We have now very extensively looked at both sides of the argument. There is clearly a contradiction between the narrations that imply that Ahl al Kitab are tahir, and those that imply that Ahl al Kitab are najis.
When there are contradictions there are many options:
1. Jam’ ‘urfi i.e. try and harmonise the narrations where possible:
a. Consider one group of narrations to be an exception/special case of the other (general vs specific)
b. Consider one group of narrations to be an explanation of the other…etc.
2. Preferring one over the other (due to one being more explicit/less open for interpretation)
3. Consider neither set of narrations to be authoritative
Ayatullah Khui believes that the natural way to aggregate all these contradictory narrations is to consider those that imply the najasah of the Ahl al Kitab, are actually implying that it is Makruh to eat with them…etc.
The reason given is that the evidence implying the taharah of the Ahl al Kitab is absolutely clear (sarih) rather than just apparent (dhahir), which means that if you are going to harmonise the narrations, preference must be given to the clear narrations, implying that the less clear narrations must have a less obvious meaning.
Ayatullah Khui gives the example of the main narration used to imply Ahl al Kitab are najis: the narration of Sa’id ibn al-A’raj (1) (which has a good chain of narration [with a trustworthy Sunni amongst them]) and the sahih narration of Ali ibn Ja’far (2), both of which (refer to earlier blogs) could be interpreted as discouraging (makruh) being with them rather than considering them as najis.
However, amongst the narrations of those who consider Ahl al Kitab are tahir, there are narrations such as the sound (sahih) narration of Isma’il ibn Jabir (3), which explicitly implies the Ahl al Kitab are tahir.
Therefore, when there is a contradiction between something that is explicit and clear (narrations for tahara of Ahl al Kitab) and something that is only apparent (narrations for najasa of Ahl al Kitab), general fiqh dictates that you take that which is explicit.
In the final blog on this topic (next one), we will look at those who with the same information above, come to a different conclusion based on Taqiyya, and how Ayatullah Khui responds to this and finally reaches a conclusion.
If anyone has a preference on the next topic (my current thinking is a discussion on seafood by Ayatullah Fadlallah – but someone has mentioned a preference for a Ramadan-related discussion), please do get in touch!
[Reminder:
(1) A “hasan” narration from Sa’id al-A’raj (Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:229/chapters on leftovers, 3:1; similarly in 3:421/chapters on Najasa 14:8):
“I asked Abu Abdallah (AS) about (whether I could eat from) the leftover of Jews and Christians. He said: “No”.”
(2) Sahih narration of Ali ibn Ja’far from his brother (AS) (Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:9): “[I asked] about a Christian who has a shower with a Muslim in the Hammam. He said: If he [the Muslim] knows that he is a Christian, he should wash himself with other water (not from the Hammam). Alternatively, he could wash himself in the sink/bath (after the Christian)”.
(3) The sahih narration of Isma’il ibn Jabir (Wasa`il al-Shi’a 24:210/chapters on Haram Foods 54:4) who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): ‘What do you say about food of the Ahl al-Kitab?’ So he said: ‘Don’t eat it.’ Then he was silent for a moment. Then he said: ‘Don’t eat it.’ Then he was silent for a moment. Then he said: ‘Don’t eat it and don’t leave him saying it is Haram but leave him avoiding it. In their cups is wine and in their plates is pork.’” It is clear that this implies the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab and that eating with them is Makruh.]
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Sunday 18 July 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (6)
Just a reminder that the narrations chosen and the explanations provided are those of Ayatullah Khui (not mine!) and I am showing you these, not as indicative of my point of view, but to show you how the minds of scholars work when deriving rulings.
We have so far discussed the reasons why Ahl al Kitab might be considered najis and in the previous blog 4 narrations have been discussed on why they should be considered tahir. We will now continue with two more narrations in this topic.
5. The sahih narration of Ibrahim ibn Abu Mahmud, who said: “I asked al-Ridha (AS): ‘What do you think of the Jewish or Christian tailor and cutter (قصار) who you know does not wash after urinating?’ He said: ‘It is not a problem’. [1]
If we consider the tailor only, we might not be able to infer the applicability of this narration to the issue at hand i.e. because there is no moisture necessarily present with a tailor, the response of the Imam does not imply that the Ahl al Kitab are tahir. However, the use of “cutter” makes the implication clear, as the “cutter” washes clothes with his hand.
6. A second sahih narration: “I said to Imam Ridha (AS): ‘The Christian lady-servant serves you and you know she is a Christian who does not do Wudhu or wash herself following Janaba.’ He said: ‘It is not a problem as she washes her hands.’”. This clearly supports the proposition that Ahl al Kitab are tahir.
