahya, what will you do with this dog?" He replied, "This is better than a bad friend." (Demiri, 2004: 2/383).

Again, Ibn 'Umar (son of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab) saw a Bedouin with a dog. He asked him, "What do you have with you?" The Bedouin replied, "A grateful dog that keeps my secrets." Ibn 'Umar responded, "Then protect your friend well." (Ibn Marzuban, n.d.: 36).

The claim of the conservative human, who has been struck by so much emptiness yet dares not cast off the unnecessary burden on him, that he is the most superior living creature in nature, is so hollow. Yet, if he were to turn his head and look at nature, he would learn so much and could make his life perfect.

Ibn Marzuban's Reaction to Fabricated Hadiths Spreading Dog Hatred

I don't know if it helps to recount an example of sensitivity from 10th-century Baghdad against the hysterical savagery and neurotic religiosity that wants to starve dogs, remove them from society, and, if possible, kill them all. But these are important true stories that reflect social reality concerning animals, dogs, and living life, predating the baseless sayings in hadith books that formed the basis for top-down religiosity and social engineering by sultans.

Abu Bakr Ibn Marzuban (d. 921), a contemporary of the hadith scholars who compiled Sunni hadith books, narrates from Abu al-Ala ibn Yusuf al-Qadi: An old man narrated. He performed Hajj one year. He said: "We carried our belongings to Yasiriyyah and sat in an open area to eat our lunch. A dog was lying next to us. We gave it a piece of what we were eating. Then we continued our journey and camped at Nahw al-Malik. When we set the table, we saw that the same dog was next to us, just like the previous day. I said to my servants, 'This dog has followed us, and now it has a right over us. Take good care of it.' They spread the table in front of it, and the dog ate. After that, it followed us in the same way wherever we stopped. No one could approach our belongings or our loads; if someone approached, the dog would immediately bark and attack. Therefore, we were completely safe from thieves and dangers throughout our journey to Mecca." (Ibn Marzuban, n.d.: 48-49).

The historian, litterateur, and hadith scholar Ibn Marzuban, seeing that hadiths related to dog hatred were being fabricated, wrote a book titled "The Superiority of Dogs Over Many Who Wear Clothes." In the introduction to his book, he recounts numerous poems about how human morals degenerated with changing generations. Throughout the book, he includes hadiths, real-life events, and cautionary tales about the virtues of dogs and their superiority to humans. In other words, while many fabricated narrations about dog hatred were included in hadith books during the period when those books were being compiled, Ibn Marzuban dedicated himself to transmitting the truth of the Prophet's time.

But unfortunately, the majority of Muslims prefer the anti-dog fabricated narrations of other hadith scholars, but they do not give credit to the entirely different historical picture narrated by Ibn Marzuban, who lived in the same period as them, was a more advanced hadith expert, more learned than them, and unlike them, knew the method of history, and was a poet and litterateur. In fact, they are most likely not even aware of Ibn Marzuban. With this ignorance, they establish their religious domination, hostile to nature and living life, over people.

Did the Prophet Command the Killing of Dogs?

None of the narrations forming the basis for the claim that the Prophet commanded the killing of all dogs in and around Medina are compatible with the Prophet's style, demeanor, historical reality, or the ordinary course of life. This is because the transmitters of the narration do not explain for which event or reason the Prophet said such a thing. In other words, could the Prophet have suddenly, without any reason or purpose, commanded the killing of all dogs?

It is not clear from whom the Prophet requested the dog massacre, what he said when making the request is unknown, there are no other narrators to corroborate this event, no separate narrations have come from the individuals of the group said to have been sent to kill dogs but whose identities are unknown, and there is no information or record about when the incident took place. There is no information about how many dogs were killed, what was done with the killed dogs, whether dogs in the Jewish quarters of Medina were also killed, where they went outside Medina, etc. Methodologically, the claim that the Prophet ordered a massacre of dogs answers none of the questions and meets none of the necessary criteria to be considered valid.

