(A stray dog in Turkey. Image source: Getty Images)
In 2021 a stray dog named Boji made world headlines for traveling almost 19 miles a day on ferries, trams, and the metro in Istanbul, Turkey. Adoring fans including women in long coats and headscarves, students sporting tattoos and piercings, bearded men wearing prayer caps, and children of all ages posted thousands of selfies with him on social media. Boji appeared universally loved, as did stray animals more broadly, judging by the bowls of food and water that people already left out across Istanbul.
But the reality is much less straightforward. Canines have a complicated history in Turkey and in Islam. Some people love dogs like substitute children while others fear them as devils, but the reasons behind this division are not as simple as either/or. Attitudes towards dogs are informed by a range of factors, including religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, and political leanings. These identifiers are not absolutes though. Consequently, differing beliefs about dogs in Islam generally, and in Turkey specifically, coexist, intersect, and even counter one another.
Dogs in Islamic Jurisprudence
Although Turkey is a secular state, Islam informs many areas of daily life. But Islam is not a monolith. It consists of distinct schools of thought, sharing core beliefs but differing in many ways. The predominate form of Islam in Turkey is Sunni, and Sunni Muslims, like all Muslims, take the Koran as their religious canon. The Koran mentions dogs, but it does not categorically state if they are good or impure, as it does with swine and vultures—both of which the Koran places in the “impure” category. Yet throughout history, some Muslim societies have viewed dogs with suspicion.
Traditionally, everyday practices pertaining to dogs in Muslim societies are largely determined by Islamic jurisprudence. This is the process whereby Muslim scholars (jurists) study and interpret divine law as revealed in the Koran and sunnah, the deeds of Muhammed and in hadith, reports of his words and actions. They then make judgements about how people should deal with various situations.
“You see some statements that dogs are impure,” says Alan Mikhail, a Professor of History at Yale University who specializes in the early modern Muslim world in the Ottoman Empire and Egypt. “That they’re dirty, specifically their saliva is a problem. They touch carcasses of other animals with their mouths. They sometimes eat garbage.”
But Mikhail notes that others found that dogs had admirable traits. “You also have another body of knowledge that talks about how they’re extremely loyal; they’re useful in hunting and for security purposes,” Mikhail says. These contradictory debates stretch back centuries and influence people’s attitudes towards canines today.
Meanings in Dogs’ Drool
Ninth century religious intellectual Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Ismail al-Bukhari is regarded as one of the most important hadith scholars in the history of Sunni Islam. He wrote, “If a dog drinks from the utensil of anyone of you it is essential to wash it seven times.” This hadith refers to the Muslim practice of washing before prayers in order to be physically and ritually pure. In al-Bukhari’s school of thought, dogs are najis, that is essentially unclean and thus ritually impure. Therefore, if a dog drinks from the same bowl a believer uses for their ablutions, the dog’s saliva nullifies their ritual purity.
Conversely, 17th century Cairo-born scholar Nur al-Din Abu al-Irshad ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Zayn al-‘Abidin ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Ajhuri held that like everything found in nature, dogs were essentially pure. After all, al-Ajhuri contended, the Prophet himself had prayed in the presence of dogs. More importantly, he argued, the religious canon contains no specific reference to dogs’ wet mouths, and therefore saliva was simply part of a dog’s natural state.
(An 18th century drawing from an unknown artist of an Ottoman man feeding stray cats and dogs. Source: Daily Sabah)
There are numerous antithetical and complex arguments in the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence about dog’s drool and if it is pure. But, as Mikhail points out, “Prescriptive literature in any culture … doesn’t explain exactly how people lived with dogs.” Rules are one thing, and everyday life another. Islamic jurisprudence and state legislation can be different to actual practices.
Who’s a Good Boy? Dogs in Everyday Muslim Life
Many historical eye witness accounts about dogs in Turkey come from foreign visitors to Istanbul. Few ventured into rural Turkish communities where, as is still the case now, a dog’s value lies in the way it maintains the economic interests of its owners by keeping their flocks safe from attack. They are fitted with spiked metal collars and their ears cut short so wolves cannot bite into them to use as a lever to bring the dog down.
