Lack of legislation for dog-ownership causes chaos in Iran

However, as younger generations revert to apostasy, traditional values are replaced by not only modernity and individualism; but also a sense of putting human needs above traditional beliefs.

In recent years, many Iranian families aspired to break national stereotypes by welcoming a furry addition to their families. While dogs have been traditionally used for herding and guarding, they were never considered a company, a best friend for emotional support, or a member of the family; and certainly not allowed in the sanctity of a home.

Nowadays, a surge in pet adoption is apparent through the burgeoning of pet shops, pet clinics and even Iranian pet food brands all over big and small cities, and rich and poor neighbourhoods. 

There are not any official statistics on the number of households with pets but Payam Mohebi, head of Tehran Veterinary Hospital, estimates that there are between 6 to 8 million pets (cats and dogs) in Iran. He claims: "One out of every 10 Iranians has a pet."

Iranian households have become less crowded than ever as fertility and marriage rates drop, and pets are taking open spots at record levels. This year fertility/reproduction rates plunged to an unprecedented low, recording population growth of only 0.7%. Many young adults also choose to forego marriage altogether.

Unofficial statistics show that 13 percent of Iranian households are single-person and during the past decade marriage rates decreased more than 36 percent. Financial issues as well as changes in lifestyle patterns are believed to be the root cause for this phenomenon. 

Some lonely Iranians may find solace in the company of pets but keeping a dog as company is not only foreign to the Iranian culture but frowned upon due to teachings of Sharia law that considers dogs as being “unclean”.

Iranian Islamic officials and particularly religious leaders perceive the phenomenon as a sign of rebellion within the society and a threat that undermines their teachings, as more people discover the warmth they've been robbed of by Imams’ Fatwa.

Religious references assert that keeping a dog at home for entertainment purposes results in the cancellation of good deeds. Some believe that it may affect the whole neighbourhood and prayers won't be heard if any of the 7 next-door families keeps a dog.

Mohammad Reza Naseri, Imam of Yazd county, called keeping dogs and pets "enemy's influence", while Nasser Rafiei, seminary lecturer and speaker of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei's office, stated that adopting dogs is considered as “crossing redlines”. Hassan Rouhani, Imam Juma of the county of Babol, called the phenomenon “regrettable” and Gholamhossein Mahdovinejad, Imam of Semnan province also dubbed it as a sign of cultural invasion and promotion of Western culture saying: “Living with dogs is seen in Western culture and it is far from the Islamic culture and lifestyle”.

Keeping dogs has been a matter of controversy not only among religious figures and seminaries but also between policymakers and in the House of Representatives, where various bills were introduced to fine and punish dog owners. Currently, there is no legislation to regulate the behaviour of dog keepers. The order to ban dogs in public places is issued by the “Islamic Republic of Iran Police Headquarters”  and it is not enforced consistently. 

Since there are not any rules or codes of conduct to preserve the rights of citizens who may be affected by this phenomenon, it causes discord and hostility within the society making it a matter of personal conflict among citizens. Many citizens worry about safety threats as keeping a leash on dogs is not exercised by some dog owners; while others complain about health issues resulting from some dog owners not cleaning up after their pets in parks and passages.

Javan newspaper, close to the IRGC, emphasizes that specific rules should be introduced concerning "buying and selling, keeping, and walking dogs", and wrote: "The unanimous demand of the society is to introduce serious measures against walking dogs. They both carry diseases and make the face of the city dog infested, ugly and they are violating the rights of citizens".

It is speculated that the cunctation of the parliament to pass a law for banning dog ownership is caused by logistics that imply it may result in a crash in the market revolving around the pet industry. If the bill becomes a law not only many veterinarians will go out of business due to a stark decrease in the number of the clients but pet food and accessory brands –many of which are believed to be owned by the Islamic regime officials themselves- will go out of business.

Any approach to regulate keeping dogs rather than banning them altogether will be construed as granting authorization which is in opposition to religious references.

In the absence of legislative control, the responsibility lies on citizen’s shoulders to educate and regulate themselves and each other, in order to build a culture that ensures the well-being of all.