For example, the narration attributed to Abdullah ibn Mughaffal states: "The Prophet said, 'If dogs were not one of the communities, I would have ordered their killing. Therefore, kill the jet-black ones. If a household keeps a dog other than a hunting dog, a field dog, or a sheepdog, a qirat from their deeds will be deducted every day.'" (Abu Dawud 2845, Tirmidhi 1489, Nasai 4280, Ibn Majah 3205, Ahmad 16788).

There is no reliable information about 'Ubayd ibn Asbat ibn Muhammad al-Qurayshi, who narrated this tradition. As for Isma'il ibn Muslim in the chain of narrators, if he is the one with the kunya of Makki (because there are three Isma'il ibn Muslims), - which he must be given his birth and death dates - he was even labeled by Nasai, who included the narration in his book, as "no hadith should be taken from him." Ahmad ibn Hanbal also noted that his narrations should be rejected. Almost all biographical scholars have negative views on him. (Abu al-Hajjaj al-Mizzi, 1983: 3/199).

The condition "one of the communities" must be related to the verse "They are communities like you" (Surah Al-An'am 6:38). For this reason, they couldn't bring themselves to kill all dogs. But why only the black ones would be killed? Those who were aware of this logical fallacy tried to compensate for the error in another version of the same narration: "Because the black dog is a devil." (Ibn Battal, 2003: 2/142).

And the person they made utter this strange statement is Abu Dharr, a symbol of honesty and truth.

Allegedly, Abu Dharr heard from the Prophet that if a sutrah (barrier) the size of a saddle was not placed in front during prayer, three things passing in front would invalidate the prayer: a donkey, a woman, and a black dog. (Muslim 510).

Such an attribution to Abu Dharr is, of course, preposterous.

Dogs Freely Entering and Exiting the Prophet's Mosque

In another prominent narration used for dog massacres, Ibn 'Umar allegedly said: "The Prophet sent a group to kill dogs. I was among them. We even met a woman from the desert, and we killed her dog too." (Muslim 1570, Bukhari 3323).

Ibn 'Umar, to whom this statement (which cannot be connected to the ordinary course of life) is attributed, in his description that is the very embodiment of the ordinary course of life, while explaining what constitutes najasah (impurity) that obstructs prayer, says that they would clean the ground by pouring water over human urine, but sometimes when dogs urinated in the mosque, they would not pour water, because dog urine was not impure. (Abu Dawud 382, Ibn Khuzaymah 300, Ibn Hibban 1656).

From the historical situation recounted here while stating a religious ruling, we understand that dogs not only roamed freely in Medina but could even enter and exit the Prophet's Mosque, and sometimes even urinated, but no one chased them away. Despite this, Islams that eagerly adopt a pathological culture prioritize the fabricated narration "Angels do not enter a house that has a dog" (Bukhari 5949).

It is impossible to find faith, fairness, reason, conscience, or intellect in those who intend to take the lives of dogs, about whom the Qur'an says, "They are communities like you," relying on such weak, rotten, and dubious narrations.

Yet, there are so many historical examples that accurately reflect the Prophet's view on dogs. For example, according to a narration, the Prophet saw a deceased person and asked, "What happened to this man?" Those present replied, "This man attacked the sheep flock of the Banu Zuhrah and stole a sheep from them. The flock's dog then attacked him and killed him." Thereupon, the Prophet said: "So he killed himself, forfeited his blood-money, rebelled against his Lord, betrayed his brother, and the dog became better than him." (Ibn Marzuban, n.d.: 35; Majlisi, 1983: 62/57-58).

Species Included in the Rank of Humanity

The claim that animals do not possess free will and therefore are not held accountable for their actions is invalid. They are not held accountable for their actions not because they lack intellect, judgment, will, or the ability to choose, but because they live in accordance with nature and fulfill the requirements of their nature. Humans, on the other hand, by using their will to step outside of nature, enter the realm of accountability for their actions.

As expressed by the Ikhwan al-Safa (Brethren of Purity), a group of philosophers and intellectuals active in Basra in the 10th century: "The rank of humanity, being a source of superiority and virtue, encompasses not just one but several types of the animal kingdom." (Aydın - Dağ, 2017: 97). This means that even if humanity is considered virtue and superiority, this level is not limited to the bipedal human species, but also includes species from the animal kingdom that can be included in this rank. Ikhwan al-Safa advocated a thought far more advanced than today's, even at that time.

