Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Najis Transfer (sweat not urine)

Rate this topic


Zah1864

Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

Hello,

I'm aware najis transfers through wetness but my question is about to what extent of wetness.

I have a kaafir friend (polytheist) and they tend to have sweaty hands. When they touch me I can feel their hands are moist but when I feel my hand after, it is dry. Does this mean my hand became najis and dried quickly or would this not count as being najis?

They also touch my clothes and I assume their hands are sweaty as they usually are but when I touch my clothes after they are also completely dry. Is this as if they have wiped their sweat or me? Have my clothes become najis through the sweat or no? 

Secondly, I know the washing machine has been said to purify clothes if connected to kurr water but on the rinse cycle I noticed a small amount of bubbles forming at the surface of the water (even after 4 new cycles without any detergent). Does this prevent my clothes being purified as the water is mixed since the running water has stopped entering and so its as if it is qalil? If so, that means they would be still considered najis and I dont know how to purify them and I'm quite ocd so I will have a mental breakdown on how to purify them if this doesn't work. How do I deal with this?

Clothes aren't made najis through urine. 

Thank you for any replies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/26/2022 at 5:53 AM, Zah1864 said:

Hello,

I'm aware najis transfers through wetness but my question is about to what extent of wetness.

I have a kaafir friend (polytheist) and they tend to have sweaty hands. When they touch me I can feel their hands are moist but when I feel my hand after, it is dry. Does this mean my hand became najis and dried quickly or would this not count as being najis?

They also touch my clothes and I assume their hands are sweaty as they usually are but when I touch my clothes after they are also completely dry. Is this as if they have wiped their sweat or me? Have my clothes become najis through the sweat or no? 

Secondly, I know the washing machine has been said to purify clothes if connected to kurr water but on the rinse cycle I noticed a small amount of bubbles forming at the surface of the water (even after 4 new cycles without any detergent). Does this prevent my clothes being purified as the water is mixed since the running water has stopped entering and so its as if it is qalil? If so, that means they would be still considered najis and I dont know how to purify them and I'm quite ocd so I will have a mental breakdown on how to purify them if this doesn't work. How do I deal with this?

Clothes aren't made najis through urine. 

Thank you for any replies

As regards OCD, my dear friend, relax! Don't be harsh with yourself.

As regards nijasat-i-kafir, there is no question on their spiritual impurity, but I always wonder what makes them physically najis! Chemically sweat of a non-Muslim & that of a Muslim is same! Would someone here in ShiaChat please explain to me why are friendly, peace-loving, zimmi, non-Muslims deemed physically impure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

peace-loving, zimmi, non-Muslims deemed physically impure?

Salam people of book are Tahir (pure) which only unbleivers & pagans form other religions likewise Buddhism or Atheists & etc are impure whether they are peace loving or not .

On 10/26/2022 at 4:23 AM, Zah1864 said:

I have a kaafir friend (polytheist) and they tend to have sweaty hands. When they touch me I can feel their hands are moist but when I feel my hand after, it is dry. Does this mean my hand became najis and dried quickly or would this not count as being najis?

They also touch my clothes and I assume their hands are sweaty as they usually are but when I touch my clothes after they are also completely dry. Is this as if they have wiped their sweat or me? Have my clothes become najis through the sweat or no? 

in these scenarios any place of your body or your clothes which have been touched by them is impure which you must purify that are even if you feel it that is dry.

On 10/26/2022 at 4:23 AM, Zah1864 said:

Secondly, I know the washing machine has been said to purify clothes if connected to kurr water but on the rinse cycle I noticed a small amount of bubbles forming at the surface of the water (even after 4 new cycles without any detergent). Does this prevent my clothes being purified as the water is mixed since the running water has stopped entering and so its as if it is qalil? If so, that means they would be still considered najis and I dont know how to purify them and I'm quite ocd so I will have a mental breakdown on how to purify them if this doesn't work. How do I deal with this?

Clothes aren't made najis through urine.

your washed clothes are pure so take it easy & don't think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 10/26/2022 at 1:53 AM, Zah1864 said:

 

Secondly, I know the washing machine has been said to purify clothes if connected to kurr water but on the rinse cycle I noticed a small amount of bubbles forming at the surface of the water (even after 4 new cycles without any detergent). Does this prevent my clothes being purified as the water is mixed since the running water has stopped entering and so its as if it is qalil? If so, that means they would be still considered najis and I dont know how to purify them and I'm quite ocd so I will have a mental breakdown on how to purify them if this doesn't work. How do I deal with this?

no its tahir, I had the same issue, don't worry, treat all clothes that come out of the washing machine as tahir. A good practice if semen gets onto the clothes is just to wash it off before putting it in the washing machine. Although if you put the clothes with semen in a washing machine and after taking it out there's no semen your clothes are tahir. this is an OCD thing you have, so first you need to go to a therapist or practice Exposure response therapy alone with a worksheet to start beating your OCD.

Quote

 

They also touch my clothes and I assume their hands are sweaty as they usually are but when I touch my clothes after they are also completely dry. Is this as if they have wiped their sweat or me? Have my clothes become najis through the sweat or no? 

ask the office of your marja or ask on the ask those who know app

Quote

sayed khamenei on waswas:

 

A: 1) Concerning taharah and najasah, the principle of the sacred Islamic law is to presume taharah: that is, in a case that you have the slightest doubt regarding something being najis, it is obligatory for you to consider it as not najis.
2) For those who are hypersensitive concerning najasah (and they call a person of this kind 'obsessed' in Islamic law), even if they are sure of the presence of najasah in a certain instance, it is obligatory upon them to consider them to be not no/is, except where they have seen with their own eyes the becoming najis of a thing such that any other person seeing it would be sure of its contamination with najasah. Only in these instances it is obligatory for them to consider a thing as najis. This rule continues to apply to such persons until their sensitivity vanishes completely.
3) After the disappearance of original najasah, it is sufficient for cleaning any thing or any part of the body, to wash it once with tap water, and it is neither obligatory to repeat the process of washing nor to place it under water. And if the najis thing is a cloth or something similar, it should be wrung to the usual extent so that water comes out of it.
4) As you suffer from such hypersensitivity to najasah, you need to know that the dust rising from any najis thing is not najis in any manner in your case, and keeping an eye on the clean or najis hand of a child is not necessary. Similarly, it is not necessary to investigate whether blood has disappeared from the body or not. This rule will remain applicable to you until this sensitivity totally vanishes.
5) The laws of Islam are easy and lenient and are in harmony with human nature Do not make them difficult for yourself. Do not cause harm and pain to your body as well as your mind on account of them, as the state of worry and anxiety in these cases embitters the atmosphere of life. Further, God, the Glorious, is not pleased with your suffering and of those related to you. Therefore be thankful for the blessings of an easy religion, and gratitude for this blessing is to act in accordance with the divine teachings.
6) This condition is a passing curable phase, and many people have found relief after suffering from it by acting according to the above-mentioned procedure. So rely on God, the Exalted, and relieve yourself with determination and resolve.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam people of book are Tahir (pure) which only unbleivers & pagans form other religions likewise Buddhism or Atheists & etc are impure whether they are peace loving or not .

