Following the last blog, one of the avid readers of the blog asked for a slight clarification. The previous blog (and this blog) are not saying that all food on the earth is Halal. It is saying that:
- IF you do not receive any evidence from other verses or narrations, this would be the base position
- Or IF there are only contradictory narrations and you cannot choose one group over another, then both are discarded, and this is the base position
Therefore, the idea is that food from the earth is Halal, unless you find evidence to the contrary.
In the last blog, we discussed the general Qur`anic principle that everything in the Earth is Halal (with the proviso given above). We now can look at another principle, which says that given no evidence to the contrary, food is Halal (with the proviso given above).
Firstly, he quotes the Qur`anic verse:
Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than God’s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (1)
This was revealed in response to the Kuffar who used to say certain things were Haram. Allah was teaching the Prophet that there was nothing Haram in what was given by Allah other than eating something dead, or blood or pork. It seems to be quite clear in noting that the base position, is Halal.
There are two arguments brought against this:
1. Some may argue that this only applies to land animals. The response is quite obvious: that there is no restriction mentioned, so it must also apply to sea animals!
2. There are many foods that are Haram to eat in Shari’a which are not mentioned in this verse e.g. eating snake and dog…etc. (agreed upon by all) which means that this cannot be meant in the way assumed. However, the response is that this does not affect the general base position. It just means that there are exceptions in narrations, which is what we will look at in later blogs.
There are also many Sahih narrations where the Imams were asked whether a particular type of sea or land animal was Haram, to which they responded using the verse above. There are a lot of these narrations mentioned in the footnotes of his book, but I will mention one of them:
In a sahih narration of Muhammad ibn Muslim (2): “He said I asked Abu Abdullah about ‘jari’, ‘maarmaahi’ and ‘zumayyar’ (3) and fish which do not have scales – are they Haram? He said to me: ‘O Muhammad, read this verse in which it says…[refer to verse above]…so I read it until I completed it, after which he said: Indeed what is Haram is that which Allah and His messenger have prohibited in His book …”
In the next blog, we will look at the most famous and important general Qur`anic principle in this regard, and that is that all marine life is Halal [with the previous proviso]. After that, we will move onto the core of the issue, and that is the narrations on the topic!
(1) Qur`an, Surah An’am: 6:145
(2) Wasa`il al-Shia, Volume 24, Page 136, Chapter 4 on Haram foods)
(3) These are three types of fish without scales
Sunday 29 August 2010
Sunday 22 August 2010
Seafood (3)
We have looked at the base ruling and concluded that if there was no evidence to the contrary, seafood would be considered Halal. We now move onto general statements, which would supersede the base ruling if they can be confirmed. There are many general texts in this regard, suggesting the following:
1. Everything that is in the earth is halal
2. Everything that mankind eats is Halal
3. Absolute Halal nature of hunting from the sea and its food
Note that these are general rules, and would be the fall back position, if there are no specific exceptions found in texts (later blogs).
1. Everything in the earth is Halal
There are three Quranic verses that can be used substantiate this claim:
1. “It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth” (1)
The earth includes land and sea (not only land) and He has created everything so that we can benefit from it so it must be able for us to benefit from it by eating and drinking unless we are told otherwise through a specific text.
And some might consider that the verse means that we should be content with God’s creation, rather than saying that everything able to be eaten is Halal to eat. This is because being content with the creation does not imply that.
However, one could say that being content with what Allah has created, implies that man should benefit from it, through fulfilling his nutritional needs. For example, if someone said to another person: “I have made these things for you”, the apparent meaning is that he is happy with you to use it.
2. Verse of the Qur`an: “Oh mankind, eat from what is in the earth as something Halal, good” (2). The implication could be that it is allowed for mankind to eat what is in the earth because it is Halal and good; and fruits of the sea are considered amongst these.
Now there are two reasons for the usage of good (طيب): either to limit the Halal to only what is good, so something that is dirty is not considered Halal, or with the meaning of all that is in the earth is Halal and good.
