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
Sunday, 11 July 2010
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
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (3)
In the next two blogs, we will look at the heart of the issue – by analyzing the narrations that suggest that Ahl al Kitab are najis.
1. A hasan (0) narration from Sa’id al-A’raj (1) “I asked Abu Abdallah (AS) about (whether I could eat from) the leftover of Jews and Christians. He said: “No”.”
There is no problem in the chain of narration and it is clear that it is relevant to the Najasah of Ahl al-Kitab.
2. A sahih (0) narration from Muhammad ibn Muslim (2): “I asked Abu Ja’far (AS) about a dish of Ahl al-Dhimma and Zorastrians, and he said: Do not eat from their dishes, and nor from food they have cooked, and nor from the cups in which they have drunk wine.”
This narration, although it has a strong chain of transmission, is not clear in implying that the Ahl al-Kitab are Najis. In fact, it suggests the opposite, because of the usage of “wine”. If they were Najis, then all cups should be avoided, including those in which they have drunk water. In terms of the food, there are two potential options:
1. Ahl al-Kitab eat pork (and other food derived from pig), and so this is likely to be present in their food
2. The dishes may become najis by pork or other najasat (without the required washing afterwards in the prescribed way), as that is not something that is important for them
It could alternatively be for another reason.
3. A hasan (0) narration from al-Kahili, who said (3): “I asked Abu Abdullah (AS) about a group of Muslims who are eating, and a Zorastrian man comes. Should they call him to eat with them? He said: as for me, I do not make a Zorastrian eat with me, but I do not want to make haram on you anything that you are currently doing in your lands.”
It is obvious that this does not show the najasah of the Zorastrian, as he (AS) did not eat with him due to the non-suitability (for the leader of the Muslims) of sharing food with someone who stubbornly refuses the law of Islam, and this is at the level of dislike.
4. A sahih (0) narration from Muhammad ibn Muslim from Abu Ja’far (AS) (4): “There is a man who shook hands with a Zorastrian. So he said: his hand is to be washed but he does not need to do Wudu”. Some may consider the apparent meaning of this to be that the Zorastrian is Najis. However, there are two points to mention:
1. The shaking of the hands would only lead to the transfer of najasa if there was moisture
2. Therefore, washing the hands could be a recommendation, as it could not be an obligation (due to the absoluteness of the command, which would include when it is dry).
There is a narration, which further explains this from al-Qalanasi (5), who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): A Dhimmi sets off, and he shakes my hand. He said: ‘Wipe it with dust and with the wall’. I asked: and what if it is an enemy of Allah (Nasib)? He replied: ‘wash it’.”
And this might be an indication of disdain for the Ahl al-kitab or a spiritual najasah. However, based on the probability in the fact that when you shake hands, it is rare that there is any moisture, it cannot be inferred from this narration that Ahl al-Kitab are najis (in the legal sense).
In the next blog, we will look at a few more narrations that suggest that Ahl al Kitab are najis, after which we will move onto the narrations that suggest that Ahl al Kitab are tahir.
(0) The attribution of hasan and sahih to the narrations comes from Ayatullah Khui and is based on analyzing the chain of narration. In terms of narrations that are accepted: Sahih is the highest quality, followed by hasan and then muwathaq (which means that there may be a Sunni in the chain of narration but it is still accepted). We can discuss ilm al-rijal if people are interested in later blogs
(1) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:229/chapters on leftovers, 3:1; similarly in 3:421/chapters on Najasa 14:8
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:518/chapters on Najasat, 72:2, and page 419, 14:1, and 24:210 on the chapters of Haram foods 54:3
(3) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:419/chapters on Najasat, 14:2
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:419/chapters on Najasat, 14:3
(5) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:4-5
1. A hasan (0) narration from Sa’id al-A’raj (1) “I asked Abu Abdallah (AS) about (whether I could eat from) the leftover of Jews and Christians. He said: “No”.”
There is no problem in the chain of narration and it is clear that it is relevant to the Najasah of Ahl al-Kitab.
2. A sahih (0) narration from Muhammad ibn Muslim (2): “I asked Abu Ja’far (AS) about a dish of Ahl al-Dhimma and Zorastrians, and he said: Do not eat from their dishes, and nor from food they have cooked, and nor from the cups in which they have drunk wine.”