How could someone be physically impure just because of their beliefs!!

If pegans, Atheists, Buddhists, etc are deemed physically impure because of their beliefs, why not people of the book? There are some sects of Jews & Christians who indulge in idol worship. Most of the Christians believe in Trinity which is a type of shirk according to Muslims. Yes, some Christians have differing views with others Jehowah's Witness particularly reject the notion of Trinity. They somehow believe in oneness of God. So treating them all alike doesn't seem fine. I literally can't find a reason as to why a Christian doing shirk (Catholic/Protestant) is tahir and at the same time a Christian believing in oneness of God (Unitarian) is also tahir. And a sikh believing in one God is not tahir!

A friendly non-Muslim is deemed impure. A hostile Islamophobe non-Muslim is also deemed impure. What kind of justice is this! This is completely illogical.

In this regard, views of Ayatollah Yousuf Sanae (rehma Allah) & Ayatollah Muhammad Hussain Fadalallah (rehma Allah) seem to be fine. They consider all non-Muslims physically pure...

Edited by The Alchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

in these scenarios any place of your body or your clothes which have been touched by them is impure which you must purify that are even if you feel it that is dry.

Sistani also says 

'If the wetness is so little that it does not transfer onto another object, the object that was pure does not become impure even if it touches an intrinsic impurity'

 

If I touch my hand/clothes straight after and they are dry would it not come under this ruling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
4 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

How could someone be physically impure just because of their beliefs!!

I also struggle a lot with understanding this rule and had submitted it as a question on sistanis website almost a year ago but no reply. 

What plays in my head is if islam is supposed to be easy to follow and we are taught to be kind to one another, how does one for example politely decline an offer of food made by a polytheist when they saw it was made by their wet hands? 

Or if for example a member of a polytheist believing family converted to Islam and then visiting their family would become incredibly difficult if it came to washing and eating as all these things are seen to have been made najis. Would they be expected to purify everything first Inc the showers and taps everytime? Reject the food their own mother made even if it was with halal meat because she prepared the meat with wet hands? 

Would this not either push one away from shia islam specifically (as sunnis believe polytheists are only spiritually najis) or push the family away from learning about shia islam as these issues can seem 'over the top'

And to even explain that they are considered najis along side things like pigs, dogs, urine etc etc is that not completely insulting? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Zah1864 said:

I also struggle a lot with understanding this rule and had submitted it as a question on sistanis website almost a year ago but no reply. 

What plays in my head is if islam is supposed to be easy to follow and we are taught to be kind to one another, how does one for example politely decline an offer of food made by a polytheist when they saw it was made by their wet hands? 

Or if for example a member of a polytheist believing family converted to Islam and then visiting their family would become incredibly difficult if it came to washing and eating as all these things are seen to have been made najis. Would they be expected to purify everything first Inc the showers and taps everytime? Reject the food their own mother made even if it was with halal meat because she prepared the meat with wet hands? 

Would this not either push one away from shia islam specifically (as sunnis believe polytheists are only spiritually najis) or push the family away from learning about shia islam as these issues can seem 'over the top'

And to even explain that they are considered najis along side things like pigs, dogs, urine etc etc is that not completely insulting? 

You're right. It seems against the concept of universal brotherhood. It appears insulting too.

Not only that, it also contradicts some well-known sayings of Aima (عليه السلام).

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53]

I also read it in Spirit of Islam (by Syed Ameer Ali), he quotes Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as saying "The blood of a zimmi [a non-Muslim citizen] is that of a Muslim".

I assume such fatawa of Ayatollah Sistani might be about kafirs (Islam-enemy non-Muslims) not about zimmis (peace-loving friendly non-Muslims).

Allah knows the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Zah1864 said:

Sistani also says 

'If the wetness is so little that it does not transfer onto another object, the object that was pure does not become impure even if it touches an intrinsic impurity'

 

If I touch my hand/clothes straight after and they are dry would it not come under this ruling?

Salam yeah it comes under this ruling anyway you must become sure that your cloth are pure for praying Salah/Namaz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

In this regard, views of Ayatollah Yousuf Sanae (rehma Allah) & Ayatollah Muhammad Hussain Fadalallah (rehma Allah) seem to be fine. They consider all non-Muslims physically pure...

Salam you totally misunderstood their Fatwa which both of them have said that only  non-Muslims from people of book are physically pure but onthe other hand according to them rest of non-Muslims likewise Hindus & pagans & Kafirs are physiacally impure whether they are peaceful or not  .

2 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53]

I also read it in Spirit of Islam (by Syed Ameer Ali), he quotes Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as saying "The blood of a zimmi [a non-Muslim citizen] is that of a Muslim".

I assume such fatawa of Ayatollah Sistani might be about kafirs (Islam-enemy non-Muslims) not about zimmis (peace-loving friendly non-Muslims).

it's just about having  justice for all of people whether they are pure or impure according to their belief which absolutely Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has believed that non-muslims from  pagans & Kafirs are impure .

15 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

pegans, Atheists, Buddhists, etc are deemed physically impure because of their beliefs, why not people of the book? There are some sects of Jews & Christians who indulge in idol worship. Most of the Christians believe in Trinity which is a type of shirk according to Muslims. Yes, some Christians have differing views with others Jehowah's Witness particularly reject the notion of Trinity. They somehow believe in oneness of God. So treating them all alike doesn't seem fine. I literally can't find a reason as to why a Christian doing shirk (Catholic/Protestant) is tahir and at the same time a Christian believing in oneness of God (Unitarian) is also tahir. And a sikh believing in one God is not tahir!

A friendly non-Muslim is deemed impure. A hostile Islamophobe non-Muslim is also deemed impure. What kind of justice is this! This is completely illogical.

thisi is ruling of holy Quran which you can't change it according to your mindset which it's similar ruling between Sunnis & shias which if you have problem with order of Allah in holy quran so then you can't be a Muslim whether Sunni or Shia Muslim.

11 hours ago, Zah1864 said:

Or if for example a member of a polytheist believing family converted to Islam and then visiting their family would become incredibly difficult if it came to washing and eating as all these things are seen to have been made najis. Would they be expected to purify everything first Inc the showers and taps everytime? Reject the food their own mother made even if it was with halal meat because she prepared the meat with wet hands? 