Again, while rumors that instill dog hatred enter hadith books as sayings of the Prophet, a narration reflecting the reality of social life goes like this: A man was walking on the road and experienced severe thirst. Then he found a well, went down into it, drank water, and came out. And what did he see? A dog panting with extreme thirst, its tongue hanging out, licking the ground due to dehydration. The man said to himself: "This dog is suffering from severe thirst just like me." Thereupon, he went down into the well again, filled his shoe with water, and carried it with his mouth to the dog. Allah thanked him for this act and forgave his sins. The listeners asked: "O Messenger of Allah, is there a reward for the kindness we show to animals?" The Prophet replied: "There is a reward in kindness shown to every living creature." (Bukhari 2363, Muslim 2244).

Invitation to Learn from the Believers' Dog in the Cave

Of course, the merchants of hatred are aware that Surah Al-Kahf, when narrating about the believers who sought refuge in a cave from the tyrannical king and the people who blindly obeyed him, speaks positively, at length, and in detail about the dog with them, using interesting expressions. And that the story is told to serve as a lesson. For this reason, to avoid contradicting the story in the verse, they have exempted shepherd and guard dogs from the dog massacre. They assume the dog in the verse was a guard dog protecting the youths. But what they overlook is that there is no such definition in the verse. It simply says "the dog."

To those who try to resolve the contradiction with the verse by advancing strange claims like dogs being permissible at that time and then forbidden by the Prophet, Al-Qurtubi's answer is: "Just as keeping dogs was permissible in their time, it is also permissible in our sharia today." (Al-Qurtubi, 2006: 23/230).

Al-Qurtubi transmitted a narration from the Andalusian commentator Ibn 'Atiyyah (d. 1147) regarding a sermon his father, Abu al-Fadl al-Jawhari (d. 1076), heard in Cairo: "Whoever loves the people of good will attain its blessing. The dog loved virtuous people and befriended them. Thereupon, Allah mentioned it in the Qur'an." (Al-Qurtubi, 2006: 23/231). Al-Qurtubi also cautiously transmits established exceptions, conditions, and negative views about dogs, but in the end, he states that some dogs associating with the righteous and saints reaching this level is a source of comfort and peace for believers who fall short in reaching perfect levels. (Al-Qurtubi, 2006: 23/232).

Alternative Theology that Equalizes Species

The description of the dog accompanying the sleeping youths in the cave is as follows: "And their dog stretching out its forelegs at the entrance" (Surah Al-Kahf 18). Although the verse clearly states "its forelegs (dhira'ayhi)," translations, with the prejudice that a dog cannot have "forelegs" like a human, translate the word as "front paws." Yet, if "paws" were meant, it would have been said so, as in Surah An-Nur 24:45: "Allah has created every [moving] creature from water. Some of them walk on their bellies, some on two legs, and some on four."

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi reminds us that the hadith describing prostration in prayer speaks of not extending the arms like a dog with elbows on the ground, and states that the "foreleg" mentioned when speaking of the dog in Surah Al-Kahf 18 is indeed that foreleg. (Al-Razi, 1981: 21/102). That is, the Prophet also said "the dog's foreleg" when describing the prostration part of prayer (Tirmidhi 275, Ibn Majah 891, Ahmad 14424), not "its paws."

The famous poet Ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 1001), on his deathbed, bequeathed that he be buried at the feet of Imam Musa ibn Ja'far (d. 799, the seventh Imam of Twelver Shi'ism) and that the following sentence from Surah Al-Kahf 18 be inscribed on his grave: "And their dog stretching out its forelegs at the entrance." (Ibn Khallikan, n.d.: 2/171; Amini al-Najafi, 1952: 4/98). These were times when no one paid attention to dog hatred narrations. Deviation and perversion started much later, and if a study were conducted, it would show that in Turkey, where religious ignorance is probably highest in the entire Islamic world, it legitimizes hysterical massacres and genocide.