“Tayyib” has many meanings, including Halal, Tahir, that in which there is no pain/harm…
However, we can consider this to not be applicable because it is talking about eating what is Halal and good – nothing about what is Haram and bad. Therefore, it does not help determine what actually is Haram and is therefore irrelevant.
3. Qur`anic verse: “They ask you about what is Halal for them. Say: Good provisions is what is Halal for you” (4). The “good provisions” – what man is able to benefit well from – is Halal and okay to eat. This is aided by what is in the book (5) attributed to Imam Rida (AS): “Know, may Allah have mercy on you that Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not make allowed any food or drink except that in which there is benefit and silah, and he did not make Haram anything other than that in which there is daral and talaff and fasaad. So every beneficial item for the body is halal and every harmful item is haram.”
From these discussions, we can conclude that this principle holds i.e. all food on the earth is Halal unless we get specific evidence to the contrary. In the next blog, we will look at the next general principle.
(1) Qur`an: 2:29
(2) Qur`an: 2:168
(3) Kanz al-Urfan in Fiqh al-Qur`an: Chapter 2, Page 390
(4) Qur`an: 5:4
(5) al-Fiqh al-Radawi (34:1)
1. Everything that is in the earth is halal
2. Everything that mankind eats is Halal
3. Absolute Halal nature of hunting from the sea and its food
Note that these are general rules, and would be the fall back position, if there are no specific exceptions found in texts (later blogs).
1. Everything in the earth is Halal
There are three Quranic verses that can be used substantiate this claim:
1. “It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth” (1)
The earth includes land and sea (not only land) and He has created everything so that we can benefit from it so it must be able for us to benefit from it by eating and drinking unless we are told otherwise through a specific text.
And some might consider that the verse means that we should be content with God’s creation, rather than saying that everything able to be eaten is Halal to eat. This is because being content with the creation does not imply that.
However, one could say that being content with what Allah has created, implies that man should benefit from it, through fulfilling his nutritional needs. For example, if someone said to another person: “I have made these things for you”, the apparent meaning is that he is happy with you to use it.
2. Verse of the Qur`an: “Oh mankind, eat from what is in the earth as something Halal, good” (2). The implication could be that it is allowed for mankind to eat what is in the earth because it is Halal and good; and fruits of the sea are considered amongst these.
Now there are two reasons for the usage of good (طيب): either to limit the Halal to only what is good, so something that is dirty is not considered Halal, or with the meaning of all that is in the earth is Halal and good.
“Tayyib” has many meanings, including Halal, Tahir, that in which there is no pain/harm…
However, we can consider this to not be applicable because it is talking about eating what is Halal and good – nothing about what is Haram and bad. Therefore, it does not help determine what actually is Haram and is therefore irrelevant.
3. Qur`anic verse: “They ask you about what is Halal for them. Say: Good provisions is what is Halal for you” (4). The “good provisions” – what man is able to benefit well from – is Halal and okay to eat. This is aided by what is in the book (5) attributed to Imam Rida (AS): “Know, may Allah have mercy on you that Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not make allowed any food or drink except that in which there is benefit and silah, and he did not make Haram anything other than that in which there is daral and talaff and fasaad. So every beneficial item for the body is halal and every harmful item is haram.”
From these discussions, we can conclude that this principle holds i.e. all food on the earth is Halal unless we get specific evidence to the contrary. In the next blog, we will look at the next general principle.
(1) Qur`an: 2:29
(2) Qur`an: 2:168
(3) Kanz al-Urfan in Fiqh al-Qur`an: Chapter 2, Page 390
(4) Qur`an: 5:4
(5) al-Fiqh al-Radawi (34:1)
Saturday 14 August 2010
Seafood (2)
We will now start by looking at what the correct course of action should be about eating seafood, if there was no evidence at all i.e. what the base ruling (أصل - `asl) is.