This narration, although it has a strong chain of transmission, is not clear in implying that the Ahl al-Kitab are Najis. In fact, it suggests the opposite, because of the usage of “wine”. If they were Najis, then all cups should be avoided, including those in which they have drunk water. In terms of the food, there are two potential options:
1. Ahl al-Kitab eat pork (and other food derived from pig), and so this is likely to be present in their food
2. The dishes may become najis by pork or other najasat (without the required washing afterwards in the prescribed way), as that is not something that is important for them
It could alternatively be for another reason.
3. A hasan (0) narration from al-Kahili, who said (3): “I asked Abu Abdullah (AS) about a group of Muslims who are eating, and a Zorastrian man comes. Should they call him to eat with them? He said: as for me, I do not make a Zorastrian eat with me, but I do not want to make haram on you anything that you are currently doing in your lands.”
It is obvious that this does not show the najasah of the Zorastrian, as he (AS) did not eat with him due to the non-suitability (for the leader of the Muslims) of sharing food with someone who stubbornly refuses the law of Islam, and this is at the level of dislike.
4. A sahih (0) narration from Muhammad ibn Muslim from Abu Ja’far (AS) (4): “There is a man who shook hands with a Zorastrian. So he said: his hand is to be washed but he does not need to do Wudu”. Some may consider the apparent meaning of this to be that the Zorastrian is Najis. However, there are two points to mention:
1. The shaking of the hands would only lead to the transfer of najasa if there was moisture
2. Therefore, washing the hands could be a recommendation, as it could not be an obligation (due to the absoluteness of the command, which would include when it is dry).
There is a narration, which further explains this from al-Qalanasi (5), who said: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): A Dhimmi sets off, and he shakes my hand. He said: ‘Wipe it with dust and with the wall’. I asked: and what if it is an enemy of Allah (Nasib)? He replied: ‘wash it’.”
And this might be an indication of disdain for the Ahl al-kitab or a spiritual najasah. However, based on the probability in the fact that when you shake hands, it is rare that there is any moisture, it cannot be inferred from this narration that Ahl al-Kitab are najis (in the legal sense).
In the next blog, we will look at a few more narrations that suggest that Ahl al Kitab are najis, after which we will move onto the narrations that suggest that Ahl al Kitab are tahir.
(0) The attribution of hasan and sahih to the narrations comes from Ayatullah Khui and is based on analyzing the chain of narration. In terms of narrations that are accepted: Sahih is the highest quality, followed by hasan and then muwathaq (which means that there may be a Sunni in the chain of narration but it is still accepted). We can discuss ilm al-rijal if people are interested in later blogs
(1) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:229/chapters on leftovers, 3:1; similarly in 3:421/chapters on Najasa 14:8
(2) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:518/chapters on Najasat, 72:2, and page 419, 14:1, and 24:210 on the chapters of Haram foods 54:3
(3) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:419/chapters on Najasat, 14:2
(4) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:419/chapters on Najasat, 14:3
(5) Wasa`il al-Shi’a 3:420/chapters on Najasat, 14:4-5
Saturday, 19 June 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (2)
In the previous blog, we mentioned the main verse relevant to this discussion:
إنّما المشركون نجس فلا يقربوا المسجد الحرام بعد عامهم هذا
“O you who believe! the “Mushrikun” are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year…”1
Ayatullah Khui splits najis (unclean in the verse above) into two types:
1. Technical/ritual meaning i.e. that which means that if you touch it, you must wash it before praying
2. Non-technical meaning i.e. dirtiness (either physical dirtiness or spiritual najasah – as “what najasah is dirtier than shirk!”)
It is the latter meaning which is the apparent (dhahir) meaning, as that is what would prevent entrance into Masjid al-Haram, as Allah would not be happy with the entrance of his enemy into His house. There is nothing from this verse that implies ritual uncleanliness directly. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to imply that Mushrikun are ritually unclean.
Now we move onto the meaning of Mushrikun. Shaykh Bahmanpour discussed in his tafsir classes2 that “Mushrikun” could be referring only to the polytheists of Arabia who used to come for Hajj regularly on the one hand, or it could mean anyone that commits shirk at all, including Ahl al Kitab. He considers both of these as extreme opinions and in the end, has a similar view to that of Ayatullah Khui (shown below).
