My Little Dog and Two Black Burqas

 A few months ago, I was walking my dog in the city and out of the corner of my eye I saw someone dressed in black recoil at my approach. I looked up and to my left to see two women in black burqas looking down at my dog from where they were standing a few steps away. I was annoyed by their posture of feigned horror, obviously at my little dog’s presence, but apologized anyway for inconveniencing them. Why? I’m not sure. They chose not to acknowledge my kind gesture anyway. I am civilized to a fault, I thought. I felt sorry for the women hidden beneath their burqas who were unable to appreciate a little dog.

I encountered a story a while ago that when the Muslims conquered Zoroastrian Persia in the 7th century A.D., they made the Zoroastrian Persians bring their dogs out of their houses and then slaughtered the dogs in front of their owners. The Zoroastrians had revered their dogs, who served as the “locks on their doors” protecting their homes from intrusion. In the wake of that encounter with these Muslim women I decided to look into the story I had heard, to see if it was true and consulted my research assistant Grok, X.com‘s AI robot, to see what was known about the Muslim animosity toward dogs. I had read somewhere the Hadith teaches that an angel will not come into a house with a dog in it. I had heard that, to a Muslim, a dog was impure. I had heard that, to a Muslim, a dog was filthy.

I looked at my dog who did not appear to be impure in any way that I could determine and he wasn’t filthy. I looked at him again and saw an instinctively innocent angel who was loyal to me. I’d done little to earn his loyalty, but he had gifted me anyway. It was a dog’s decision, and I am happy my little dog has made that decision in my behalf. When I asked Grok, my research robot, about the Zoroastrian and Muslim feeling toward dogs, this is the text Grok generated for me:

[Grok research snip]

The unique role of a dog in Zoroastrianism:

In Zoroastrianism, dogs hold a uniquely elevated status as one of the most beneficent, clean, righteous, and spiritually powerful creatures created by Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord). They are praised for their loyalty, vigilance, intelligence, and innate ability to ward off evil (daevas or demons). Harming a dog is treated as gravely as harming a human in the Avestan scriptures.

This reverence for dogs is one of the most distinctive features of Zoroastrianism compared to many other ancient or neighboring traditions. It reflects the religion’s emphasis on asha (truth/order), purity, and compassionate stewardship of creation.

During the Muslim Arab conquest of Persia (Sassanid Empire) in the 7th century (roughly 633–651 CE), the invading forces and subsequent Muslim authorities deliberately targeted Zoroastrian cultural and religious practices as part of asserting dominance and promoting Islamization. Dogs, which held a sacred and highly revered status in Zoroastrianism, became a specific point of cultural conflict.

Spiritual and protective role of a dog in Zoroastrianism:

To a Zoroastrian, a dog’s gaze is considered purifying and capable of driving away evil spirits. This belief underpins the ritual of sagdid (“dog-seeing”), performed after death: a dog (ideally a “four-eyed” one with spots above its eyes) is brought to look at the corpse. This verifies death, contains demons of decay (Nasu), and protects the soul. Celestial dogs also accompany the soul across the Chinvat Bridge (the bridge to the afterlife) and ensure safe passage into heaven.

Zoroastrian Scriptural basis for favoring dogs:

The Vendidad (part of the Avesta, especially Fargards/Chapters 13, 14, and 15) devotes extensive sections to dogs, detailing their care, types (house dog, shepherd dog, stray dog), and the severe punishments for mistreating them. Ahura Mazda declares the dog “self-clothed and self-shod, watchful and wakeful,” born to watch over human goods and receive food from humans. Helping or harming a dog is repeatedly equated with helping or harming a person. Zoroastrians are commanded to feed dogs (ideally before feeding themselves) and assist stray dogs.  avesta.org

actical and ritual importance:

Traditionally, every Zoroastrian household should feed a dog daily. In extreme cases, a dog could even substitute for a second human in certain rituals. Dogs receive funeral rites similar to humans in some traditions. The concept of ihtiram-i sag (“respect for the dog”) remains a living value among many Zoroastrians, especially Iranian communities.  zoroastrians.net 

Dualistic context:

Zoroastrianism divides animals into beneficent (good, created by Ahura Mazda) and khrafstras (evil creatures of Ahriman). Dogs rank among the highest of the good animals—sometimes even above the cow in later texts—because of their protective role in the cosmic struggle between good and evil.