Would this not either push one away from shia islam specifically (as sunnis believe polytheists are only spiritually najis) or push the family away from learning about shia islam as these issues can seem 'over the top'

Shia Islam allows eating from cocking of people of book if they have used Halal ingeridiants likewise Halal meat & etc which Sunnis belive that if you say Bismillah before eating so then you can eat & drink everything except pork & wine even if meat has salughtered by a non-muslim.:grin: anyway nobody forced you to folow Shia Islam .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

How could someone be physically impure just because of their beliefs!!

If pegans, Atheists, Buddhists, etc are deemed physically impure because of their beliefs, why not people of the book? There are some sects of Jews & Christians who indulge in idol worship. Most of the Christians believe in Trinity which is a type of shirk according to Muslims. Yes, some Christians have differing views with others Jehowah's Witness particularly reject the notion of Trinity. They somehow believe in oneness of God. So treating them all alike doesn't seem fine. I literally can't find a reason as to why a Christian doing shirk (Catholic/Protestant) is tahir and at the same time a Christian believing in oneness of God (Unitarian) is also tahir. And a sikh believing in one God is not tahir!

A friendly non-Muslim is deemed impure. A hostile Islamophobe non-Muslim is also deemed impure. What kind of justice is this! This is completely illogical.

Why is a disbeliever ritually impure? Is it not insulting to a disbeliever to consider him impure?

Quote

word ‘najis’ under the aforementioned verse that the nijasah of the disbelievers signifies their spiritual and inner wickedness, impurity and uncleanness because their polytheistic beliefs and practices as well as their enmity and grudge against the Messenger of Allah (s) and other prophets have tainted their thoughts, emotions, sentiments and psyche to the extent that they have become unworthy of entering Masjid al-Haram which is the house of monotheism and worship of the One God.[8]

 

 if it is said that this ruling or injunction is an insult to them, it should be said that, first of all, the reason behind Islam’s injunction about the disbelievers’ impurity could be considered as ‘politically motivated’. Thus, we can say that the purpose behind this injunction is to prevent Muslims from associating with them so that Muslims may not be influenced by their destructive thoughts.

Secondly, this is a kind of punishment or penalty and it is evidently very much likely that the person who is subjected to such punishment may consider it as an insult to himself but he himself is the cause of this insult not the legislator who for underlying reasons enacted the law.

the impurity of disbelievers: In regards to the impurity of a kafir, the scholars have relied on the Quranic verse which says:

 

«انما المشرکون نجس فلا یقربوا المسجدالحرام بعد عامهم هذا ...»

 

“O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year.”[3]

[3] - Al-Tawbah, 28

[4] - Al-Tawbah, 23

The above verse was revealed in the ninth hegira year after God, the Almighty, forbade Muslims from surrendering themselves to the guardianship of the pagans and polytheists. The verse says:

 

“O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.”[4]

3 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53]

I also read it in Spirit of Islam (by Syed Ameer Ali), he quotes Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as saying "The blood of a zimmi [a non-Muslim citizen] is that of a Muslim".

I assume such fatawa of Ayatollah Sistani might be about kafirs (Islam-enemy non-Muslims) not about zimmis (peace-loving friendly non-Muslims).

In the same year, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ((عليه السلام).) declared disavowal from the deeds of the idolaters and pagans and said: “From this year onward, no pagan has the right to perform Hajj.”[5]

[5] -Tabarsi, Abu Ali al-Fazl bin Al-Hasan, Majma’ul Bayan, vol.5, pg. 20, annotated by Sha’rani, Abul Hasan, 2nd edition, Tehran, 1380 (2001).

Hence, therefore, the verse “the pagans are impure” proves a kind of impurity for the pagans disqualifying them from entering Masjid al-Haram.

Raghib Isfahani writes: ‘Nijasah is the uncleanness and impurity which is of two kinds:

 

1. One kind of impurity is observable.

 

2. The second is not observable with the senses.

 

God has described the pagans as impure in the second meaning. He, the Glorified, says: “O you who believe! the pagans are nothing but unclean.”[7]

 

Quote

The jurists have also turned to other arguments to prove the purity of the People of the Book, and interested readers can refer to the relevant sources to read those arguments for themselves.[15] Therefore, the ruling concerning the impurity of the disbelievers apply to pagans only, not the People of the Book.

 

In any rate, some of the contemporary jurisprudents have preferred those narrations which imply the essential purity of the People of the Book over other narrations. They have said that the purported consensus about the impurity of the People of the Book is ambiguous as it is unclear whether the scholars mean essential impurity or accidental impurity. Therefore, the consensus [ijma'] cannot serve as a strong reason whereby the essential impurity of the People of the Book may be proved.

 

Some of the contemporary grand jurists such as grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani, grand Ayatollah Khamenei and grand Ayatollah Sistani hold that the People of Book are pure. They say: "Ahl-e Kitab are treated as essentially pure."[16]

 

For further information in this regard, see: question 2215, Index: Impurity of Disbelievers and Ahl-e Kitab

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa3260

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
38 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Shia Islam allows eating from cocking of people of book if they have used Halal ingeridiants likewise Halal meat & etc which Sunnis belive that if you say Bismillah before eating so then you can eat & drink everything except pork & wine even if meat has salughtered by a non-muslim.:grin: anyway nobody forced you to folow Shia Islam .

I know. Here I mentioned halal meat prepared by polytheists (as in not people of the book) would not be allowed to be eaten if it was seen prepared by wet hands. 

Your comment also doesn't speak for all sunnis, infact no sunni I know does this. 

And you're right. No one forced me to follow shia islam. But there is no problem in me simply questioning a rule that I don't understand. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@The Alchemist 

An interesting thing to note is that according to Ayatollah Sistani non-ahlul kitab are impure according to obligatory precaution

And according to Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi who is a well known marja, polytheists are actually ritually pure however he adds certain conditions

310245434_646049250322721_6056274852263141868_n.jpg.f65e2f7a038f2858a424d27d5d4032dc.jpg310443072_125658246926327_8342417954582874551_n.jpg.6bd1c2d79b6c7176e4d7d6ffaf3a4e9e.jpg310617310_396757642486791_6329189310269790195_n.jpg.e965dcd5f663e334145a576a2cc49006.jpg

These instagram stories are by a brother who has studied in the howza, when I first read this I was genuinely surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Why is a disbeliever ritually impure? Is it not insulting to a disbeliever to consider him impure?

 

 if it is said that this ruling or injunction is an insult to them, it should be said that, first of all, the reason behind Islam’s injunction about the disbelievers’ impurity could be considered as ‘politically motivated’. Thus, we can say that the purpose behind this injunction is to prevent Muslims from associating with them so that Muslims may not be influenced by their destructive thoughts.