This is because the question implies the possibility that the Imam (AS) had a Christian servant, who used to serve him and the narrator asked about the rule of using her services. Based on this, his response means there is no problem in interacting with the servant because her hands are tahir i.e. washing her hands removes any external najasat that might have been there. However, this possibility is unlikely, because the narrator is one of the great narrators and it is unlikely that he would be unsure about the Imam (AS)’s actions, as he would know if the Imam (AS) had allowed it in the past.
1. Tahdhib 6:385, paragraph 1142; and from Shaykh Tusi? In al-Wafi 6:209, paragraph 25
2. Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:422/chapters on Najasat 14:11
We have so far discussed the reasons why Ahl al Kitab might be considered najis and in the previous blog 4 narrations have been discussed on why they should be considered tahir. We will now continue with two more narrations in this topic.
5. The sahih narration of Ibrahim ibn Abu Mahmud, who said: “I asked al-Ridha (AS): ‘What do you think of the Jewish or Christian tailor and cutter (قصار) who you know does not wash after urinating?’ He said: ‘It is not a problem’. [1]
If we consider the tailor only, we might not be able to infer the applicability of this narration to the issue at hand i.e. because there is no moisture necessarily present with a tailor, the response of the Imam does not imply that the Ahl al Kitab are tahir. However, the use of “cutter” makes the implication clear, as the “cutter” washes clothes with his hand.
6. A second sahih narration: “I said to Imam Ridha (AS): ‘The Christian lady-servant serves you and you know she is a Christian who does not do Wudhu or wash herself following Janaba.’ He said: ‘It is not a problem as she washes her hands.’”. This clearly supports the proposition that Ahl al Kitab are tahir.
This is because the question implies the possibility that the Imam (AS) had a Christian servant, who used to serve him and the narrator asked about the rule of using her services. Based on this, his response means there is no problem in interacting with the servant because her hands are tahir i.e. washing her hands removes any external najasat that might have been there. However, this possibility is unlikely, because the narrator is one of the great narrators and it is unlikely that he would be unsure about the Imam (AS)’s actions, as he would know if the Imam (AS) had allowed it in the past.
1. Tahdhib 6:385, paragraph 1142; and from Shaykh Tusi? In al-Wafi 6:209, paragraph 25
2. Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:422/chapters on Najasat 14:11
Sunday 11 July 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (5)
Having looked at the narrations to do with the Najasa of the People of the Book. We will now look at some of those that imply their Tahara:
1. The sahih narration from ‘Ays ibn al-Qasim (1) who said: “I asked Abu Abdullah (AS) about eating from a Jewish person, a Christian person and a Zorastrian. He said: if it is your food, and he has washed himself, then it’s not a problem.”
What is understood (maf-hum) of this narration is that it is not allowed to eat their food if it is from their food or they have not washed. From there, it is clear that the prevention (from eating their food), comes from the najasa of their food or from their outer body due to touching something that is inherently najis (ayn an-najis) like pork or the like. What is meant by the food in the Imam’s response, cannot be something like dates or bread, as all dry things are pure. What is meant, must be the impermissibility of eating food that has moisture i.e. probably cooked food (similar to the prohibition in previous narrations). Therefore, the narration clearly implies that Ahl al-Kitab are tahir intrinsically, and that Muslims can eat with them (if the food is from the Muslims and they have washed).
2. What Zakariah has narrated from ibn Ibrahim (2) who said: “I entered into the presence of Abu Abdullah (AS) and said: I am a man from the Ahl al-Kitab and I have become a Muslim. The remainder of my family are all still Christian and I am with them in one house. I have not yet left them so can I eat from their food? He asked me: Do they eat pig? I replied: No, but they drink wine. So he said to me: Eat with them and drink.”
This clearly shows that Christians are intrinsically tahir and the prevention from eating with them does not stem from anything other than derived najasah from eating pork and the like, and if they do not eat such haram foods, then there is no problem with them. Wine, on the other hand, only makes the lips najis, which then do not touch other things, and furthermore, they are washed daily at least once, and therefore, it is not a factor in eating with them. Alternatively, this narration (like other similar narrations) could be used to imply the taharah (not permissibility) of wine.
3. The sahih narration of Isma’il ibn Jabir (3) who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): ‘What do you say about food of the Ahl al-Kitab?’ So he said: ‘Don’t eat it.’ Then he was silent for a moment. Then he said: ‘Don’t eat it.’ Then he was silent for a moment. Then he said: ‘Don’t eat it and don’t leave him saying it is Haram but leave him avoiding it. In their cups is wine and in their plates is pork.’” It is clear that this implies the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab and that eating with them is Makruh.