Ayatullah Khui says that some scholars have considered Ahl al Kitab as amongst the Mushrikun (polytheists), based on the verse of the Qur`an:
(وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصارى المسيح ابن الله ... سبحانه عمّا يشركون ) 3
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they associate with him4 (with Him).
This can be responded to in the following ways:
- Shirk has several levels, some of which touch all of us (non-infallibles). So how can the najasah of a mushrik be from all these levels? What about the Muslim who shows off in his actions (an example of “Shirk”). Therefore, there are some types of shirk, which are not included in this verse, and this includes the Ahl al-Kitab.
- There are a many verses that are specific to just Ahl al-Kitab, and to Mushrikun e.g. polytheists are not allowed to live in Muslim lands (they have to leave), whereas Ahl al-Kitab can live as long as they pay the Jizya and follow the laws. Therefore, the technical meaning of Mushrikun used in the Qur`an does not seem to include Ahl al Kitab5
Therefore, there are two options
- the verse means Mushrik including Ahl al-Kitab
- the verse means Mushrik not including Ahl al-Kitab, which is the more likely given the evidence
It is clear, therefore, that you cannot infer that the Mushrikun includes Ahl al Kitab.
And considering the meaning of Najas given above, it cannot be concluded from this verse that Mushrikun are Najis with its technical meaning.
For the Najasah (at least in its spiritual meaning) of the Mushrikun, that is something that is conclusively agreed amongst the scholars, which is authoritative regardless of the verse. And similarly, for the sworn enemy of Imam Ali (AS) (Nasib), and deniers of the Creator, there is no doubt about their Najasah.
However, for the Ahl al Kitab, this verse neither points to their Najasah in a technical or non-technical sense as it is not necessarily applicable to them. Therefore, we have to look at other pieces of evidence to reach a conclusion about Ahl al-Kitab, as the verse is not conclusive for them.
The general opinion is that even they are Najis, and in fact, according to some6it is considered as one of the simple realities of religion. However, some scholars from the past and present disagree and consider them tahir. And what is used is from narrations so we will firstly look at the narrations that suggest that Ahl al-Kitab are najis, and then move to those that suggest they are tahir so we can see which is more likely.
1. Surah Tawba: 28
2. http://www.sicm.org.uk/audio.php (Shaykh Bahmanpour, Surah Tawbah, verse 28)
3: Surah Tawba: 30-31
4. Note the usage of shirk here
5. e.g. Surah Bayyinah: 1
6 e.g. in Misbah al-Faqih, Taharah, 558, line 26
إنّما المشركون نجس فلا يقربوا المسجد الحرام بعد عامهم هذا
“O you who believe! the “Mushrikun” are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year…”1
Ayatullah Khui splits najis (unclean in the verse above) into two types:
1. Technical/ritual meaning i.e. that which means that if you touch it, you must wash it before praying
2. Non-technical meaning i.e. dirtiness (either physical dirtiness or spiritual najasah – as “what najasah is dirtier than shirk!”)
It is the latter meaning which is the apparent (dhahir) meaning, as that is what would prevent entrance into Masjid al-Haram, as Allah would not be happy with the entrance of his enemy into His house. There is nothing from this verse that implies ritual uncleanliness directly. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to imply that Mushrikun are ritually unclean.
Now we move onto the meaning of Mushrikun. Shaykh Bahmanpour discussed in his tafsir classes2 that “Mushrikun” could be referring only to the polytheists of Arabia who used to come for Hajj regularly on the one hand, or it could mean anyone that commits shirk at all, including Ahl al Kitab. He considers both of these as extreme opinions and in the end, has a similar view to that of Ayatullah Khui (shown below).
Ayatullah Khui says that some scholars have considered Ahl al Kitab as amongst the Mushrikun (polytheists), based on the verse of the Qur`an:
(وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصارى المسيح ابن الله ... سبحانه عمّا يشركون ) 3
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they associate with him4 (with Him).
This can be responded to in the following ways:
- Shirk has several levels, some of which touch all of us (non-infallibles). So how can the najasah of a mushrik be from all these levels? What about the Muslim who shows off in his actions (an example of “Shirk”). Therefore, there are some types of shirk, which are not included in this verse, and this includes the Ahl al-Kitab.