Secondly, this is a kind of punishment or penalty and it is evidently very much likely that the person who is subjected to such punishment may consider it as an insult to himself but he himself is the cause of this insult not the legislator who for underlying reasons enacted the law.

the impurity of disbelievers: In regards to the impurity of a kafir, the scholars have relied on the Quranic verse which says:

 

«انما المشرکون نجس فلا یقربوا المسجدالحرام بعد عامهم هذا ...»

 

“O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year.”[3]

[3] - Al-Tawbah, 28

[4] - Al-Tawbah, 23

The above verse was revealed in the ninth hegira year after God, the Almighty, forbade Muslims from surrendering themselves to the guardianship of the pagans and polytheists. The verse says:

 

“O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.”[4]

In the same year, the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ((عليه السلام).) declared disavowal from the deeds of the idolaters and pagans and said: “From this year onward, no pagan has the right to perform Hajj.”[5]

[5] -Tabarsi, Abu Ali al-Fazl bin Al-Hasan, Majma’ul Bayan, vol.5, pg. 20, annotated by Sha’rani, Abul Hasan, 2nd edition, Tehran, 1380 (2001).

Hence, therefore, the verse “the pagans are impure” proves a kind of impurity for the pagans disqualifying them from entering Masjid al-Haram.

Raghib Isfahani writes: ‘Nijasah is the uncleanness and impurity which is of two kinds:

 

1. One kind of impurity is observable.

 

2. The second is not observable with the senses.

 

God has described the pagans as impure in the second meaning. He, the Glorified, says: “O you who believe! the pagans are nothing but unclean.”[7]

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa3260

 

The verse is about spiritual impurity.

This topic had been discussed at length here, you & brother @VoidVortex had also contributed:

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235078214-why-is-sayyed-ali-al-sistani-so-famous/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/4/2022 at 9:29 AM, The Alchemist said:

The verse is about spiritual impurity.

Salam if verse has been about "spiritual impurity" so then banning of polytheist from entering to Masjid al-Haram has been meaningless also spiritual impurity can happens by anyone even muslims due to commiting sins but it doesn't cause baning any sinful muslim from entering to Masjid al-Haram because it's a mteer between him & Allah which by doing repentance from sins all of spiritual impurity will be removed .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

So, I asked Sistani's Office this question: 

Question: What is the proof that kaafir such as hindus and Sikhs are physically najis as opposed to spiritually najis like in the sunni belief? A religion like Islam comparing these people to being dirty like the dog and pig comes across as very rude and arrogant. How do I deal with people who are hindus or Sikhs who were once interested in Shia islam but turned away when they realised that shia would see them and their families in this way?

ANSWER:

In the Name of God, the Most High

God has ordained rules because of their intrinsic expediency. For example when He ordains prayer we realize there is individual, social, physical or mental benefit in offering prayers and god ordained it so we could obtain that benefit; or when He forbids as from something we realize there is individual, social, physical or mental harm in it and that is why God forbade it. If He says for example blood is impure, we realize there is some material or spiritual problem in it and because of that God declared it impure.

Now, if anyone whether Muslim or Hindu prepares food in which there is impurity or unlawful meat God orders us to refrain from eating it otherwise its negative effects may befall us. Thus, we cannot do something which God has forbidden to please non-Muslims or Hindus and which brings about harm to Muslim community. Rather the food they make is forbidden for themselves as well according to Islam but since they do not believe in Islam telling them to avoid it has no effect.

Anyhow, God is wise, all-knowing, all-powerful and needless; therefore whatever ordinances he make, their benefit returns to believers and He never does something aimlessly.

It should be added that impurity of non-believers other than people of the book and as a result the impurity of anything which comes in contact with them in a state of wetness, is based on an obligatory precaution in the viewpoint of Grand Ayatullah Sistani. It meant that in this case you can follow the next most learned mujtahid.

May Allah grant you success.

www.sistani.org

Istifta Section - Office of His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Sistani

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/5/2022 at 2:25 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam if verse has been about "spiritual impurity" so then banning of polytheist from entering to Masjid al-Haram has been meaningless also spiritual impurity can happens by anyone even muslims due to commiting sins but it doesn't cause baning any sinful muslim from entering to Masjid al-Haram because it's a mteer between him & Allah which by doing repentance from sins all of spiritual impurity will be removed .

Most of the tafasir are of the view that the verse talked about spiritual impurity.

As regards banning non-Muslims from entering into Masjid al-Haraam is concerned, it had a particular context & background. You can't take it in absolute terms.

Qur'an says in Surah al-Tauba (verse 5) kill mushrikeen wherever you find them. Is it an absolute order? Read context of the verse, it talks about the battlefield and specified group of mushrikeen (who broke the treaties & waged a war against you).

Similar is the case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, The Alchemist said:

Most of the tafasir are of the view that the verse talked about spiritual impurity.

You have said that this is viewpoint of sunnis which majority of Tafsirs have been written by them according to viewpoint but on the other hand Shia viewpoint is about physical or maybe spiritual impurity which your comparasion about Mushrikeen is comparing apples with oranges which you can't mix Sunni & shia viewpoint .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/5/2022 at 9:25 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:
On 11/4/2022 at 5:59 AM, The Alchemist said:

 

Salam if verse has been about "spiritual impurity" so then banning of polytheist from entering to Masjid al-Haram has been meaningless also spiritual impurity can happens by anyone even muslims due to commiting sins but it doesn't cause baning any sinful muslim from entering to Masjid al-Haram because it's a mteer between him & Allah which by doing repentance from sins all of spiritual impurity will be removed .

a question, this is however only about masjid haram, whereas its haram to make any masjid najis. Therefore, why didn't the verse say masajid. It limited it to masjid al haram which is a place it is known disbelievers are not allowed, however masjid al nabawi, I'm pretty sure non-muslims are allowed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/8/2022 at 3:05 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

You have said that this is viewpoint of sunnis which majority of Tafsirs have been written by them according to viewpoint but on the other hand Shia viewpoint is about physical or maybe spiritual impurity which your comparasion about Mushrikeen is comparing apples with oranges which you can't mix Sunni & shia viewpoint .

Take a look at what shia tafasir say about the verse.

Also take a look at how Aima (عليه السلام) dealt with peaceful non-Muslims.

What does following quote from Nahjul Balagha imply?

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53]

When non-Muslims are equal in humanity with Muslims, why such harsh treatment with them? Considering peaceful non-Muslims as physically najis appears to be against the humanity. It is against the spirit of Islam that attracted non-Muslims in large numbers to the fold of Islam.

I assume great Ayatollahs verdicts on physical impurity are about violent, Islam-hating non-Muslims, and we are mistakenly applying them on all non-Muslims.