In general, the base position is that everything created by Allah in terms of food and drink are Halal, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. I have discussed the reasoning for this in a previous blog but we will go through Syed Fadlallah’s main reasoning (very similar):
1. Rationally, how can Allah punish you for eating seafood, if you do not have any evidence saying it is Haram. Further to the rational reasoning, there are lots of texts suggesting this e.g. “We do not punish [any community] until We have sent [it] an apostle (to give warning)” (1) and “My nation is not responsible for that which they do not know” (2).
2. There are several narrations explaining that everything is halal unless you know that it is haram e.g. the Muwathaq (3) narration of Mas’ada ibn Sadqa from Abu Abdullah (AS) who said: I heard him say: “Everything is halal for you until you know that it is Haram…” However, these narrations are about individual situations rather than a general ruling, and therefore, they are not applicable here.
The first point is enough to conclude the base rule is that seafood is Halal unless there is evidence to suggest the contrary.
However, there may be other “base rulings” that may be applicable. Syed Fadlallah goes through some possibilities:
A. The base situation is that animals are not slaughtered/slaughtered in the correct way
In general, if you saw a dead animal, the base assumption would be that the animal would have either:
- Not been slaughtered in the Islamic method e.g. not cutting the jugular vein, or reciting the name of Allah at the slaughter, or facing Qibla based on the Shii opinion
- Or the animal is not able to be slaughtered e.g. dog or pig where cutting the jugular vein does not leave a positive result when they are slaughtered
Therefore, if there is a doubt about whether the animal has been slaughtered, then the base position is that the animal has not been slaughtered in the correct way.
Therefore, if we doubt the permissibility of an animal even after the slaughter, then it is considered Haram. Similarly if we doubt if something is able to be slaughtered, then it must be considered not slaughtered.
In this case, if we doubt whether seafood (not fish)/fish without scales is halal, you can infer that there is a doubt in the fact it can be slaughtered, and therefore this basis of non-slaughterability applies.
However, this argument does not work, as there is no real doubt about its slaughterability. This is because every animal is able to be slaughtered other than dog and pig (a reference is available if required).
Even if we were to accept that the basis applies, we would have to look at the legal rules in later blogs, which make it not applicable.
B. Istis-hab – Assumption of previous state
In usul al-fiqh, there is a principle that when you are sure of a situation, and you are unsure whether it has changed, you assume the previous state. The argument behind this, is not discussed here. We will focus on how it might be used to result in a different base ruling.
The argument is as follows:
- We know that before slaughter, the animal is definitely Haram to eat.
- Therefore if we doubt whether the animal is able to be slaughtered, we then doubt whether it is Halal to eat.
- Therefore, we prefer the previous known Haram state before slaughtering.
However, we note the following:
1. The principle of Isits-hab is only relevant (in Syed Fadlallah’s opinion [similar to Ayatullah Khui]) on doubts on whether a rule is applicable, not on if there is a rule in the first place
2. The first leg of the argument is not correct, as it is not definitely the case that eating the animal from the sea is haram because if a person takes a small fish from the sea and swallows it before its death, there is no evidence that he has committed a sin
3. The principle of Istis-hab only applies when the subject (according to the custom) which you have certainty in, is the same as the subject which you doubt has changed. In this case, the subject changes from an animal to meat; or from a non-slaughtered animal to a slaughtered animal.
Regardless, the previous two points are enough to note that this argument is not sufficient.
Overall, in this blog, we have come to the conclusion that IF there was no evidence, the base ruling is that seafood is Halal to eat. In the next blog, we will start looking at general pieces of evidence that may be applicable, and may affect the base ruling.
(1) Qur`an, Surah Israa (17), Verse 15
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a, Volume 15, Page 369, Paragraph 1, Chapter 56 in the chapters on Jihad al-Nafs
(3) Muwathaq is the one level below sahih in terms of reliability of the people in the chain of narrations. Please email if you would like more information.
