Our dog would not stop barking.
It was after midnight, cold and dark. The paddock where he guards the Camp One goats is far enough away that we can’t always hear him. It’s usually a neighbor, Tom, who will let us know, and tonight was no different.
Tom works late, often outside doing noisy chores well after sunset and setting off our dog in the process. But this night his text message came over, “I’m not making him bark. I’m in bed. Not me.”
A good livestock guardian dog like our Anatolian Shepherd, AD, will only bark for a reason. They are bred to work in packs with other dogs. Some patrol, setting up scent markers, while others stay with the herd. If there are no other dogs, then it falls on the dog’s master to act as backup if there is a threat.
That’s what I did. Usually when we go out to check on him, he’ll come over to the paddock gate, tail wagging, almost instantly calmed by our presence. But this night he continued to bark, growl, and stare into the darkness.
I offered AD some words of gratitude and encouragement and left him to his job. I don’t have his jaws, the most powerful of any domestic canine. I don’t have his sense of smell or hearing. I am without defenses apart from reminding him that he is not alone. I did that and returned to the safety of our home.
With praise and thanks to God Most High, the morning found AD and the goats hungry and well.
AD is bonded to the goats, but he remains subordinate to the alpha doe. Her name is Trouble and she keeps all the other goats in line which, from the stand-point of goat society, means that no goats eat until she and her kids have had the choicest bits.
This includes AD’s food.
When Trouble is in the mood for a bit of dog kibble, she’ll saunter right over and AD will readily step aside. Because of this, we stay with AD while he eats. Without us to protect his food, he will eventually become hungry to the point of aggression and these tenuous, fascinating flock dynamics would dissolve into chaos.
(as a side note, we’re working on this- teaching him to eat the moment his food is served or else risk having it taken away)
The incentive to protect is brought into consideration through the observation of the above. If AD is subordinate to the goats, if he is unable to control even their impulse to steal his food, why is he compelled to protect them?
Breeding and bonding explain a lot, though we posit there is more.
Centuries of breeding by goatherds selected for this protective trait which was recognized as valuable and collectively insisted upon by breeders for thousands of years. Even so, the process had to start with some dog somewhere who demonstrated a greater level of vigilance than his canine counterparts. And this is where we begin to really think about the fundamentals of the protective instinct.
Where there exists a healthy dynamic of control and ownership, protection is an intentional, often proactive measure to mitigate future threat. We are thinking here of marriage contracts, the drafting of a will, homeowners who purchase insurance policies and firearms, municipalities that set up traffic lights and maintain roads, and nation-states that secure their borders. We’ll call this protective driver investment. Failure here means the loss of something once held dear.
In those cases where control does not seem to drive protection, as in the case of AD and the goats, we suggest the influence of an extra-personal awareness of dependence and vulnerability, a reactive sense that proximate others are unable to survive without assistance. This seems to be largely mediated by bonding, with the strength or immediacy of the bond being perhaps predictive of the level of protection offered. We’ll call this protective driver altruism. Failure here will bring praise for at least having tried.
If we agree on the last two paragraphs, perhaps the one most incentivized to protect is the invested altruist, the person who cares deeply for what he possess, and is also willing to protect this investment for its own sake.
Writing as Muslims, we are designated by God as khulafa, viceregents on Earth tasked with the stewardship of creation. Multitudes came before us, failed, and were destroyed:
Then We made you viceregents in the land after them so that We may observe how you will do.
Q10:14
We wonder if this destruction of previous generations came about as a consequence of humanity insisting on control as a prerequisite to protection, people who flipped the equation and abandoned altruism altogether. Commentators have said that these wayward ancestors were destroyed after messengers came to them with commands, prohibitions, and signs that were summarily rejected. If they could not be masters of their own destiny, it seems, then they simply would not be.
Both investment and altruism require the establishment of a relationship. Proximity to and familiarity with creation will illuminate both value and vulnerability, setting into motion a desire to protect that creation with all of one’s being.
Sitting inside, curtains drawn, bathed in artificial light while staring at a computer display across which is paraded an interminable series of outrages meant to distract and overwhelm will put one far from both investment and altruism.
We need to be outside. With others. Whether with people or goats or dogs or whatever.
We need to be outside.
For the love of God, we need to be outside.
SubhanAllah that last message really has been salient in my life lately. My sister’s three kids (two toddlers and an 8 year old) have been with us the last month. I see it so clearly. Whenever they are stuck indoors, they are sad, cranky, tired, and bouncing off the walls. Even screens provide temporary relief. They are drawn to the flashing lights and then turn even moodier when they are forced away from them. The only magical switch seems to be when they are outdoors. They can spend hours happily playing together in the dirt. No fights, no fuss, no stress. One day we took them to a nearby forest. They had been miserable all day indoors. Even the car ride was miserable. They were technically out of the house, but still boxed into plastic and metal walls. As soon as they stepped foot onto the dirt, their moods switched. Someone found a stick, another a lizard, and the third an acorn. Delight, plain and simple, became their persona. Even the adults’ moods changed. It felt like a heavy cloak had been lifted off of us. It’s a human thing. This synthetic world we have built is making us sick. It is spreading disease. The cure: return to the outdoors.