- There are a many verses that are specific to just Ahl al-Kitab, and to Mushrikun e.g. polytheists are not allowed to live in Muslim lands (they have to leave), whereas Ahl al-Kitab can live as long as they pay the Jizya and follow the laws. Therefore, the technical meaning of Mushrikun used in the Qur`an does not seem to include Ahl al Kitab5
Therefore, there are two options
- the verse means Mushrik including Ahl al-Kitab
- the verse means Mushrik not including Ahl al-Kitab, which is the more likely given the evidence
It is clear, therefore, that you cannot infer that the Mushrikun includes Ahl al Kitab.
And considering the meaning of Najas given above, it cannot be concluded from this verse that Mushrikun are Najis with its technical meaning.
For the Najasah (at least in its spiritual meaning) of the Mushrikun, that is something that is conclusively agreed amongst the scholars, which is authoritative regardless of the verse. And similarly, for the sworn enemy of Imam Ali (AS) (Nasib), and deniers of the Creator, there is no doubt about their Najasah.
However, for the Ahl al Kitab, this verse neither points to their Najasah in a technical or non-technical sense as it is not necessarily applicable to them. Therefore, we have to look at other pieces of evidence to reach a conclusion about Ahl al-Kitab, as the verse is not conclusive for them.
The general opinion is that even they are Najis, and in fact, according to some6it is considered as one of the simple realities of religion. However, some scholars from the past and present disagree and consider them tahir. And what is used is from narrations so we will firstly look at the narrations that suggest that Ahl al-Kitab are najis, and then move to those that suggest they are tahir so we can see which is more likely.
1. Surah Tawba: 28
2. http://www.sicm.org.uk/audio.php (Shaykh Bahmanpour, Surah Tawbah, verse 28)
3: Surah Tawba: 30-31
4. Note the usage of shirk here
5. e.g. Surah Bayyinah: 1
6 e.g. in Misbah al-Faqih, Taharah, 558, line 26
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Najasah of the Kafir (1)
The next topic I would like to turn to is the Najasah of the Kafir. This blog is an introduction to the topic. It is a contentious issue now because of the sheer implications of the ruling and the fact that recently, some scholars have come out with different rulings.
1. In summary, the Shi’i point of view had, until a few decades ago, been that all polytheists (including Ahl al-Kitab [i.e. Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians]) were physically Najis i.e. their touch (with the presence of moisture) would require washing before praying.
2. This changed a few decades ago, with the general Shi’i position now considering people of the Book to not be physically Najis.
3. Now Syed Fadlallah (1) believes that even polytheists are not physically Najis (although it is Ihtiyaat al-Mustahab to consider them Najis), and Ayatullah Saanei (2) also considers everyone tahir (pure) other than those who are stubbornly religiously against Islam (which does not even include those who are fighting against Muslims for political reasons).
Therefore, due to the fact that in spite of little changing in the context or the source texts, the ruling has changed so dramatically, and the implicit implications that non-Muslims are somehow less “clean” in a physical sense, I believe this is an interesting topic to open up.
As with the previous topic, I would like to present Ayatullah Khui’s views (3), and discuss how I have been told Ayatullah Fadlallah’s derivation differs.
Anyway, back to Ayatullah Khui’s book and his discussion. He brings narrations from all sides of the argument but to start, Ayatullah Khui believes there is no doubt at all in the “Najasah” of the “Mushrikun” and it is, in his view, one of the necessities amongst the Shia. He had not encountered any opinion against this from any Shii scholars (even though most Sunnis believe in their Taharah (4), with few exceptions (5)). This consensus is based on the verse of the Qur`an:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌۭ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا۟ ٱلْمَسْجِدَ ٱلْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا
“O you who believe! the “Mushrikun” are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year…” (6)
However, as I explained earlier, Ayatullah Fadlallah believes in the Taharah of even the Mushrikun. How is this possible? The reasoning provided to me by Shaykh Abu Mahdi, and the reasoning that I have heard whilst in Syria, was that “Najis” does not necessarily have to be a physical uncleanliness – it could be a spiritual uncleanliness. We will come to narrations which discuss this in a later blog.
Due to the fact that Ayatullah Khui does not consider the Mushrikun to have any chance of being tahir, we will look at his exceptions to this.