In general, the base position is that everything created by Allah in terms of food and drink are Halal, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. I have discussed the reasoning for this in a previous blog but we will go through Syed Fadlallah’s main reasoning (very similar):
1. Rationally, how can Allah punish you for eating seafood, if you do not have any evidence saying it is Haram. Further to the rational reasoning, there are lots of texts suggesting this e.g. “We do not punish [any community] until We have sent [it] an apostle (to give warning)” (1) and “My nation is not responsible for that which they do not know” (2).
2. There are several narrations explaining that everything is halal unless you know that it is haram e.g. the Muwathaq (3) narration of Mas’ada ibn Sadqa from Abu Abdullah (AS) who said: I heard him say: “Everything is halal for you until you know that it is Haram…” However, these narrations are about individual situations rather than a general ruling, and therefore, they are not applicable here.
The first point is enough to conclude the base rule is that seafood is Halal unless there is evidence to suggest the contrary.
However, there may be other “base rulings” that may be applicable. Syed Fadlallah goes through some possibilities:
A. The base situation is that animals are not slaughtered/slaughtered in the correct way
In general, if you saw a dead animal, the base assumption would be that the animal would have either:
- Not been slaughtered in the Islamic method e.g. not cutting the jugular vein, or reciting the name of Allah at the slaughter, or facing Qibla based on the Shii opinion
- Or the animal is not able to be slaughtered e.g. dog or pig where cutting the jugular vein does not leave a positive result when they are slaughtered
Therefore, if there is a doubt about whether the animal has been slaughtered, then the base position is that the animal has not been slaughtered in the correct way.
Therefore, if we doubt the permissibility of an animal even after the slaughter, then it is considered Haram. Similarly if we doubt if something is able to be slaughtered, then it must be considered not slaughtered.
In this case, if we doubt whether seafood (not fish)/fish without scales is halal, you can infer that there is a doubt in the fact it can be slaughtered, and therefore this basis of non-slaughterability applies.
However, this argument does not work, as there is no real doubt about its slaughterability. This is because every animal is able to be slaughtered other than dog and pig (a reference is available if required).
Even if we were to accept that the basis applies, we would have to look at the legal rules in later blogs, which make it not applicable.
B. Istis-hab – Assumption of previous state
In usul al-fiqh, there is a principle that when you are sure of a situation, and you are unsure whether it has changed, you assume the previous state. The argument behind this, is not discussed here. We will focus on how it might be used to result in a different base ruling.
The argument is as follows:
- We know that before slaughter, the animal is definitely Haram to eat.
- Therefore if we doubt whether the animal is able to be slaughtered, we then doubt whether it is Halal to eat.
- Therefore, we prefer the previous known Haram state before slaughtering.
However, we note the following:
1. The principle of Isits-hab is only relevant (in Syed Fadlallah’s opinion [similar to Ayatullah Khui]) on doubts on whether a rule is applicable, not on if there is a rule in the first place
2. The first leg of the argument is not correct, as it is not definitely the case that eating the animal from the sea is haram because if a person takes a small fish from the sea and swallows it before its death, there is no evidence that he has committed a sin
3. The principle of Istis-hab only applies when the subject (according to the custom) which you have certainty in, is the same as the subject which you doubt has changed. In this case, the subject changes from an animal to meat; or from a non-slaughtered animal to a slaughtered animal.
Regardless, the previous two points are enough to note that this argument is not sufficient.
Overall, in this blog, we have come to the conclusion that IF there was no evidence, the base ruling is that seafood is Halal to eat. In the next blog, we will start looking at general pieces of evidence that may be applicable, and may affect the base ruling.
(1) Qur`an, Surah Israa (17), Verse 15
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a, Volume 15, Page 369, Paragraph 1, Chapter 56 in the chapters on Jihad al-Nafs
(3) Muwathaq is the one level below sahih in terms of reliability of the people in the chain of narrations. Please email if you would like more information.
Monday 9 August 2010
Seafood (1)
It seems that the majority of readers (who responded) consider the moon issue to be overly talked about, so we are moving to seafood! This topic was chosen for two reasons:
Firstly, because it is a topic, about which there are differences of opinion. This is useful because it shows how scholars think and come to conclusions, and it is easy to see inside the mind of a scholar!
