Najasah of the Kafir (7)

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.]