Three Species on the Same Level, Without Hierarchy

The Qur'an's listing of three types of living creatures at the same level without hierarchy, and the statement that their common origin is water, addresses the discrimination that views animals as inferior species: "And Allah has created every [moving] creature from water. Some of them walk on their bellies, some on two legs, and some on four." (Surah An-Nur 24:45).

Commentators state that those walking on their bellies are snakes and worms, those on two legs are humans and birds, and those on four legs are other animals. (Al-Qurtubi, 2019: 6/224).

Let's not overlook an important detail here: In the verse, different living species are grouped under the same common categorical definition (dabbah). The species are aligned as subcategories of this common origin. Moreover, from the perspective of Qur'anic literature, the mention of humans in the second place proves that, contrary to popular belief, they are not the last link in the perfection of existence.

In Surah An-Nur 24:45, if the connective "and" (wa) between the species categories means "and," then according to Arabic grammar rules, there is an order and grading. In this case, creatures walking on their bellies would be first, those on two legs second, and those on four legs third. If this order is claimed to be related to perfection towards the end, then those walking on four legs would be the most perfect living species. If the conjunction means "comma," then all three species are on the same level, and there is no perfect species. In any case, humans are in the second place among the bipedal species. Furthermore, they are a subspecies of all bipedal creatures. In commentaries, "birds and humans" are mentioned for those walking on two legs. (Al-Baghawi, 1997: 6/55). This means that in no scenario are humans the perfect living species, i.e., ashraf al-makhluqat.

In Surah Al-Ankabut 29:64, after warning that this worldly life belonging to humans is nothing but play and diversion, it is stated that the true and lasting life is the one to be lived in the hereafter. The word used for this life is "hayawan" (animal/living being). While commentaries state that this word means eternal and perfect life, they do not dwell on why such a word was chosen.

The Iranian scholar Ali Akbar Qureshi, in Qamus al-Qur'an, states that the root of the word is "hayy" (life), and that when it was "hayayan," the second 'ya' letter turned into a 'waw' (hayawan). Even if for the afterlife, calling life "hayawan" and this being the general name for walking species can be associated with the fact that animal life began millions of years before human life. They are the hosts. Humans joined this established, natural, real life much later and ruined it with their evil will and choice.

Distortion of Verses for the Superior Human Theory

They theorized the verse (Surah At-Tin 95:4), which contains the information that humans were created in the most suitable form, by distorting it to claim that humans are the most perfectly created beings among all living species. Al-Qurtubi summarizes the general tendency of the commentators as follows: "According to the general view of commentators, humans have been created in the most beautiful form possible. Because Allah created all other beings bowed face down, while He created humans upright." (Al-Qurtubi, 2019: 10/81).

However, Ibn 'Adil's warning, transmitted from the master of Arabic language and literature, Abu al-Baqa' (d. 1219), encourages thinking outside the general trend: "What is meant by the word 'taqwim' here is 'qiwam' (proportion/form). Because 'taqwim' is a verb, and this is an attribute belonging to the Creator, not to the created." (Ibn 'Adil, 1998: 20/408). This means that humans being created in the most suitable form has no connection to superiority over other living species. The sentence in the seventh verse, "So what can cause you to deny the religion after this?" also proves this. The subject and context are to prove the existence, oneness, and power of Allah, who created humans in their proper form, to the pagan interlocutors in Mecca.

Those who translate the last sentence of Surah Al-Isra 17:70 (And We have certainly honored them above many of those We created, giving them [special] preference) with the claim that humans are superior to all created beings are students and disciples of secular Enlightenment thinking, which is obsessed with dominating nature. Islam, a disciple of Western Enlightenment that uses the verse as proof of human superiority over all living beings, ignores that the "created beings" in the verse are expressed with the particle "man," which is used for intelligent beings. Furthermore, it is accompanied by the particle "min" (from some of), which indicates "some of" (teb'iz). What is actually being said is this: some beings possess certain superiorities over others. Just as there are things in which humans are superior, there are also things in which other living beings are superior. Categorically, therefore, humans do not sit at the top of the pyramid of existence as the most superior living species, nor do they sit on a royal throne.