Not all non-Muslims are same. You can't say every non-Muslim is Abu Lahab. Some non-Muslims are also like Mutim ibn Adi who is well-respected throughout Islamic history for his character.

Any ways, verdicts of Ayatollah Yusuf Sanae (rahm Allah) & Ayatollah Fadlallah (rahm Allah) are very clear that all peaceful non-Muslims are not physically impure.

Edited by The Alchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/6/2022 at 5:52 PM, Zah1864 said:

So, I asked Sistani's Office this question: 

Question: What is the proof that kaafir such as hindus and Sikhs are physically najis as opposed to spiritually najis like in the sunni belief? A religion like Islam comparing these people to being dirty like the dog and pig comes across as very rude and arrogant. How do I deal with people who are hindus or Sikhs who were once interested in Shia islam but turned away when they realised that shia would see them and their families in this way?

ANSWER:

In the Name of God, the Most High

God has ordained rules because of their intrinsic expediency. For example when He ordains prayer we realize there is individual, social, physical or mental benefit in offering prayers and god ordained it so we could obtain that benefit; or when He forbids as from something we realize there is individual, social, physical or mental harm in it and that is why God forbade it. If He says for example blood is impure, we realize there is some material or spiritual problem in it and because of that God declared it impure.

Now, if anyone whether Muslim or Hindu prepares food in which there is impurity or unlawful meat God orders us to refrain from eating it otherwise its negative effects may befall us. Thus, we cannot do something which God has forbidden to please non-Muslims or Hindus and which brings about harm to Muslim community. Rather the food they make is forbidden for themselves as well according to Islam but since they do not believe in Islam telling them to avoid it has no effect.

Anyhow, God is wise, all-knowing, all-powerful and needless; therefore whatever ordinances he make, their benefit returns to believers and He never does something aimlessly.

It should be added that impurity of non-believers other than people of the book and as a result the impurity of anything which comes in contact with them in a state of wetness, is based on an obligatory precaution in the viewpoint of Grand Ayatullah Sistani. It meant that in this case you can follow the next most learned mujtahid.

May Allah grant you success.

www.sistani.org

Istifta Section - Office of His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Sistani

If I'm not wrong, obligatory precaution means it is opinion of Ayatollah. He has no concrete evidence from Qur'an or Sunnah to support his opinion categorically.

Members are requested to correct me if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Take a look at what shia tafasir say about the verse.

Also take a look at how Aima (عليه السلام) dealt with peaceful non-Muslims.

What does following quote from Nahjul Balagha imply?

You have just repeated your rhetorics which I have responded to it which advice of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to Malik Ashtar (رضي الله عنه) has been about preserving justice & human rights not about purity or impurity of non muslims  which only you can drive such funni conclusion from it .

On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Any ways, verdicts of Ayatollah Yusuf Sanae (rahm Allah) & Ayatollah Fadlallah (rahm Allah) are very clear that all peaceful non-Muslims are not physically impure.

I have responded that they & grand ayatollah Sistani & Imam khamenei believ that non-muslims from people of book are pure but on the other hand all of them even Sahykh Sane & Ayatollah fadlallah have belived that non-muslims from pagans & etc are impure .

On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

I assume great Ayatollahs verdicts on physical impurity are about violent, Islam-hating non-Muslims, and we are mistakenly applying them on all non-Muslims.

 

Thisi is just your assumption because Islam especially Shia islam orderd to be fair even with non-muslim pagans & etc but on the other hand acording to holy Quran & Shia narrations we are not allowed to eat & drink non-Halal foods wich have been made by them or touch them when they are vet or allow them to engage in all of our affair or become our masters .

Quote

Not all non-Muslims are same. You can't say every non-Muslim is Abu Lahab. Some non-Muslims are also like Mutim ibn Adi who is well-respected throughout Islamic history for his character

i never have said such thing wich it's just whispers of Shaitan in your mind anyway Mutim ibn Adi  has been a good person between unbleivers anyway it doesn't make him a pure person .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

obligatory precaution means it is opinion of Ayatollah

Obligatory caution or al-Ihtiyat al-Wajib (Arabic: الاحتیاط الواجب) is to observe caution in an issue, in which a mujtahid has no fatwa (definite ruling). Jurists use the phrase "obligatory caution" in cases, when they do not reach a jurisprudential verdict based on religious reasons and consider caution necessary in those cases. In obligatory caution, it is obligatory for people (mukallaf) to either act based on caution or follow another marja' (religious authority) who is higher than other religious authorities after his own religious authority.

Quote

a religious authority does not issue fatwa about prohibition or obligation of an action, but considers it obligatory to act in a manner that if it is prohibited in reality, no prohibited action would be committed, and if it is obligatory in reality, no obligation would be abandoned.

In cases, when observing caution is not obligatory, but it is better to observe caution in them, they use "recommended caution".

 

Mukallaf's Responsibility in Obligatory Caution

In obligatory caution, it is obligatory for people (mukallaf) to either act based on caution or follow another religious authority (marja') who is higher than other religious authorities after his own religious authority. A person can refer to the ruling of another religious authority because his own religious authority does not have a fatwa in that issue.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Obligatory_Caution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Any ways, verdicts of Ayatollah Yusuf Sanae (rahm Allah) & Ayatollah Fadlallah (rahm Allah) are very clear that all peaceful non-Muslims are not physically impure.

 
 
 
What is the Islamic law about the Christians, Jews and non-Muslims? Are they ritually pure or impure?
question
What is the Islamic law about the Christians, Jews and non-Muslims? Are they ritually pure or impure?
Concise answer
Almost all Shiite faqihs agree on the nijasah of the kuffar (non-believers), but the impurity of Ahlul Kitab (People of the Book) is an issue of dispute amongst them. You are, however, advised to turn to and act according to the verdict of the Mujtahid whom you are following.

in verse 28 of Surah al-Tawbah which expressly refers to the impurity of pagans and polytheists considering  their impurity as a reason for preventing them from entering Masjid al-Haram (Grand Mosque).  The narrations transmitted and the reports related in this regard are varied and there are different interpretations about them one of which is the Nijasah or the ritual impurity of all non-Muslims among which are the Ahlul Kitab. This viewpoint was chosen by Ayatollah Golpaygani who stated and thoroughly explained about it in Nehayat al-Afkar fi Nejasah al-Kuffar. Likewise, this was also Imam Khomeini’s verdict on the issue.[2]
Another interpretation is the taharah (purity) of Ahlul Kitab and nijasah of the rest of the non-believers. This verdict has many advocates[3]. A hadith from Imam Reza confirms this fatwa.[4]
A third view is the tahara of all people, perceiving the nijasah of non-Muslims a result of normally making contact with a najis (impure) substance such as pork and wine, thus if they cleanse and wash themselves they will no longer be najis. Therefore, these people aren't najis per se, they become najis as a result of other najis substances.[5] The impurity is accidental, not essential.

