Re: Islam and Dogs(animal)
I was in discussion with a hardliner on this some years ago and I said … that the house where angels do not enter - is different to saying something is haram. It could very well be interpreted that the things talked about in that hadith are of lower classification than haram - for if they were haram it would stated that way … as an instruction … However, it is phrased in a way that suggests it is a choice but a bad one to make therefore taking a cautionary angle on the subject rather than a prohibiting angle.
That said I do not always follow my own head … I accept that many scholars have taken the harder line even the people who tend to be lenient.
Hmm - I think there is a bit of confusion on what I said to what I meant …
What I meant was that there is a ruling for “making tasweer” and that is living creatures should not be made, softer opinion is that faces can not be made, and the softer version of that is that faces can be made but not connected to bodies to make a full form, softer versions include cartoon like imagery that does not set out to compete with the creation of Allah (SWT) i.e. non-life art are acceptable forms … And the taking of photos would apply differently because they are capturing the light … and what ruling behind the image would apply to the photo … so if the image is of a naked person - I said, that the ruling for that photo would be the same for a naked person in the room, I meant the ruling for that would be the same as drawing a picture of a naked person in the room … i.e. breach of haya and hijab. So I meant secondary concerns would still apply even if the photo was not considered a hand made picture … Now when you interpret secondary concerns it has to be done sensibly.
I can see that a photo of a dog is not the same as a dog and the example you gave too … my bad I should have thought about what I was writing more carefully …