TEHRAN – In a significant escalation of its stance on pet ownership, authorities in Iran have expanded a ban on walking dogs in public spaces, a policy originally introduced in the capital Tehran in 2019. On Sunday, the ban was officially extended to Ilam, a city in western Iran, with at least 17 other cities—including major urban centers like Isfahan and Kerman—following suit in recent days.
The ban has reignited debates within the country over the role of Western cultural symbols, Islamic values, and public health policies. Local media outlets report that the move is part of a broader effort to maintain “public order,” ensure “safety,” and protect “public health.” While the central government has not enacted national legislation outlawing dog ownership, enforcement at the municipal level has intensified.
Dog ownership has been a deeply contentious issue in that since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. While owning a dog is not illegal under Iranian law, walking dogs in public or transporting them in vehicles has often been restricted by regional authorities. These crackdowns are typically justified on religious, cultural, and social grounds.
Many Islamic scholars in Iranian consider dogs to be “najis”—ritually impure—particularly their saliva. This religious interpretation, combined with official concerns about Western cultural influence, has led to the perception that keeping dogs as pets is inconsistent with Islamic values. As such, some officials view dog ownership as a form of cultural Westernization that conflicts with the traditional Iranian lifestyle.
Iran’s legal and religious leadership has repeatedly expressed disapproval of pet ownership. In 2017, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that owning dogs for purposes other than herding, guarding, or hunting is “reprehensible.” He added that emulating non-Muslim lifestyles, especially those perceived to undermine Islamic values, is forbidden under Islamic law.
These sentiments were echoed in 2021 when 75 Iranian lawmakers denounced pet ownership as a “destructive social problem.” They warned that such behavior could erode Islamic and Iranian traditions and values, gradually shifting societal norms toward Western ideals.
Enforcement and Public Reaction in Iran
Despite the official rhetoric and periodic crackdowns, many dog owners in Iran—especially in larger cities like Tehran—continue to walk their pets in public. Enforcement of the ban has been inconsistent, with reports of fines and legal threats varying greatly from one city to another.
In Ilam, officials have vowed stricter enforcement. A local authority told the reformist newspaper Etemad that “legal action will be taken against violators,” although specifics on penalties were not provided. Similarly, Abbas Najafi, the prosecutor of the western city of Hamedan, claimed that “dog walking is a threat to public health, peace, and comfort,” according to the state-run.
Authorities in Iran often portray dog ownership as symbolic of foreign—particularly Western—cultural influence. This perspective aligns with a larger campaign by conservative factions to curb behaviors they see as alien to Iranian-Islamic culture. Restrictions on clothing, music, internet use, and now pet ownership are all part of this broader cultural narrative.
The recent expansion of the dog walking ban illustrates how social behavior can become a flashpoint in Iran’s ongoing cultural struggle between tradition and modernity. While younger, more urbanized Iranians are often more accepting of pet ownership, conservative voices remain influential in shaping public policy.
As he continues to wrestle with cultural identity and modernization, the ban on walking dogs serves as a microcosm of broader societal tensions. The issue reflects not only religious values and political ideologies but also the push and pull between generations, classes, and urban-rural dynamics within the country.
Whether these local bans will evolve into a nationwide legal framework remains unclear. What is evident, however, is that dog ownership in IranIian is more than a personal choice—it’s a deeply politicized and symbolic act, loaded with cultural, religious, and ideological significance.
Source- EWN