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa2357

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/8/2022 at 2:58 PM, VoidVortex said:

a question, this is however only about masjid haram, whereas its haram to make any masjid najis. Therefore, why didn't the verse say masajid. It limited it to masjid al haram which is a place it is known disbelievers are not allowed, however masjid al nabawi, I'm pretty sure non-muslims are allowed there.

Salam Masjid al Haram is an exception which disbleivers can enter to other mosques likewise Masjid Nabawi if they follow rules about following rules likewise keeping respect of mosques which their behaviour must be Sharia friendly or at least for understanding truth which as an example debate between Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) & Abil Awja has happened inside Masjid al Haram because Abil Awja has entered to Masjid al Haram for btter understanding & removing his doubts not for disrespting to holy place of mosque .

Quote

Reminder:
1. The issue of the inadmissibility of infidels entering all mosques, considering that there was no valid reason, the question comes to mind, when and how did this talk enter the jurisprudential debates?
What emerges from some interpretations and jurisprudential sources of Sunnis: For the first time, the inadmissibility of unbelievers entering mosques was issued as a government decree during the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz:
(… وقال عمربن عبدالعزیز… ولا یدخل احد من الیهود و النصارى شیئاً من المساجد بحالٍ.)65
Umar bin Abdul Aziz said... No one from the Jews or Christians should enter any mosque.
Qutb Ravandi writes:
(… وقال عمربن عبدالعزیز: ولایجوز ان یدخل المسجد احد من الیهود والنصارى و غیرهم من الکفار. و نحن نذهب الیه….)66
Umar bin Abdulaziz said: No one from Jews, Christians and other disbelievers is allowed to enter the mosque. We are also on it.
Therefore, it is not far off that for the first time, as a government decree, Umar bin Abdul Aziz stopped the unbelievers from entering the mosques, and after that it entered the sources of jurisprudence. If this is the case, the time conditions of Umar bin Abdul Aziz should be considered and why he made such a decision?
2. From what has been said, it can be concluded that disbelief does not prevent one from entering the mosques and non-Muslims can also enter the mosque, but without a doubt, this does not mean that every non-Muslim is allowed to be in the mosque without rules and plans.  
A mosque is a place of worship, guidance and propagation of religion. It is not permissible to do anything that is incompatible with this dignity and status in the mosque, even for a Muslim,either  a non-Muslim.
Therefore, the entry of non-Muslims into the mosque should first of all have a shariah-friendly motive, such as: familiarity with Islamic teachings, listening to the words of revelation and familiarity with Muslim worship customs and... or at least rational motives: such as observing, works and Islamic civilization remains in the buildings of mosques.
Therefore, entering the mosque should have a goal and the goal should be religious and rational. However, it is also necessary to maintain the affairs of the mosque. In this sense, in terms of clothing and how to move around and maintain politeness and respect, the behaviors should be such that there is no disrespect to the mosque and desecration of it, which in this case will definitely not be permissible.
About the group of Najran Christians who were honored in the presence of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), it is said:
(Because they have been wearing special clothes and symbols, the Prophet has  not paid attention to them, and when they asked the Prophet's companions the reason for the lack of attention, the companions said: "The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) does not like your clothes and clothing." The Najranis changed their clothes. They reached the presence of the Prophet and he accepted them. Perhaps their clothing was not compatible with the position of the mosque.
From what has been said, the order of unbelievers to enter the shrines of Imams ((عليه السلام).) and Imam Zadegan was also clarified. Because most of the jurists have considered the shrines of imams to be the same as mosques in terms of rulings, especially regarding the entry of non-Muslims.
And if according to the investigation, disbelief does not stop you from entering the mosque, it will not stop you from entering the shrine of the imams ((عليه السلام).) although respect of those sacred places must be observed completely .

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/60285/ورود-کافران-به-مساجد-و-اماکن-مقدس

 

Quote

Ibn Abi al-Awja', Ibn Talut, Ibn al-Ama and Ibn al-Muqaffa with a group of Zindiqs were gathered in the Sacred Mosque during the season of the pilgrimage. Abu Abd Allah Jacfar ibn Muhammad, peace be on them, was there giving legal decisions to the people, explaining the Qur'an to them and answering their questions with arguments and proofs. The group said to Ibn Ab, al-Awja': “Can you induce this man sitting here to make a mistake and question him about what would disgrace him in front of those who are gathered around him? For you can see the fascination of the people for him; he is (supposed to be) the great scholar of his time.”

“Yes,” replied Ibn Abi al-Awja'. He went forward and the people moved aside. He said: “Abu Abd Allah, gatherings for discussion are things to be taken care of. Everyone who has a cough must cough, so will you permit me to ask a question?”

“Ask, if you want to,” Abu Abd Allah, peace be on him, answered him.

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/infallibles-imam-jafar-ibn-muhammad-al-sadiq-shaykh-al-mufid

https://madrasahonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/M1-F2-Imam-Sadiqs-debate-with-Ibn-Awja.pdf

https://makarem.ir/compilation/Reader.aspx?lid=0&mid=81508&catid=6538&pid=72270

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Any ways, verdicts of Ayatollah Yusuf Sanae (rahm Allah) & Ayatollah Fadlallah (rahm Allah) are very clear that all peaceful non-Muslims are not physically impure

تفاوت و تباین میان کافر و غیرمسلمان؛ صانعی غیرمسلمان را به دو دسته قاصر و مقصر تقسیم می‌کند. از قاصر با عنوان غیر مسلمان یاد می‌کند و مقصر را مصداق کافر می‌داند. براساس این مبنا محدودیت‌های مختلفی که در شرع برای غیرمسلمانان وجود دارد را تنها بر کافران (غیرمسلمانان مقصر) جاری می‌داند. برای نمونه او در مسائلی همچون نجاست و پاکی، ذبح شرعی، ازدواج و... میان کافر و غیرمسلمان تفاوت می‌گذارد.[۴۶]

رویکردی به حقوق زنان، ۱۳۹۷ش، ص۲۱۴-۲۱۵.

The difference between infidels and non-Muslims; Sanei divides non-Muslims into two categories:  guilty (Muqasir) and not guilty (Qasir). He mentions the not guilty as a non-Muslim and considers the guilty as an example of an infidel. Based on this basis, he applies the various restrictions for non-Muslims in the Sharia law only on the infidels (guilty non-Muslims). For example, he differentiates between infidels and non-Muslims in issues such as impurity and purity, religious slaughter, marriage, etc.[46]

An approach to women's rights 2018 , p 214-215

Quote

وی عدالت عرفی را بر بسیاری از احکام اسلامی مقدم می‌دانست و معتقد به کرامت ذاتی انسان با هر اعتقادی است.