On the surface, city dogs seem better treated. Just as Mikhail found in Ottoman Egypt where, “mosques [were] putting out water for dogs, people throwing out scraps for food,” in Ottoman Istanbul, Flemish diplomat Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq saw kennels and water troughs being left out for dogs in the mid-16th century. The following century, French traveler Jean de Thévenot heard of wealthy citizens bequeathing funds to religious foundations that looked after dogs. In the early 19th century, Irish clergyman and writer Robert Walsh noted how certain butchers sold meat only for consumption by street animals. All of them observed that street dogs, far from being ownerless, collectively “belonged” to the neighborhoods where they lived.
This does not mean individual Turks had affective relationships with dogs as they do with domestic pets today. Dogs had a clear role: keep urban centers free of waste by eating garbage, in turn keeping the rodent population in check.
Regrettably, this function proved to be their downfall.
Shifting Perceptions of Dogs in the Late Ottoman Era
It was in the early 1800s when the association between garbage, disease, and dogs was first made, leading to a shift in attitudes towards canines in Turkey. This change coincided with the Ottoman government’s efforts to modernize and maintain control through the Tanzimat reforms between 1839 and 1876.
One of these reforms involved establishing municipal organizations in Istanbul to replace dogs as garbage collectors, as they were seen as potential carriers of disease. Despite various unsuccessful attempts to eradicate them, the presence of dogs continued to be a symbol of government failure.
In 1909, Abdullah Cevdet, a member of the reformist Young Turks movement, published a pamphlet criticizing the presence of dogs in the city as a reflection of outdated religious superstitions. Following the Young Turks’ rise to power, thousands of street dogs were rounded up and relocated to an island, where they faced starvation and death.
Dogs in Modern-Day Turkey: Pets and Strays
Today, dogs still roam the streets of Turkish cities, with attitudes towards them varying based on individual beliefs, particularly in relation to Islam. While some view dogs as unclean or undesirable, others keep them as beloved pets.
Despite cultural taboos against having dogs in the house, many Turks choose to keep them as companions. The presence of stray dogs in urban areas remains a contentious issue, with laws passed to protect their rights while also controlling their population through humane methods.
Ultimately, the complex relationship between Turks and dogs reflects a blend of tradition, modernity, and compassion towards these animals.
Two widely publicized incidents involved a government worker beating a shelter dog to death with a shovel and a black puppy found in a forest in June 2018 with all its legs and tail cut off, unfortunately, vets were unable to save the pup. The public outcry following these events led to a change in laws classifying animals as sentient beings, making it a criminal offense to harm or kill them. Despite this progress, concerns remain about the enforcement of these laws, particularly in relation to street dogs.
In more recent developments, President Erdoğan’s response to pit bull attacks on children led to a controversial proposal to categorize animals as “owned” or “ownerless,” with stricter regulations for the latter. Animal activists, including Karlı, have raised objections to this classification, arguing that street animals are part of the community and should not be labeled as ownerless. The proposed law also includes provisions for the mandatory housing of strays in registered shelters, raising concerns about the fate of these animals if they are not adopted.
With a significant number of stray dogs in Turkey and limited resources for their care, many are calling the new law a “massacre law.” The political implications of this legislation are also significant, as it coincided with economic hardships faced by the Turkish population. Despite challenges, animal lovers from diverse backgrounds have vowed to continue advocating for the rights of stray animals in the country.
Now, Boji resides with Ömer Koç, the chairman of Koç Holding, Turkey’s largest industrial conglomerate, who has taken in the gentle giant for his own protection.
Lisa Morrow is an Australian-born author and travel writer with over 15 years of experience living in Istanbul and other regions of Turkey. She holds a Master’s Degree in Sociology, has authored five books on Turkey, and her writings have been featured in publications such as the New York Times, Hyperallergic, The Smart Set, Meanjin, CNN Travel, and more.