If a plain of resurrection could be designed in this world, and those who consider themselves the most superior of species were gathered there, and an orator with a Dawood-like voice were to address them: "O human, Allah has made you ordinary among the bipedal species and considered you no different from birds; how empty, hollow, meaningless, and comical is this arrogance of yours. You walk with such pride, but with that arrogance, you can neither pierce the earth nor reach the mountains in height." (Surah Al-Isra 17:37).

Spinoza, Ibn 'Arabi, Allamah Tabatabai: Ontological Monotheism

According to Spinoza, everything, whether spirit or body, is merely a phenomenon of the infinite substance. (Günaltay, 1994: 369). The same goes for Ibn 'Arabi. That's all there is to it. It's that simple. Human species joined and became part of this extraordinary existence only in the last 70,000 years of the 4 billion years of living life on Earth, a very short period. Humans have only existed as an actor within existence for 10,000 years. Indeed, doesn't the first verse of Surah Al-Insan 76:1 say that "there came upon man a long period of time when he was not a thing to be remembered?" So what is this attitude of owning the place?

The ontological monotheism emphasized by Spinoza (d. 1677), Ibn 'Arabi (d. 1240), and Allamah Tabatabai (d. 1981) states that Allah is not numerically one. God is truly, genuinely, essentially, and by His very essence the only being; everything else outside of Him is not being or reality.

The state of there being no being other than Allah is called tawhid (monotheism). Therefore, He has no equal or partner, nor can He have one. To make such a comparison, one would have to allow for the possibility and existence of other beings. Once one enters this path, there is shirk (associating partners with God). Religiosity that cannot see the state of oneness, uniqueness, and singularity that Islam calls "tawhid" as ontological and considers it merely epistemological is necessarily hostile to nature. Hostility towards animals emerges when one deviates from the ontology of tawhid.

Muslims Against Darwin, But Glorifying His "Noblest of Creatures" Idea

Attention should be paid to how every species within the non-hierarchical circle of living life is equalized in the Qur'anic vocabulary and literature, reflecting the language, culture, social life, customs, practices, and traditions of the 7th century. For example, dogs, like humans, have "forelegs," and all living creatures "walk," including those without legs. The language that attributes crawling to creatures without legs and names them "reptiles" is actually a manifestation of the humanist culture that places humans at the top of the hierarchy pyramid. The only thing Muslims do is imitate this culture.

Muslims mistakenly believe they are doing a service by "Islamizing" the ideology of "superior human species," which reached its final form in Darwin, with the term "ashraf al-makhluqat" (the noblest of creatures). However, if due importance and sensitivity had been given to the Qur'anic description of "walking" for animals without legs, this could have revolutionized language and culture. Muslims absolutely do not allow this. The curses and insults in Turkish that use animals are also reflections of the same pathology.

The most striking moment of species equalization is in Surah Al-Kahf 18:22, where the dog is personified and included in the discussion about the number of believers who took refuge in the cave: "They will say, 'They were three, their fourth being their dog.' And [others] will say, 'They were five, their sixth being their dog'—guessing at the unseen; and [still others] will say, 'They were seven, their eighth being their dog.'"

According to classical and contemporary Qur'anic commentaries, the dog in the cave is a teacher for humans. Just like the raven that taught Cain how to bury his brother Abel: "Then Allah sent a raven scratching in the ground to show him how to bury the corpse of his brother. He said, 'Woe to me! Have I been unable to be like this raven and bury my brother's corpse?'" (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:31).

Nature is not only proof, evidence, manifestation, and embodiment of Allah's existence and unity, but also a teacher for humanity.

Islam is undoubtedly a religion of nature, but the Muslims who claim to believe in it are enemies of nature and living beings. I explained this issue in my article "Nature-Religion Islam's Nature-Hating Muslims."

Muslims Islamized the "superior species" belief of Enlightenment humanism, and from this, they generated hostility towards all animals, especially dogs, towards living beings, and towards primordial disposition (fitra). Can this neurotic religiosity have any connection with faith in Allah, who created these living beings? This can only be defined as pathological narcissism. It is, of course, expected that an anthropocentric understanding would find the exploitation and abuse of nature reasonable. It is necessary to talk about the mass neurosis of a religiosity that does not object to this. The human putting itself at the center of nature, devaluing other living beings and ecosystems, is humanist megalomania, and the harm of this deviation to ecosystems occurs in such a short time that it can be observed with the naked eye.