He considered customary justice to be the priority over many Islamic rulings and believes in the inherent dignity of human beings regardless of their beliefs.

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/یوسف_صانعی

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Ayatollah Fadlallah (rahm Allah) are very clear that all peaceful non-Muslims are not physically impure

 

Allama Seyyed Muhammad Hussain Fazlullah, the author of"من وحی القرآن در فلسفه"  my commentary on "the revelation of the Qur'an in the philosophy " of this ruling, enters into the discussion in a clearer way and says: "This[13] is a call to the believers that defines the boundary between Muslims and polytheists, and all the teachings are firm and Decisive, it draws innocence from polytheists and jihad with them. The result and practical achievement of shirk is uncleanness and spiritual impurity and invitation to it. And the polytheist person lives in the whirlpool of impurity and mental imourity, psychic and spiritual impurity. When their life and intellectual and spiritual atmosphere is in this direction, and as long as their soul and thoughts are in the stinking atmosphere of idolatry and their thinking radius is in the form of solid, dry and soulless things, such as stone, wood, meat and...revolvs. does, there is no sign of intellectual life and movement towards progress and perfection in him.


What is certain is that the soul and thought of human has a purity that transforms him and leads him to the rich and boiling source of spirituality that He constantly gives new life to human and guides him; to the extent that he feels morals and pure faith in dealing with a believer, and when he embodies these in him, he establishes friendship and intimacy with him and feels with him  that all things are pure; Because he moves in the circle of internal cleanliness, which does not allow any kind of filth, vices, etc. What purity is purer than the river of faith when it flows in the heart and mind of man, and lives in him with his God. God who is the source of purity in all things and the head of purity in all life. In this way, it is connected to all things, the world and man through nature and from the depths of pure conscience. So, just as faith expresses the purity of character and nature,

in the same way, polytheism expresses the filth and ignorance and the fetid deposits of darkness, ignorance and folly that polytheists live with. When their life and intellectual and spiritual atmosphere is in this direction, it is natural that they should not approach the mosque, which God made a place of purity and purification where  people can be cleansed and purified from sin and moral vices and bad habits that make the meaning of life meaningless for them. So how can polytheists who worship idols - idols that are the embodiment of all intellectual, spiritual and psychic filth - enter such places.[14]

[14] فضل الله، سید محمد حسین، تفسیر من وحی القرآن، ج 11، ص 68 – 69.

[14] "the revelation of the Qur'an in the philosophy " , v 11 , p 68-69

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa2326

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Not all non-Muslims are same. You can't say every non-Muslim is Abu Lahab. Some non-Muslims are also like Mutim ibn Adi who is well-respected throughout Islamic history for his character.

Its about respecting to unbleivers which has no enmirty with muslims but on the other hand not respecting to unbleivers who are staunch enemies of Muslims neither about purity nor impurity of unbleivers .

Quote

But if they urge you to ascribe to Me as partner that of which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them. Keep their company honourably in this world and follow the way of those who turn to Me penitently. Then to Me will be your return, whereat I will inform you concerning what you used to do. (15)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/31:15

Allah does not forbid you from dealing with kindness and justice with those [polytheists] who did not make war against you on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes. Indeed Allah loves the just. (8) Allah forbids you only in regard to those who made war against you on account of religion and expelled you from your homes and supported [the polytheists of Makkah] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them—it is they who are the wrongdoers. (9)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/60:8

Another verse asks the believers to treat even their enemies with justice and warns them lest their enmity forces you to sin and abandon justice:

Quote

 O you who have faith! Be maintainers, as witnesses for the sake of Allah, of justice, and ill feeling for a people should never lead you to be unfair. Be fair; that is nearer to Godwariness, and be wary of Allah. Allah is indeed well aware of what you do. (8)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/5:8

 

Quote

(barring the polytheists with whom you have made a treaty, and who did not violate any [of its terms] with you, nor backed anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them until [the end of] its term. Indeed Allah loves the Godwary). (4)

In the first verses of Surah At-Tawbah, which was revealed after the conquest of Mecca, Allah Almighty declared Himself and His Messenger's distaste for polytheists and took away security from them and obliged Muslims to cleanse the land of Mecca from the filth of polytheism. In this verse, the Holy Qur'an considers the blood of all polytheists to be a waste, and says: (بَرَاءةٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَ رَسُولِهِ إِلَى الَّذِینَ عَاهَدتُّم مِّنَ الْمُشْرِکِینَ..)These verses [declare distaste] and non-commitment [from Allah and His Prophet towards those polytheists with whom you made a covenant. And in the fourth verse, he excludes polytheists who have made a covenant with Muslims and have not violated it from the aforementioned ruling, and orders Muslims to abide by their covenant with them.

 

On 11/10/2022 at 7:07 PM, The Alchemist said:

Also take a look at how Aima (عليه السلام) dealt with peaceful non-Muslims.

What does following quote from Nahjul Balagha imply?

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is reported to have written to Malik al-Ashtar (RA): "A person is either your brother in faith [meaning Muslim], or your equal in humanity [meaning non-Muslim]" [Nahjul Balagha, letter 53]

When non-Muslims are equal in humanity with Muslims, why such harsh treatment with them? Considering peaceful non-Muslims as physically najis appears to be against the humanity. It is against the spirit of Islam that attracted non-Muslims in large numbers to the fold of Islam.

 

Therefore, fair behavior towards the enemy is also desirable, and the infidel's disbelief does not prevent the execution of justice towards him. 9
From what has been said, this conclusion can be reached that being just as observing installments and fairness with Muslims is desired by Allah Almighty, observing it with non-Muslims is also desired by Allah and the duty of the Islamic ruler and all Muslims. Therefore, we are assigned to do justice to all people and in all situations. 10
It is worth noting that justice and its compliance in dealings are not reserved for non-military infidels11 and include military infidels12 as well.

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/68698/روابط-اخلاقى-و-اجتماعى-مسلمانان-با-غیرمسلمانان-از-دیدگاه-قرآن

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/12/2022 at 11:14 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

A third view is the tahara of all people, perceiving the nijasah of non-Muslims a result of normally making contact with a najis (impure) substance such as pork and wine, thus if they cleanse and wash themselves they will no longer be najis. Therefore, these people aren't najis per se, they become najis as a result of other najis substances.[5] The impurity is accidental, not essential.

This seems to be a reasonable/logical approach.

Non-Muslims living in Muslim counties adopt Muslim culture. They usually do not go near impure things. It would be fair to assume that they're clean unless proven unclean.