There are, therefore, three types of Kafir:
1. Those who believe in more than one God i.e. polytheists (mushriks) – which he considers to be najis due to consensus (based on the verse of the Qur`an) – as explained above
2. Those Kafirs who were/are stubbornly against Imam Ali (AS) e.g. the Nasib is worse than the Mushrik (based on the narration of Ibn Abu Ya’fur: “God May he be Exalted did not create anything more Najis than the dog, and the Nasib is more Najis to us as the Ahl al-Bayt than it (dog)” (7), and therefore, the Najasah will apply to him as well. (8)
This type of argument is a type of analogy based on reason, that is often used in Shi’i reasoning, and is subsumed under the category of ‘Aql.
3. Those non-Muslims who believe in one God i.e. ahl al-Kitab
In this final category, there has been disagreement amongst the scholars from the past until the present, and the future blogs will look at this in further detail.
1. Volume 1 of Fiqh al-Shari’a, page 36, point 77: 11
2. http://saanei.org/?view=03,00,00,00,0#03,05,13,4,0
3. Pages 37-52 of Volume 3 of his major Fiqh work Sharh al-‘Urwat al-Wuthqa
4. Tafsir al-Kabir 24:16, Mughanni Chapter 1, Page 49
5. Example: Fakhr in his Tafsir, Chapter 16, Page 24
6. Surah Tawba: 28
7. Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:220, Chapters on mixed water: 11:5
8. I made a mistake in the post previously before editing it - please note the change.
1. In summary, the Shi’i point of view had, until a few decades ago, been that all polytheists (including Ahl al-Kitab [i.e. Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians]) were physically Najis i.e. their touch (with the presence of moisture) would require washing before praying.
2. This changed a few decades ago, with the general Shi’i position now considering people of the Book to not be physically Najis.
3. Now Syed Fadlallah (1) believes that even polytheists are not physically Najis (although it is Ihtiyaat al-Mustahab to consider them Najis), and Ayatullah Saanei (2) also considers everyone tahir (pure) other than those who are stubbornly religiously against Islam (which does not even include those who are fighting against Muslims for political reasons).
Therefore, due to the fact that in spite of little changing in the context or the source texts, the ruling has changed so dramatically, and the implicit implications that non-Muslims are somehow less “clean” in a physical sense, I believe this is an interesting topic to open up.
As with the previous topic, I would like to present Ayatullah Khui’s views (3), and discuss how I have been told Ayatullah Fadlallah’s derivation differs.
Anyway, back to Ayatullah Khui’s book and his discussion. He brings narrations from all sides of the argument but to start, Ayatullah Khui believes there is no doubt at all in the “Najasah” of the “Mushrikun” and it is, in his view, one of the necessities amongst the Shia. He had not encountered any opinion against this from any Shii scholars (even though most Sunnis believe in their Taharah (4), with few exceptions (5)). This consensus is based on the verse of the Qur`an:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِنَّمَا ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌۭ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا۟ ٱلْمَسْجِدَ ٱلْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا
“O you who believe! the “Mushrikun” are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year…” (6)
However, as I explained earlier, Ayatullah Fadlallah believes in the Taharah of even the Mushrikun. How is this possible? The reasoning provided to me by Shaykh Abu Mahdi, and the reasoning that I have heard whilst in Syria, was that “Najis” does not necessarily have to be a physical uncleanliness – it could be a spiritual uncleanliness. We will come to narrations which discuss this in a later blog.
Due to the fact that Ayatullah Khui does not consider the Mushrikun to have any chance of being tahir, we will look at his exceptions to this.
There are, therefore, three types of Kafir:
1. Those who believe in more than one God i.e. polytheists (mushriks) – which he considers to be najis due to consensus (based on the verse of the Qur`an) – as explained above
2. Those Kafirs who were/are stubbornly against Imam Ali (AS) e.g. the Nasib is worse than the Mushrik (based on the narration of Ibn Abu Ya’fur: “God May he be Exalted did not create anything more Najis than the dog, and the Nasib is more Najis to us as the Ahl al-Bayt than it (dog)” (7), and therefore, the Najasah will apply to him as well. (8)
This type of argument is a type of analogy based on reason, that is often used in Shi’i reasoning, and is subsumed under the category of ‘Aql.
3. Those non-Muslims who believe in one God i.e. ahl al-Kitab
In this final category, there has been disagreement amongst the scholars from the past until the present, and the future blogs will look at this in further detail.