In the West, they love the practice of mercilessly killing stray cats and dogs if no one adopts them within a specified period. The instant transformation of anti-Western sentiment into deep sympathy and affection is seen in the animal massacre. They write on the shelter cages of cats and dogs how many days they have left until they are killed. How they eloquently argue for the urgent need to copy and implement this mercilessness! They have no interest whatsoever in letting live, living in nature, or coexisting with other living species.

Cynophobia

In Arabic, the idiom "Jaban al-Kalb" is used to describe generosity. It means "cowardly dog." This implies that a person is so generous that the dog of the house, which constantly receives guests and eats with them, does not bark at them because it is never hungry. (Ashur, n.d.: 1/374).

Far from this level of sensitivity, the Ankara Governorship issued an instruction that even detached and garden houses can harbor a maximum of 2 dogs and 2 cats. In apartments, it will be 1 dog and 1 cat. They will confiscate any excess. Since these animals will not be released onto the streets, they will either die of hunger and disease in concentration camps or be killed by the state.

It's a complete state of cynophobia. A phobia, because it's an irrational and excessive fear. And from irrational fear, only violence emerges. This phobia is the dog version of Freud's "Little Hans case." There's nothing to say to someone who explains the continuation of the phobia analyzed by Freud in a child into adulthood by saying that the person remains at the intelligence level of a child.

When Erbakan said "waiter state," secular radicalism, which considered this an undermining of the idea and apparatus of the state and raised hell, is now happy with the idea and apparatus of the state that is at the peak of sanctification in the authoritarian regime of full-time religiosity, aren't they? With a salute to Bakunin's memory, this state makes so many moves that it rightly deserves the description: "A vast slaughterhouse and gigantic graveyard where all the best aspirations and all the living forces of a country are buried with vainglory" (Dolgoff, 1998: 286), doesn't it?

Leaving aside the highly exaggerated figures given in the media campaigns, which are apparatuses of the government, it is estimated that there are around 3 million homeless dogs and cats forced to live on the streets. With 28 million households, 2.5 million businesses, and around 100 thousand factories in Turkey, this is a cruel and merciless society and people who do not adopt, care for, or abandon only 3 million homeless animals on the streets, but even plan to get rid of them by killing them.

Corrupted Religiosity Up to This Point

When asked how many children I have in conversations, I say, "Eight." "Four are two-legged, four are four-legged." We adopted two cats and two dogs from the street, four-legged children. We can afford this. If we had more economic and physical space, we would fulfill our divine obligation towards more.

Thanks to our four-legged children, I have come to realize the importance of starting by purifying language. There is a need for a clean and decent language and its civilized culture that does not disregard nature and living species. We must urgently abandon the use of animal species for insults and derogatory remarks against humans.

The advice of Ahnaf ibn Qays (d. 686) is valuable: "If a dog wags its tail at you, trust its loyalty, but do not trust the tail-wagging of humans. For sometimes those who wag their tails can be traitors." Sha'bi, on the other hand, says, "The best quality of a dog is that it is never hypocritical in its love." Ibn Abbas's saying also confirms this: "A loyal dog is better than a treacherous human." (Ibn Marzuban, n.d.: 36).

In Ahmad ibn Hanbal's (Manaqib), there is a narration: Imam Ahmad, upon hearing that a man possessed hadiths, set out to find him. Finally, he encountered an old man who kept dogs. Imam Ahmad greeted him, and the old man returned the greeting, but then occupied himself with feeding the dog first. This made Ahmad uncomfortable, as the old man turned to the dog first, showed it attention, but did not turn to Ahmad. After feeding the dog, the old man turned and said: "I suppose you felt uncomfortable because I turned to the dog first and not to you, didn't you?" Ahmad said, "Yes." Thereupon, the old man narrated the following hadith: Abu al-Zinad, al-A'raj, and Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Prophet said: "Whoever loses hope in the one from whom he hoped, Allah will cut off his hope on the Day of Judgment, and that person will not enter Paradise." This land is not the place for dogs. This dog came to me, and I fed it so that it would not lose hope. Otherwise, Allah could have cut off hope from me on the Day of Judgment. Upon this, Imam Ahmad said: "This hadith is enough for me," and returned. (Ibn al-Dayba', 1906: 212).

