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.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
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
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
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.]
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.]
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)