What did Muslims do to Zoroastrian dogs when they conquered Persia in the 7th century?

Note that Islamic tradition itself is not uniformly hostile to dogs — the Quran mentions them positively in places (e.g., the story of the Companions of the Cave), and Prophet Muhammad reportedly spared certain useful dogs after initially ordering a cull.

However, the dominant cultural attitude that spread with the conquest emphasized dogs as impure in daily and ritual life, especially in contrast to pre-Islamic Persian reverence. Over the following centuries (8th–13th and beyond), as Iran became majority Muslim, the Zoroastrian view of dogs largely disappeared from mainstream society, surviving mainly among the dwindling Zoroastrian communities and the Parsi diaspora in India. This episode is often cited in Iranian nationalist and Zoroastrian historiography as one example among many of cultural erasure during the transition from the Sassanid to the early Islamic period.

What happened to Zoroastrian dogs?

Declared unclean (najis):  After the conquest, dogs — especially the highly revered “four-eyed” dogs (those with spots above the eyes, used in the sagdid death ritual) — were proclaimed ritually unclean under the new Islamic religious framework. This directly contradicted Zoroastrian teachings in the Vendidad, where dogs were considered pure, protective, and almost equivalent to humans in spiritual value.  worldhistory.org

Persecution as a tool of subjugation: Historical accounts and later Persian/Zoroastrian traditions indicate that persecuting dogs became a deliberate method to break Zoroastrian (and broader Persian) cultural identity. The profound Persian love for dogs was well-known, so attacking this practice was a symbolic and psychological blow. Dogs that were not strictly utilitarian (e.g., guard dogs, hunting dogs, or herding dogs) faced particular hostility.  facebook.com

Ritual disruption: The important Zoroastrian funeral practice of sagdid (having a dog look at the corpse to ward off demons of decay and confirm death) was effectively suppressed or discontinued in many areas as Zoroastrian institutions declined and exposure funerals were restricted or replaced.

Broader context: While there is no single recorded mass extermination campaign targeting every dog across Persia in 7th-century primary sources, the shift in religious norms led to widespread mistreatment, killing of non-working dogs, and social pressure against keeping or revering them in the traditional Zoroastrian way. This occurred alongside the gradual decline of Zoroastrian fire temples, rituals, and overall population through conversion, taxation (jizya), and occasional violence.

[end Grok research snip] 

Muslim treatment of dogs in the United States?

I love my dog. I feel toward my dog the way Persian Zoroastrians feel toward their dogs. I know most Americans feel the same way about their dogs as I do which is why I’ve written this missive. Be aware of our cultural differences with Muslims who were brought to the West not to assimilate into our culture but to rule over us by implementing their own Sharia laws which they have tried to do everywhere they have settled throughout their diaspora history. It is wise, given these tumultuous times, to acquaint yourself with their history.

When Muslims first began to drive taxis in the city, occasionally a Muslim would refuse to take me and my dog in the taxi. As time passed, this happened less often, but the two burqas indicate that the sentiment still prevails among them.

Keep your dogs close. Keep your families close. Keep your friends close.

Most Muslims are not educated to their history so they will relive it. They are in the free world as they raise their hands to destroy it. We must rise above the fray and help them enter modernity without breaking their heads against it which is what their traditions insist they do.

• Praying by the hundreds in our public streets curtails our freedoms.
• Self-flagellating en masse in public is an exercise before an attack.
• Dictating the food we eat is a command, not a request.

We must protect what we have that is sacred to us, including our dogs, and not let the things we hold sacred, be profaned. If we achieve an understanding with the ancient Islamic religion and its adherents we might embrace them, but if we fail to convince them civil war and conquest is not in their future, we must deport them. We have created modernity, and it is truly a paradise. We call it the free world. Most everyone else wants to live in the free world of the West.

Muslims threaten freedom wherever they find it, while we have historically struggled to preserve it. Preservation is the only option the free world has, now that Muslims live in our midst.

If they have legally immigrated to the United States, perhaps they can stay, if they adapt to freedom and modernity, and join us in the preservation of the paradise we have created — or they can go home.

The decision is theirs. They are free to make it. For now.

Richard Faussette © All Rights Reserved, March 31, 2026 word count 1,630