AND it is pertinent to mention here that Muslims living Western countries SOMETIMES adopt Western Culture and do all the things non-Muslims do. (I know famous Muslim personalities eating pork, taking wine, etc and doing all the stuff pagans used to do). Is there any verdict deeming them impure as well? @Ashvazdanghe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

AND it is pertinent to mention here that Muslims living Western countries SOMETIMES adopt Western Culture and do all the things non-Muslims do. (I know famous Muslim personalities eating pork, taking wine, etc and doing all the stuff pagans used to do). Is there any verdict deeming them impure as well? @Ashvazdanghe

Salam َAll of Muslims are Tahir except Ghulat (exaggerators) & Nasibis which if any muslim eats pork or drink wine & etc so then he will be punished by islamic law or in hereafter anyway he won't recognize as Najis .

According to majority of Shi'a faqihs unbelievers (kafir), who are divided into seven categories, are najis. However, there is disagreement in Najasa of some of these categories:

  • Who swear at the infallible Imams or has enmity towards them, such as Khawarij and Nasibin;
  • Ghulat (who believe that one of the infallible Imams is God or that God has incarnated in his body;
Quote

Some faqihs have added the following things:

  • Sweat of a person who has become Junub from haram way (e.g. masturbation and fornication)[22]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Najis

According to Shiite jurists, Nasibis are najis and are treated as disbelievers.

Quote

Nāṣibī (Arabic: ناصبي) is someone who is hostile, and publicly displays his or her hostility, towards Imam Ali (a) or other persons from Ahl al-Bayt (a). Instances of Nasibism is said to include the denial of the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt (a), the cursing of Imams (a), and enmity towards Shi'as.

According to Shiite jurists, Nasibis are najis and are treated as disbelievers. Thus, it is impermissible to eat an animal slaughtered by Nasibis, to pay charity to them, or to marry them, and they cannot inherit from Muslims.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Nasibi

Ghulu (exaggeration) from the perspective of the Shia scholars

Quote

According to Ayatollah Martyr Baqir al-Sadr, there are different levels and degrees of Ghulu that can be classed under three categories Ghulu in the stage of godhood, prophethood and any trait or attributes connected with God’s attributes and actions. He is of the view that all these three levels of Ghulu amount to Kofr. Because ascribing any divine attribute to someone causes partnership for God, which is tantamount to polytheism or infidelity. Martyr Sadr stated that this type of ghulu amounts to infidelity because it denies monotheism and worship of One God.

https://btid.org/en/news/105370

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 11/6/2022 at 5:52 PM, Zah1864 said:

So, I asked Sistani's Office this question: 

Question: What is the proof that kaafir such as hindus and Sikhs are physically najis as opposed to spiritually najis like in the sunni belief? A religion like Islam comparing these people to being dirty like the dog and pig comes across as very rude and arrogant. How do I deal with people who are hindus or Sikhs who were once interested in Shia islam but turned away when they realised that shia would see them and their families in this way?

ANSWER:

In the Name of God, the Most High

God has ordained rules because of their intrinsic expediency. For example when He ordains prayer we realize there is individual, social, physical or mental benefit in offering prayers and god ordained it so we could obtain that benefit; or when He forbids as from something we realize there is individual, social, physical or mental harm in it and that is why God forbade it. If He says for example blood is impure, we realize there is some material or spiritual problem in it and because of that God declared it impure.

Now, if anyone whether Muslim or Hindu prepares food in which there is impurity or unlawful meat God orders us to refrain from eating it otherwise its negative effects may befall us. Thus, we cannot do something which God has forbidden to please non-Muslims or Hindus and which brings about harm to Muslim community. Rather the food they make is forbidden for themselves as well according to Islam but since they do not believe in Islam telling them to avoid it has no effect.

Anyhow, God is wise, all-knowing, all-powerful and needless; therefore whatever ordinances he make, their benefit returns to believers and He never does something aimlessly.

It should be added that impurity of non-believers other than people of the book and as a result the impurity of anything which comes in contact with them in a state of wetness, is based on an obligatory precaution in the viewpoint of Grand Ayatullah Sistani. It meant that in this case you can follow the next most learned mujtahid.

May Allah grant you success.

www.sistani.org

Istifta Section - Office of His Eminence Al-Sayyid Ali Al-Sistani

The words 'obligatory precaution' are not mentioned in concerned chapter in 'Tauzeeh al-Masail' . Where did you get this reply from? I mean email address, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

no it actually is an obligatory precaution

also some history on this ruling:

sorry for the background color

Quote

However, a historical shift occurred at the level of this view in the twentieth century, especially at the hands of Sayyid Muḥsin al-Ḥakīm (1390 AH) in the issue of the purity of the People of the Book and then Sayyid Muḥammad Baqir al-Ṣadr on the issue of human purity; therefore it became well-accepted extending to the present day that all those who are Ahl al-Kitab are pure while those beyond this circle are not. After this the view asserting the absolute purity of the human being arose and has since been gaining traction in the jurisprudential research circles and even practical rulings; therefore not just one but many utilize obligatory precaution to rule on the impurity of a non-Ahlul Kitābī disbeliever. Among such scholars are Sayyid Muḥammad Baqir al-Ṣadr, Sayyid Muḥammad Sa’eed al-Ḥakīm, Sheikh Ḥusayn ‘Ali al-Muntaẓari, Sayyid Kāẓim al-Ḥa’iri. Sayyid Maḥmoud Ḥāshimi al-Shahroudi and Sayyid ‘Ali al-Sīstani (in his latest opinion, the latter changed the ruling on the impurity of non-Ahlul Kitāb [ie kuffār and mushrikīn] to precaution).

Now a faction has even issued verdicts for the absolute purity of the human being. These include: Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Faḍlullah, Sheikh Ibrahīm Al-Jannati, and Sheikh Nāṣir Makārim Al-Shirazi (the latter has done so in his recent annotations to the book ‘Urwah al-Wuthqā).

It is widely regarded in the Imamiyyah school, contrary to the majority of Muslim jurists, that a non-Muslim is impure, whether he is from Ahlul-Kitāb[2] or other religions. Rather, a group of them have said that some of those affiliated with Islam are also impure, such as the Ghulāt, the Nawāṣib and the Khāwarij.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

When it comes to being able to follow another Marja's ruling on something that has been said to be an 'obligatory precaution', can I decide myself anyone's ruling or are there specific rules I have to follow? Can I use the ruling of someone who has died? Also, Shirazi for example, doesn't say kaafir are ritually impure but that we need to avoid interaction though my own marja doesn't say that last part.. is it enough to just follow the first part of what he says or must I follow the whole entire thing even if my marja doesn't declare we must avoid interaction? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...