1. Volume 1 of Fiqh al-Shari’a, page 36, point 77: 11
2. http://saanei.org/?view=03,00,00,00,0#03,05,13,4,0
3. Pages 37-52 of Volume 3 of his major Fiqh work Sharh al-‘Urwat al-Wuthqa
4. Tafsir al-Kabir 24:16, Mughanni Chapter 1, Page 49
5. Example: Fakhr in his Tafsir, Chapter 16, Page 24
6. Surah Tawba: 28
7. Wasa`il al-Shi’a 1:220, Chapters on mixed water: 11:5
8. I made a mistake in the post previously before editing it - please note the change.
Friday, 4 June 2010
Women as mujtahids? (2)
In the previous blog, we discussed the fact that the main narration used has a good chain of narration. We now have to move onto the actual content of the narration. Does it really imply that women cannot be mujtahids?
A reminder of the narration:
Abu ‘Abd Allah Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Be careful that some of you do not bring others to trial in front of the people of injustice; instead, go to the man* among you who knows…”
Wasa-`il al-Shi’a 27:13/Chapters of the pages on Judges, Chapter 1, Page 5.
(* = rajul [Arabic])
Now it seems clear that some may infer from this that women should not be heeded and listened to as a judge. And it is known that the role of giving religious rulings (being a mujtahid) is at least at the same level as being a judge. Therefore, if being a man is a requirement of being a judge, then it is clearly a requirement of being a mujtahid.
This can be responded to in the following ways according to Ayatullah Khui:
Firstly, the word “rajul” (translated as man) was in contrast to the people of injustice, who the sixth Imam (AS) was preventing turning to, when you want a fair hearing. It is more common (in those days at least!) to refer to a man and we are not used to the judging of women at all. Therefore, the usage of “man” is not saying that being a judge is constrained to men, and therefore, there is no evidence from this narration that being a man is relevant in being a judge, forget about in being a mujtahid.
And furthermore, there is no evidence that there is any relationship between being a judge and being a mujtahid. It is interesting that THIS narration is the main narration mentioned by Ayatullah Khui on this topic. There is another narration mentioned in the discussion, but it is not worth mentioning as it does not really prove the point that women cannot be mujtahids, and only a couple of paragraphs are mentioned about it.
In spite of the lack of narrations, Ayatullah Khui then goes on to use his prerogative as a highly qualified scholar, to explain his viewpoint based on his understanding of Islam as a whole. As a respected mujtahid, he has researched Islamic thought, narrations…etc., and he thus proposes that women should not be mujtahids for another reason.
Independent of narratory evidence, he has inferred from the “taste” of the shari’a, that the duty loved (by Allah) for women is being covered (/away from others), and taking care of household affairs, rather than entering what prevents those duties. And it is clear that being a mujtahad puts you in the position as the person to turn to and question, as this is the necessary consequence of being at the head of Muslims. It does not please Allah that a woman is on show like this in any situation, and He would not like her leading men in congregational prayers so how would He consider their position as the head of the affairs of the society?
This is a very interesting argument proposed by Ayatullah Khui for the following reasons:
1. It suggests that there is no textual evidence that directly excludes women from being Mujtahids
2. It shows that Ayatullah Khui's reasoning is based solely on his understanding of women from his position as a respected scholar. Other respected scholars may reach another judgement, and this would change the ruling. This seems to be what the other Mujtahids in my previous post have done.
3. It does not seem to be of considerable importance, with only a few pages devoted to this topic.
In the next few posts, I am going to focus on another topic of interest - why Ayatullah Khui (in contrast to previous scholars) believes that Ahl alKitab (people of the book - considered to be Christians, Jews and Zorastrians) are tahir, and that Mushrikun (polytheists) are najis). This discussion goes over 50 pages and understanding his arguments, will give real insight into how ijtihad by scholars occurs.
A reminder of the narration:
Abu ‘Abd Allah Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Be careful that some of you do not bring others to trial in front of the people of injustice; instead, go to the man* among you who knows…”
Wasa-`il al-Shi’a 27:13/Chapters of the pages on Judges, Chapter 1, Page 5.
(* = rajul [Arabic])
Now it seems clear that some may infer from this that women should not be heeded and listened to as a judge. And it is known that the role of giving religious rulings (being a mujtahid) is at least at the same level as being a judge. Therefore, if being a man is a requirement of being a judge, then it is clearly a requirement of being a mujtahid.