Some hadith critics argue that this hadith is weak or not attributed to the Prophet. (Halabi, 1999: 10/241). That may be. Even if the sentence belongs to the old man mentioned in the story, or if he thought the saying he heard was a hadith of the Prophet, the high sensitivity that connects the dog's loss of hope with Allah's cutting off hope from Himself is important. That is the main message here. This perspective invalidates all narrations that spread dog hatred and animosity. Living reality is superior to words that cannot be corroborated by lifestyle.

The shelf life of corrupted piety and religiosity has long expired. The efforts of Muslims to keep this rotten piety alive can only be explained by the material benefits derived from it. The elites of Islam are not at all ready to abandon the highly profitable apparatus.

The narration in Al-Qushayri's Risalah, in the section on generosity and benevolence, also reflects the sensitivity, social inclination, and level of humanity of that period:

Abdullah ibn Ja'far, while going to his village, met a black slave in an area with a group of palm trees. The slave brought three loaves of bread for lunch and gave the first loaf to a dog present there. The dog ate it. Then he gave the second loaf to the dog, and the dog ate that too. Finally, he gave the third loaf, and the dog ate that as well. Abdullah ibn Ja'far, watching this, asked the slave: "How many loaves of bread did you eat every day?" The slave replied: "As much as you saw today." Abdullah ibn Ja'far asked again: "Then why did you prefer this dog?" The slave replied: "This land is not the place for dogs. It came from very far away, hungry, and I did not want to reject it." Thereupon, Abdullah ibn Ja'far said: "Today I saw someone more generous than me." Abdullah ibn Ja'far bought the slave and freed him. Then he bought the entire garden and everything in it and gifted it to the freed slave. (Al-Qushayri, 1989: 421, Babu al-Jud wa al-Sakha).

Finally, let us remember that Hazrat Ali's advice on the ideal life envisages living like a dog: He said: "How fortunate is he whose life is like that of a dog. There are ten qualities in a dog: 1) It has no value among people; it does not put itself forward. 2) It has no wealth or property. 3) The earth is its bed. 4) It is often hungry, rarely full. 5) Even if its owner beats it a hundred times, it does not leave his door; it is faithfully devoted. 6) It is loyal to its owner, recognizes its friend, and attacks its enemy. 7) It guards its owner's door day and night, breaking its sleep to keep watch. 8) It is mostly silent; it does not speak idly. 9) It is content with what it is given; it is satisfied with what its owner gives. 10) When it dies, it leaves no inheritance; it is not covetous of this world." (Zarandi 1958: 156).

Look at the insults and derogatory remarks in Turkish that begin with "like a dog," and then look at Hazrat Ali's saying, "How fortunate is he whose life is like that of a dog." We are neither of the same religion, nor the same species, nor the same people as the ugly characters who make the dog, a symbol of high and noble qualities such as disdain for the world, humility, contentment, and loyalty, the subject of vulgar insults.