Oh yes! The shift! I’ve seen it so many times with kids. Less obvious and more fleeting in adults, but with kids it’s a whole transformation, masha Allah!
Assalamulaikum,
I appreciate what your website is offering. I see the benefit and good intention. I wanted to leave feedback only inshallah that you may consider and hopefully it maybe useful feedback. I was very excited when I came across your site. But in one of the first articles I read of yours I found some judgements agains those who choose to live with their dogs. I understand that the majority of Muslims have certain beliefs about the sunnah of keeping dogs and the nature of dogs. I even understand if you hold and promote such beliefs. The part that offended me and ultimately caused my disinterest in your site was the judgement of people who hold other beliefs / practices. To paraphrase, the article said that those who choose to live with dogs in their home have chosen to be filthy people or something of that nature. There were a few other judgements as well. I found the comments mean and actually quite ignorant in factual content. If you reflect some, it’s quite the insult to say that millions of people in the west have chosen to be filthy beings when the sanitary practices in the west are quite high as a worldly standard. I’m not making value or ethical judgment, but scientific, factualy point. To deduce that people who live with dogs are filthy and choose filth completely degrades an entire life style of some millions of people who live with dogs and yet are quite clean, muslim and non-muslim. The only point I’m trying to make is that is is unfair and uninsightful to make such a claim. Its one thing to lovingly, firmly state ones beliefs and positions. It’s another to insult and degrade another set of people. And that is what turned me away from what otherwise seemed a beautiful initiative. With respect, please consider. Thank you.
Just a note, the article I am referring to is not the article I am leaving this comment under. It was a different article I’ve read in the past. I just recently unsubsribed and took a moment to read the current article. Thank you.
For the benefit of others who may come across your comment, here’s the article.
And here are the offending statements:
This remains my position as a man deeply enamored with and in some ways very dependent upon our working dog.
We appreciate the possibility of offending others. We also invite dialogue and divergent perspectives. This article here, for example, has several comments from folks who felt differently than the stated position and took the time to express their thoughts just as you have. Despite our disagreements, these comments come from individuals who continue to be among our most cherished and ardent cheerleaders, largely because of our insistence on entertaining alternate viewpoints.
You mentioned that you unsubscribed which means that you were on the mailing list which also means that you have received our frequent requests for contributors to the Dust and Tribe blog. You come across as intelligent, articulate, and better mannered than most. It would be nice to feature your counterarguments and to give the community an opportunity to consider for themselves the merits of your position.
Consider that an open invitation.
Tawfiq was-salam
Assalamualaikum Shannon, just wanted to butt in and offer my two cents if that’s ok. I read the original comment below. I do not think they are effectively calling millions of people who keep dogs inside their houses filthy. I see it as saying that such people are just willing to accept the *potential* of just **dealing** with “nasty,” not they, the people, are filthy or that they’re worse/less of people. Dogs are animals. And like most animals, they do their animal things and smell their animal ways. And so one would have to deal with that. I’m quite sure that Ahmed would say the same about anyone who may keep goats in their house (perhaps he’d be even more harsh), but that’s not much of a norm. It’s no doubt that some dogs are better than others and are more suited for the indoors. That wouldn’t necessarily make the statement untrue. They’re simple points about a dog’s nature. I can see how someone with dogs may see that and take offense, and that’s okay, I know I’d probably feel the same if I had a dog indoors. But it doesn’t mean what you’re taking it as.
Dogs can be beautiful creatures and companions, often serving as a much better example and providing love far purer than most people we know. But just as a parent would tell their pleading kid, it’s a responsibility. Why? Because it comes with a cost. Part of that is maintenance and care. Just like dealing with kids. People who choose to have babies (and keep them in their houses) have embraced a level of nasty. The baby is still beautiful, the parent is still beautiful, but their is work and many costs.
I’d also like to add that I disagree with many things either Ahmed has said or many other folks I’ve come across in this community. It shouldn’t detract from their value or my willingness to engage with them because we can’t all be clones, and maybe they can offer something I don’t know or have. We can still disagree and say it, as you have! I like to put a higher priority on the values we share and the urge to connect with nature. To get outside!!! I encourage you to connect with these beautiful people. Hope this reaches you inshallah.
Mashallah wonderful reflections and shows once again the lessons we can take from the other beings around us.