Secondly, because Ayatullah Fadlallah published a short explanation of his point of view on the topic a few months prior to his death. I thought it makes sense to cover a piece of legal derivation from one of the leading jurists of the day, especially as I have not covered anything from him so far.
Now onto the topic! The general opinion amongst Shii scholars is that eating animals from the sea is not allowed other than fish with scales. Some even consider this opinion as a distinguishing feature of being an Imami. However, Syed Fadlallah does not believe that this is correct and in the next few blogs, I will detail his method of proving his case.
His work here is not a part of a larger look at every single ruling like Ayatullah Khui’s work – instead, it is just a detailed look at one topic. This makes it possible to frame the discussion in a different way, and the structure of the argument is therefore interesting:
1. Firstly, he considers whether all sea food should be Halal or Haram if there was no evidence at all i.e. what the `Asl (base ruling) is
2. He then moves onto the general pieces of evidence (‘Umumat) that are available, which would be applicable if there was no specific evidence to the contrary (e.g. in the Qur`an, the verses that might imply that all food from the sea is Halal)
3. Finally, he looks at specific evidence relevant to the topic, which if considered sound, would take precedence as exceptions to the general rules laid out above.
In the next blog, we will look at point 1 i.e. what the base ruling should be if there was no evidence to the contrary.
Firstly, because it is a topic, about which there are differences of opinion. This is useful because it shows how scholars think and come to conclusions, and it is easy to see inside the mind of a scholar!
Secondly, because Ayatullah Fadlallah published a short explanation of his point of view on the topic a few months prior to his death. I thought it makes sense to cover a piece of legal derivation from one of the leading jurists of the day, especially as I have not covered anything from him so far.
Now onto the topic! The general opinion amongst Shii scholars is that eating animals from the sea is not allowed other than fish with scales. Some even consider this opinion as a distinguishing feature of being an Imami. However, Syed Fadlallah does not believe that this is correct and in the next few blogs, I will detail his method of proving his case.
His work here is not a part of a larger look at every single ruling like Ayatullah Khui’s work – instead, it is just a detailed look at one topic. This makes it possible to frame the discussion in a different way, and the structure of the argument is therefore interesting:
1. Firstly, he considers whether all sea food should be Halal or Haram if there was no evidence at all i.e. what the `Asl (base ruling) is
2. He then moves onto the general pieces of evidence (‘Umumat) that are available, which would be applicable if there was no specific evidence to the contrary (e.g. in the Qur`an, the verses that might imply that all food from the sea is Halal)
3. Finally, he looks at specific evidence relevant to the topic, which if considered sound, would take precedence as exceptions to the general rules laid out above.
In the next blog, we will look at point 1 i.e. what the base ruling should be if there was no evidence to the contrary.
Sunday 1 August 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (8)
In the previous blog, we discussed a possible way to deal with the contradictory narrations i.e. to prefer those that imply the Taharah of Ahl al Kitab, because of the fact they are clearer. The author of al-Madarik (1) and Ayatullah Sabzwari (2) (may Allah be pleased with them) have come to this same conclusion but the majority of scholars at the time of Ayatullah Khui were not happy with this way of solving the contradiction.
They have actually cast aside the narrations on the Tahara of the Ahl al Kitab based on the following reasons (3):
1. They consider the narrations contrary to the verse of the Qur`an (9:28 – “Indeed the Mushrikun are naijs…”) and the narrations of Najasah are in agreement with this. And it is clear that agreeing with the Qur`an is a reason to prefer one side of an argument when there is a contradiction. However, Ayatullah Khui does not consider this reasoning correct, as we have discussed that the verse talks about the Mushrikun rather than the Ahl al Kitab (refer to previous blog)
2. The narrations on Najasah are in opposition to the view of the Sunnis (refer to earlier blog) and one of the methods of solving contradictory narrations is to turn to narrations from the Imams (AS) that say that you must take what is against the school of those in opposition (to the Imams) (4)
They therefore attribute the narrations on Tahara to Taqiyyya, and this attribution is seen as totally unacceptable by the author of al-Madarik (5) and Sabzwari, wondering how it can be possible to put such weak rules on the Imams (6)
Even though there are many narrations which say that you should take the narration that opposes the school of the opposition (Sunnis), these are only in instances of genuine contradiction. However, there is no contradiction between the “No” in the narrations of Najasa and the clarity of it being Makruh to eat their food in the texts on their Tahara.