Translated by Gemini

References

• Ahmed b. Hanbel, Ebu Abdillah. (d. 855). (1995). Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Mu'assasat al-Risalah, Beirut.
• Alusi, Shihab al-Din Mahmud. (d. 1854). (n.d.). Ruh al-Ma'ani. Ihya' al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut.
• Ashur, Abdullatif. (1879-1973). (n.d.). Mawsu'at al-Tayr wa al-Hayawan fi al-Hadith al-Nabawiyyah, Cairo.
• Aydın, Hasan – Dağ, Mehmet. (2017). Ortaçağ İslam Kültüründe Felsefe. Bilim ve Gelecek, Istanbul.
• Bagawi, Husayn b. Mas'ud. (d. 1122). (1997). Tafsir al-Bagawi. Dar al-Tayyibah, Riyadh.
• Bukhari, Muhammad b. Isma'il. (d. 870). (2002). Sahih al-Bukhari. Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut.
• Damiri, Abu al-Baqa' Kamal al-Din. (d. 1405). (2004). Kitab al-Hayawan, Maktabat al-'Asriyyah, Beirut.
• Dolgoff, Sam. (1998). Bakunin. Kaos Yayınları, Istanbul.
• Abu Dawud, Sulayman b. Ash'ath. (d. 889). (1997). Sunan Abi Dawud. Dar Ibn Hazm, Beirut.
• Abu al-Hajjaj, Jamal al-Din al-Mizzi. (d. 1341). (1983). Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma' al-Rijal, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, Beirut.
• Al-Amini al-Najafi, Abdul Hussein Ahmad. (1902-1970). (1952). Al-Ghadir, Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, Tehran.
• Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Muhammad b. Umar. (d. 1210). (1981). Mafatih al-Ghayb. Dar al-Fikr, Beirut.
• Freud, Sigmund. (1856-1939). (2013). Çocukta Fobinin Analizi, Küçük Hans Vakası. Say Yayınları, Istanbul.
• Günaltay, Şemsettin. (1883-1961). (1994). Felsefe-i Ûlâ. İnsan Yayınları, Istanbul.
• Halabi, Ali Hasan Ali. (1999). Mawsu'at al-Ahadith wa al-Athar al-Da'ifah wa al-Mawdu'ah. Maktabat al-Ma'arif, Riyadh.
• Ibn 'Adil, Umar b. Ali. (d. after 1476). (1998). Al-Bab fi Ulum al-Kitab. Dar al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut.
• Ibn Battal, Ali b. Khalaf. (d. 1057). (2003). Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Maktabat al-Rushd, Riyadh.
• Ibn Khallikan, Abu al-Abbas Shams al-Din. (d. 1282). (n.d.). Wafayat al-A'yan. Dar Sadir, Beirut.
• Ibn Hibban, Muhammad. (d. 965). (n.d.). Sahih Ibn Hibban. Mu'assasat al-Risalah. Beirut.
• Ibn Khuzaymah, Muhammad b. Ishaq. (d. 924). (2014). Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah. Dar al-Ta'sil, Beirut.
• Ibn Majah, Muhammad b. Yazid. (d. 887). (2005). Sunan Ibn Majah. Dar al-Hadar, Riyadh.
• Ibn Marzuban, Abu Bakr. (d. 921). (n.d.). Fadl al-Kilab 'ala Kathir mimman Labisa al-Siyab. Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyyah, Ibrahim Yusuf ed., Cairo.
• Ibn al-Dayba', Abd al-Rahman b. Ali. (d. 1537). (1906). Tamyiz al-Tayyib min al-Khabith fima Yaduru 'ala Alsinat al-Nas min al-Hadith, Cairo.
• Qurtubi, Muhammad b. Ahmad. (2019). Al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an. Dar al-Fikr, Beirut.
• Qurtubi, Muhammad b. Ahmad. (d. 1273). (2006). Al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an. Mu'assasat al-Risalah, Beirut.
• Qushayri, Abd al-Karim b. Hawazin. (d. 1072). (1989). Al-Risalah al-Qushayriyyah. Cairo.
• Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir. (d. 1698). (1983). Bihar al-Anwar. Mu'assasat al-Wafa, Beirut.
• Muslim b. Hajjaj, Abu al-Husayn. (d. 875). (1998). Sahih Muslim. Bayt al-Afkar al-Duwaliyyah, Riyadh.
• Nasa'i, Ahmad b. Shu'ayb. (d. 915). (2001). Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Mu'assasat al-Risalah, Beirut.
• Tirmidhi, Abu 'Isa Muhammad. (d. 892). (2000). Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi. Maktabat al-Ma'arif, Riyadh.
• Zarandi al-Hanafi, Muhammad b. Yusuf. (d. 1346). (1958). Nazm Durar al-Simtayn fi Fadail al-Mustafa wa al-Murtada wa al-Batul wa al-Sibtayn. Maktabat al-Imam Amir al-Mu'minin, Najaf.