4. What Ammar al-Saabiti narrated from Abu Abdullah (AS) (4) who said: “I asked Abu Abdullah whether a man can do Wudhu from a cup, from which a Jew has drunk from. He said: ‘Yes’ so I said: ‘from the same water that he has drunk from?’. He said: ‘Yes’.” This clearly implies that Jews are Tahir, as if they were not Tahir, the water would have become Najis after they have drunk from it, and it would not have been allowed to do Wudu from it.
(1) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:497/chapters on Najasat, 54:1, 24:208, Chapters on Haram Foods 53:1
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 24:211/chapters on Haram Foods 54:5
(3) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 24:210/chapters on Haram Foods 54:4
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:229/chapters on remaining food 3:3
1. The sahih narration from ‘Ays ibn al-Qasim (1) who said: “I asked Abu Abdullah (AS) about eating from a Jewish person, a Christian person and a Zorastrian. He said: if it is your food, and he has washed himself, then it’s not a problem.”
What is understood (maf-hum) of this narration is that it is not allowed to eat their food if it is from their food or they have not washed. From there, it is clear that the prevention (from eating their food), comes from the najasa of their food or from their outer body due to touching something that is inherently najis (ayn an-najis) like pork or the like. What is meant by the food in the Imam’s response, cannot be something like dates or bread, as all dry things are pure. What is meant, must be the impermissibility of eating food that has moisture i.e. probably cooked food (similar to the prohibition in previous narrations). Therefore, the narration clearly implies that Ahl al-Kitab are tahir intrinsically, and that Muslims can eat with them (if the food is from the Muslims and they have washed).
2. What Zakariah has narrated from ibn Ibrahim (2) who said: “I entered into the presence of Abu Abdullah (AS) and said: I am a man from the Ahl al-Kitab and I have become a Muslim. The remainder of my family are all still Christian and I am with them in one house. I have not yet left them so can I eat from their food? He asked me: Do they eat pig? I replied: No, but they drink wine. So he said to me: Eat with them and drink.”
This clearly shows that Christians are intrinsically tahir and the prevention from eating with them does not stem from anything other than derived najasah from eating pork and the like, and if they do not eat such haram foods, then there is no problem with them. Wine, on the other hand, only makes the lips najis, which then do not touch other things, and furthermore, they are washed daily at least once, and therefore, it is not a factor in eating with them. Alternatively, this narration (like other similar narrations) could be used to imply the taharah (not permissibility) of wine.
3. The sahih narration of Isma’il ibn Jabir (3) who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): ‘What do you say about food of the Ahl al-Kitab?’ So he said: ‘Don’t eat it.’ Then he was silent for a moment. Then he said: ‘Don’t eat it.’ Then he was silent for a moment. Then he said: ‘Don’t eat it and don’t leave him saying it is Haram but leave him avoiding it. In their cups is wine and in their plates is pork.’” It is clear that this implies the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab and that eating with them is Makruh.
4. What Ammar al-Saabiti narrated from Abu Abdullah (AS) (4) who said: “I asked Abu Abdullah whether a man can do Wudhu from a cup, from which a Jew has drunk from. He said: ‘Yes’ so I said: ‘from the same water that he has drunk from?’. He said: ‘Yes’.” This clearly implies that Jews are Tahir, as if they were not Tahir, the water would have become Najis after they have drunk from it, and it would not have been allowed to do Wudu from it.
(1) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:497/chapters on Najasat, 54:1, 24:208, Chapters on Haram Foods 53:1
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 24:211/chapters on Haram Foods 54:5
(3) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 24:210/chapters on Haram Foods 54:4
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:229/chapters on remaining food 3:3
Saturday 3 July 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (4)
We have discussed four narrations so far that are used to imply the Najasah of the Kafir. Many have been shown to be flawed in their implication, but we will now continue this discussion with more narrations often used to imply the Najasah of the Kafir.
5. What Abu Busayr has related from one of the two (either 5th or 6th Imam) (AS) (1): “[What is the correct way] for a Muslim to shake hands with a Jew or Christian? He said: ‘From behind a piece of cloth. And if he shakes your hand with his, then wash your hand.’”. And from this, one can infer that it is recommended to wash your hand after shaking hands with them. This is because shaking hands from behind a cloth, would mean the cloth would get najis and the Imam (AS) would have ordered the cloth to be washed.
6. Another narration from Ali ibn Ja’far from his brother Abu al-Hasan Musa (AS) who said (2): “I asked about eating the food of a Zorastrian in one bowl, and lying down with him* on a mattress and shaking his hand, and he replied: no”. And similar to that is a narration from Harun ibn Kharija (3) who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): Can I mix with Zorastrians so can I eat from their food? And he responded: No”. From these narrations, you cannot infer that Zorastrians are najis. It is clear that one could forbid eating and sitting with them due to a disdain for them and so that Muslims do not mix with them, because sitting with them on one mattress does not make a Muslim’s clothes or body najis, as is eating on one plate with no mention of moisture.