This can be responded to in the following ways according to Ayatullah Khui:
Firstly, the word “rajul” (translated as man) was in contrast to the people of injustice, who the sixth Imam (AS) was preventing turning to, when you want a fair hearing. It is more common (in those days at least!) to refer to a man and we are not used to the judging of women at all. Therefore, the usage of “man” is not saying that being a judge is constrained to men, and therefore, there is no evidence from this narration that being a man is relevant in being a judge, forget about in being a mujtahid.
And furthermore, there is no evidence that there is any relationship between being a judge and being a mujtahid. It is interesting that THIS narration is the main narration mentioned by Ayatullah Khui on this topic. There is another narration mentioned in the discussion, but it is not worth mentioning as it does not really prove the point that women cannot be mujtahids, and only a couple of paragraphs are mentioned about it.
In spite of the lack of narrations, Ayatullah Khui then goes on to use his prerogative as a highly qualified scholar, to explain his viewpoint based on his understanding of Islam as a whole. As a respected mujtahid, he has researched Islamic thought, narrations…etc., and he thus proposes that women should not be mujtahids for another reason.
Independent of narratory evidence, he has inferred from the “taste” of the shari’a, that the duty loved (by Allah) for women is being covered (/away from others), and taking care of household affairs, rather than entering what prevents those duties. And it is clear that being a mujtahad puts you in the position as the person to turn to and question, as this is the necessary consequence of being at the head of Muslims. It does not please Allah that a woman is on show like this in any situation, and He would not like her leading men in congregational prayers so how would He consider their position as the head of the affairs of the society?
This is a very interesting argument proposed by Ayatullah Khui for the following reasons:
1. It suggests that there is no textual evidence that directly excludes women from being Mujtahids
2. It shows that Ayatullah Khui's reasoning is based solely on his understanding of women from his position as a respected scholar. Other respected scholars may reach another judgement, and this would change the ruling. This seems to be what the other Mujtahids in my previous post have done.
3. It does not seem to be of considerable importance, with only a few pages devoted to this topic.
In the next few posts, I am going to focus on another topic of interest - why Ayatullah Khui (in contrast to previous scholars) believes that Ahl alKitab (people of the book - considered to be Christians, Jews and Zorastrians) are tahir, and that Mushrikun (polytheists) are najis). This discussion goes over 50 pages and understanding his arguments, will give real insight into how ijtihad by scholars occurs.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Women as mujtahids? (1)
Apologies again for the long time since the last post – my excuse is inlaws and a trip abroad! Anyway, it seems that in general, people are less interested in the usul itself, only in its usage in determining rulings. With this in mind, I will return to fiqh istidlali (derivation of rulings) as I started, and where the most enthusiasm was. In previous blogs, I concentrated on Ayatullah Saanei’s works, due to their focus on contemporary issues. However, I think that it is important also to look at the great Ayatullah Khui, especially when discussing the derivation of fiqh rulings. His work is the culmination of years of research and one of a few of its kind, with over 40 volumes explaining his rulings. It is now so renowned that other scholars use it in their discussions. Syed Fadlallah, for example, uses it in his bahth kharij lessons, which I had the opportunity to attend. He reads parts of Syed Khui’s rulings, and then puts forward his point of view.
Regardless, I have decided to continue on my theme of contemporary issues and am going to look at a part of his work on Taqlid. Just a quick aside: the volume on taqlid is 370 pages long (that is the length of the commentary and reasoning of only a couple of pages worth of rulings!). On page 186, he discusses one of the conditions for becoming a mujtahid: being a man.
His derivation of this condition begins with reference to a narration by Abu Khadija Salim ibn Mukarrim al-Jamaal who said:
Abu ‘Abd Allah Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Be careful that some of you do not bring others to trial in front of the people of injustice; instead, head the man* among you who knows…”
Wasa-`il al-Shi’a 27:13/Chapters of the pages on Judges, Chapter 1, Page 5.
(* = rajul [Arabic])
He discusses the chain of narration by starting with the final member of the chain Abu Khadija Salim ibn Mukarrim al-Jamaal. When discussing chains of narration, the first port of call is always the scholars of rijal in the past: in particular, Najashi and Shaykh Tusi.
