Is it permissible to raise a fierce guard dog in a house located in a remote area close to refugee camps, in order to deter aggressors and protect family and property? And is this considered following concessions, given that there is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding the ruling on raising dogs?

The majority of scholars are of the opinion that it is absolutely forbidden to keep or sell dogs, except out of necessity. So, if there is a need for it, such as guarding a house or a farm, it is permissible to keep it. And it is permissible to buy it if there is no other way to acquire it. It is permissible to adopt the easier of the scholarly opinions if its preponderance becomes clear, or if the correctness of other opinions is not evident after diligent effort, or in cases of need and difficulty if it is abandoned. However, seeking out dispensations without necessity, when the preponderance of other opinions is clear, is blameworthy. Furthermore, considering the purchase and raising of a dog permissible is not an act of disbelief, because the belief that constitutes disbelief is the conviction that something is permissible which is known to be forbidden by necessity in the religion. The impermissibility of keeping and selling dogs without necessity is a matter of scholarly disagreement and is not known by necessity.