7. Another sahih narration of Ali ibn Ja’far from his brother (AS) (4): “[I asked] about a Christian who has a shower with a Muslim in the Hammam. He said: If he [the Muslim] knows that he is a Christian, he should wash himself with other water (not from the Hammam). Alternatively, he could wash himself in the sink/bath (after the Christian)”.
This has a sound chain of narration and does imply that the Christian is Najis because although theoretically the avoidance could have been due to another reason e.g. the Christian person in this case having some najasat on him, that cannot be the meaning here, as the fact he is Christian, is used in the statement.
At the end of the above narration, is: “I asked about a Jewish person and a Christian person who put their hand into water. Can one do Wudu from that water for prayers?” He said no – unless you are forced to.” Shaykh Ansari puts the “unless you are forced to” phrase due to Taqiyya (5). There is no doubt that this attribution of taqiyya is against the clear apparent meaning of the narration, but actually this part of the narration does not imply the Najasa of the Ahl al Kitab . This is because it implies that if there is a lot of water, then you must avoid the water they have touched but if there is no choice then there is no problem. Therefore, the most you can infer from this part of the narration, is that it is better to avoid it.
There is one more narration but it does not add to the discussion. That ends the discussion on the narrations from which you may deduce the Najasa of the Ahl al Kitab. We have seen that only a few of them actually do imply the Najasah but given no other evidence, we would have inferred the Najasah of the People of the Book.
In the next blog, we will look at the many narrations that imply the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab, after which we will look at how scholars try and reconcile seemingly contradictory evidence.
(1) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:4-5
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:6
(3) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:7
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:9
(5) Kitab al-Tahara: 349, Chapter of Najasah, Sub-chapter on Najasah of the Kafir, Line 2
* This may not be the best translation
5. What Abu Busayr has related from one of the two (either 5th or 6th Imam) (AS) (1): “[What is the correct way] for a Muslim to shake hands with a Jew or Christian? He said: ‘From behind a piece of cloth. And if he shakes your hand with his, then wash your hand.’”. And from this, one can infer that it is recommended to wash your hand after shaking hands with them. This is because shaking hands from behind a cloth, would mean the cloth would get najis and the Imam (AS) would have ordered the cloth to be washed.
6. Another narration from Ali ibn Ja’far from his brother Abu al-Hasan Musa (AS) who said (2): “I asked about eating the food of a Zorastrian in one bowl, and lying down with him* on a mattress and shaking his hand, and he replied: no”. And similar to that is a narration from Harun ibn Kharija (3) who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): Can I mix with Zorastrians so can I eat from their food? And he responded: No”. From these narrations, you cannot infer that Zorastrians are najis. It is clear that one could forbid eating and sitting with them due to a disdain for them and so that Muslims do not mix with them, because sitting with them on one mattress does not make a Muslim’s clothes or body najis, as is eating on one plate with no mention of moisture.
7. Another sahih narration of Ali ibn Ja’far from his brother (AS) (4): “[I asked] about a Christian who has a shower with a Muslim in the Hammam. He said: If he [the Muslim] knows that he is a Christian, he should wash himself with other water (not from the Hammam). Alternatively, he could wash himself in the sink/bath (after the Christian)”.
This has a sound chain of narration and does imply that the Christian is Najis because although theoretically the avoidance could have been due to another reason e.g. the Christian person in this case having some najasat on him, that cannot be the meaning here, as the fact he is Christian, is used in the statement.
At the end of the above narration, is: “I asked about a Jewish person and a Christian person who put their hand into water. Can one do Wudu from that water for prayers?” He said no – unless you are forced to.” Shaykh Ansari puts the “unless you are forced to” phrase due to Taqiyya (5). There is no doubt that this attribution of taqiyya is against the clear apparent meaning of the narration, but actually this part of the narration does not imply the Najasa of the Ahl al Kitab . This is because it implies that if there is a lot of water, then you must avoid the water they have touched but if there is no choice then there is no problem. Therefore, the most you can infer from this part of the narration, is that it is better to avoid it.
There is one more narration but it does not add to the discussion. That ends the discussion on the narrations from which you may deduce the Najasa of the Ahl al Kitab. We have seen that only a few of them actually do imply the Najasah but given no other evidence, we would have inferred the Najasah of the People of the Book.
In the next blog, we will look at the many narrations that imply the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab, after which we will look at how scholars try and reconcile seemingly contradictory evidence.
(1) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:4-5
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:6
(3) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:7
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:9
(5) Kitab al-Tahara: 349, Chapter of Najasah, Sub-chapter on Najasah of the Kafir, Line 2
* This may not be the best translation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)