Ayatullah Khui is particularly scathing, saying:
“Can you see that these contradict each other? If there is no contradiction, then why would you put the texts of Tahara on the majority [i.e. on Taqiyya]? …I really wonder what the author of al-Hada`iq (may Allah be pleased with him) was doing in his book.” It is difficult to believe that in all their places in these narrations were due to Taqiyya in front of the Sunnis.
Ayatullah Khui then gives forward another reasoning why Taqiyya is not applicable. In the same narrations where it discusses the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab, it must have been in the minds of the religious people in the times of the Imams (AS) that they are Tahir, and that was the reason they asked about eating with them because they knew about the outer Najasah of the Ahl al Kitab when they ate pork…etc..
There are many narrations that show this:
- the sound (sahih) narration of Mu’awiya ibn ’Ammar who said: “I asked Abu Abdullah (AS) about clothes which the Zorastrians work with, and they are dirty/foreigners* and they drink wine. He said: yes”. The addition of the “and they are foreigners who drink wine” implies that he knew that they were Tahir otherwise. (* = depending on the version of Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:518/chapters on Najasa, 73:1)
- the sound (sahih) narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Sunnan, who said: “he asked Abu Abdullah (AS) when I was present: ‘A Dhimmi borrowed my clothes and I know he drinks wine and eats pork. He then returns it to me. Should I wash it before I pray in it?’ Abu ‘Abdullah (AS) said: ‘Pray in it and do not wash it because of that as you lent it to him and he is Tahir and you have not become certain that he has made it Najis, so there is no problem to pray in it unless you become certain that he has made it Najis
I will ignore the other two noted.
From this it is clear that the Tahara of the Ahl al Kitab was in the mind of the narrators until the 12th Imam (AS) and they used to ask about how to act with them and what to do, given that they eat pork and drink wine.
Therefore, it is difficult to give a fatwa (religious ruling) according to the narrations considering them to be najis, but it is also difficult to give a ruling according to the narrations considering them to be tahir because most scholars from the early periods and the recent periods consider them to be najis. Therefore, there is no choice but to consider it Ihtiyat al-Luzumi to consider them Najis.
Therefore, you can see that although Ayatullah Khui is very clear in his opinion that Ahl al Kitab are tahir, in the end, he observes precaution solely because of the fact that most of the scholars of the earlier period had a different opinion! Hopefully, this shows the way that Ayatullah Khui made his decision, his thinking and seeing inside the mind of a scholar!
In the next blog, we have two options:
1. Ayatullah Fadlallah on seafood – it is useful to see into the mind of another great scholar, especially as the structure of his argument differs from the types we have seen so far, and also because again Taqiyya is used by some scholars.
2. Consider moon issues (topical)
Please email with your thoughts!