In Najashi’s rijal book (188/501), he considers Abu Khadija to be trustworthy. Shaykh Tusi in his Fahrast (his rijal book 79/327), considers him to be a weak narrator of hadith but according to Allama, he considers him trustworthy in another place. In addition, Abu Khadija is in one of the narrators of Ibn Qawlawayh’s Kamil al-Ziyarat, which is considered as a sufficient condition to be trustworthy (I can go into further detail as to why most Shi’i scholars consider this to be the case if anyone is interested). Now, when faced with potentially contradicting opinions on Abu Khadija, Ayatullah Khui considers the following options as to the timing of the two opinions of Shaykh Tusi:
Either the time of Shaykh Tusi’s consideration of Abu Khadija as weak and trustworthy was at the same time. In such a case, we could not consider either to be an authority, and we would be left with Najashi’s opinion of Abu Khadija being trustworthy.
Alternatively, if the consideration of Abu Khadija as trustworthy came after Shaykh Tusi’s previous opinion of him being weak, then his final opinion of trusworthiness is later is a relinquishing of his previous opinion.
Finally, if Shaykh Tusi’s opinion of Abu Khadija as weak came after his view of Abu Khadija as trustworthy, then it is again a relinquishment of his previous view, and against the view of Najashi.
As you cannot tell the order, there are doubts about his opinion of weakness, as you cannot be sure of the final position (the only one where Shaykh Tusi’s final view matters and is of weakness). Therefore, you cannot rely on the two opinions of Shaykh Tusi and you return to the opinion of trustworthiness of Najashi and others.
He does not consider there to be any issue with the rest of the chain of narration.
In the next blog, I will focus on the remainder of his derivation.
Regardless, I have decided to continue on my theme of contemporary issues and am going to look at a part of his work on Taqlid. Just a quick aside: the volume on taqlid is 370 pages long (that is the length of the commentary and reasoning of only a couple of pages worth of rulings!). On page 186, he discusses one of the conditions for becoming a mujtahid: being a man.
His derivation of this condition begins with reference to a narration by Abu Khadija Salim ibn Mukarrim al-Jamaal who said:
Abu ‘Abd Allah Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq (A.S.) said: “Be careful that some of you do not bring others to trial in front of the people of injustice; instead, head the man* among you who knows…”
Wasa-`il al-Shi’a 27:13/Chapters of the pages on Judges, Chapter 1, Page 5.
(* = rajul [Arabic])
He discusses the chain of narration by starting with the final member of the chain Abu Khadija Salim ibn Mukarrim al-Jamaal. When discussing chains of narration, the first port of call is always the scholars of rijal in the past: in particular, Najashi and Shaykh Tusi.
In Najashi’s rijal book (188/501), he considers Abu Khadija to be trustworthy. Shaykh Tusi in his Fahrast (his rijal book 79/327), considers him to be a weak narrator of hadith but according to Allama, he considers him trustworthy in another place. In addition, Abu Khadija is in one of the narrators of Ibn Qawlawayh’s Kamil al-Ziyarat, which is considered as a sufficient condition to be trustworthy (I can go into further detail as to why most Shi’i scholars consider this to be the case if anyone is interested). Now, when faced with potentially contradicting opinions on Abu Khadija, Ayatullah Khui considers the following options as to the timing of the two opinions of Shaykh Tusi:
Either the time of Shaykh Tusi’s consideration of Abu Khadija as weak and trustworthy was at the same time. In such a case, we could not consider either to be an authority, and we would be left with Najashi’s opinion of Abu Khadija being trustworthy.
Alternatively, if the consideration of Abu Khadija as trustworthy came after Shaykh Tusi’s previous opinion of him being weak, then his final opinion of trusworthiness is later is a relinquishing of his previous opinion.
Finally, if Shaykh Tusi’s opinion of Abu Khadija as weak came after his view of Abu Khadija as trustworthy, then it is again a relinquishment of his previous view, and against the view of Najashi.
As you cannot tell the order, there are doubts about his opinion of weakness, as you cannot be sure of the final position (the only one where Shaykh Tusi’s final view matters and is of weakness). Therefore, you cannot rely on the two opinions of Shaykh Tusi and you return to the opinion of trustworthiness of Najashi and others.
He does not consider there to be any issue with the rest of the chain of narration.
In the next blog, I will focus on the remainder of his derivation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)