(1) al-Mudarik 2:294-298
(2) Dhakhira al-ma’aad: 150
(3) al-Hada`iq, 5:162-172
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 27:106/chapters on the attributes of a judge 9:1, 19, 25 and others
(5) al-Mudarik 2:294-298
(6) al-Hada`iq, 5:173
They have actually cast aside the narrations on the Tahara of the Ahl al Kitab based on the following reasons (3):
1. They consider the narrations contrary to the verse of the Qur`an (9:28 – “Indeed the Mushrikun are naijs…”) and the narrations of Najasah are in agreement with this. And it is clear that agreeing with the Qur`an is a reason to prefer one side of an argument when there is a contradiction. However, Ayatullah Khui does not consider this reasoning correct, as we have discussed that the verse talks about the Mushrikun rather than the Ahl al Kitab (refer to previous blog)
2. The narrations on Najasah are in opposition to the view of the Sunnis (refer to earlier blog) and one of the methods of solving contradictory narrations is to turn to narrations from the Imams (AS) that say that you must take what is against the school of those in opposition (to the Imams) (4)
They therefore attribute the narrations on Tahara to Taqiyyya, and this attribution is seen as totally unacceptable by the author of al-Madarik (5) and Sabzwari, wondering how it can be possible to put such weak rules on the Imams (6)
Even though there are many narrations which say that you should take the narration that opposes the school of the opposition (Sunnis), these are only in instances of genuine contradiction. However, there is no contradiction between the “No” in the narrations of Najasa and the clarity of it being Makruh to eat their food in the texts on their Tahara.
Ayatullah Khui is particularly scathing, saying:
“Can you see that these contradict each other? If there is no contradiction, then why would you put the texts of Tahara on the majority [i.e. on Taqiyya]? …I really wonder what the author of al-Hada`iq (may Allah be pleased with him) was doing in his book.” It is difficult to believe that in all their places in these narrations were due to Taqiyya in front of the Sunnis.
Ayatullah Khui then gives forward another reasoning why Taqiyya is not applicable. In the same narrations where it discusses the Tahara of the Ahl al-Kitab, it must have been in the minds of the religious people in the times of the Imams (AS) that they are Tahir, and that was the reason they asked about eating with them because they knew about the outer Najasah of the Ahl al Kitab when they ate pork…etc..
There are many narrations that show this:
- the sound (sahih) narration of Mu’awiya ibn ’Ammar who said: “I asked Abu Abdullah (AS) about clothes which the Zorastrians work with, and they are dirty/foreigners* and they drink wine. He said: yes”. The addition of the “and they are foreigners who drink wine” implies that he knew that they were Tahir otherwise. (* = depending on the version of Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:518/chapters on Najasa, 73:1)
- the sound (sahih) narration of ‘Abdullah ibn Sunnan, who said: “he asked Abu Abdullah (AS) when I was present: ‘A Dhimmi borrowed my clothes and I know he drinks wine and eats pork. He then returns it to me. Should I wash it before I pray in it?’ Abu ‘Abdullah (AS) said: ‘Pray in it and do not wash it because of that as you lent it to him and he is Tahir and you have not become certain that he has made it Najis, so there is no problem to pray in it unless you become certain that he has made it Najis
I will ignore the other two noted.
From this it is clear that the Tahara of the Ahl al Kitab was in the mind of the narrators until the 12th Imam (AS) and they used to ask about how to act with them and what to do, given that they eat pork and drink wine.
Therefore, it is difficult to give a fatwa (religious ruling) according to the narrations considering them to be najis, but it is also difficult to give a ruling according to the narrations considering them to be tahir because most scholars from the early periods and the recent periods consider them to be najis. Therefore, there is no choice but to consider it Ihtiyat al-Luzumi to consider them Najis.
Therefore, you can see that although Ayatullah Khui is very clear in his opinion that Ahl al Kitab are tahir, in the end, he observes precaution solely because of the fact that most of the scholars of the earlier period had a different opinion! Hopefully, this shows the way that Ayatullah Khui made his decision, his thinking and seeing inside the mind of a scholar!
In the next blog, we have two options:
1. Ayatullah Fadlallah on seafood – it is useful to see into the mind of another great scholar, especially as the structure of his argument differs from the types we have seen so far, and also because again Taqiyya is used by some scholars.
2. Consider moon issues (topical)
Please email with your thoughts!
(1) al-Mudarik 2:294-298
(2) Dhakhira al-ma’aad: 150
(3) al-Hada`iq, 5:162-172
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 27:106/chapters on the attributes of a judge 9:1, 19, 25 and others
(5) al-Mudarik 2:294-298
(6) al-Hada`iq, 5:173
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)